On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 08:51 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 01:09 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > > On 07/22/2010 08:42 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > > > As an ape (of course I'm an ape like every human is an ape) and troll (I > > > don't see myself as a troll) I suspect phasing too, that's why I > > > overstated argued with the next generation Cochlea-Implant, or needles > > > in the brain. > > > > that is a bogus statement. phasing happens in the brain as well. just > > put on your favourite pair of headphones and wire one side out-of-phase. > > instant nausea. (of course, if you keep it on for a few days, your brain > > will adapt - presto: you'll be hurling all over the real world when you > > finally put them down.) > > > > > Visual 3D, by a surround projection + 3D glasses isn't perfect, but > > > there is just one picture and not several pictures that needs to be > > > phase synced in the eye. Perhaps a week analogy. > > > > a terribly chosen analogy indeed. since when do the eyes care what phase > > an incoming photon is? unless you're staring into a laser, each photon > > will have totally random phase. > > next error: there *are* two images, and they do need to be synced. phase > > is irrelevant, though. > > That's the problem with this analogy. We have two eyes and ears, but > most people have better trained eyes, so most people 'see' differences, > but less people 'hear' differences. > > > > > > When having 4 or 8 or more speakers I fear phasing at the position of > > > the ears. But perhaps it isn't that much. I'll try to listen to > > > ambisoncs :). > > > > you can get terrible phasing, and not just in the center, but pretty > > much everywhere. that's why some people stagger the timings of the > > loudspeakers a bit, to smear out the phasing until it is more or less > > masked by the content. > > but it should be noted that stereo has the very same problem. > > As I mentioned before, it's hard to do a good stereo mix, even when the > speakers are perfectly set up. When you play music on radio, you need to > check the phases of the recordings, because there are a lot of bad > recordings. I guess it becomes harder the more channels you need to > control.
PS: Not only because of the position of the speakers, but started with the recoding, resp. master mix, that's why ... > > > now if > > method A produces a 60° soundstage with phasing at N units of > > obnoxiousness, a method that produces 360° surround is entitled to 6N > > UoO phasing. in practice, ambisonics does better than this, but there is > > no denying the issue. > > one thing that often gets overlooked: people have learned to accept > > stereo (or, in some circles, 5.1) as the gold standard, and its > > shortcomings have grown into desired features. it's very hard to compete > > with a method that does a few things very well and doesn't even try to > > reproduce most of the auditory cues of, say, a live experience. > > Correct, I like stereo, I don't like 5.1 and indeed stereo is very > limited, but with some training it's good to handle. > If ambisonics shouldn't have the disadvantages of 5.1 I might like it. > It's funny, regarding to the German Wiki ambisonics is as old as I'm. > > > the main ingredient that makes any sound reproduction system sound good > > is your brain. the trick is to nudge it into sympathy with carefully > > chosen cues. ...: > Btw. I 'try' to do stereo mixes that do sound mono as near as possible > to the stereo mix and mono could be two channels as one or just one of > the two channels. So I limit stereo to a special functionality, but > don't use all capabilities. This could be called 'broadcasting > behaviour'. I know that I need to break this habit for surround sound, > but when listening and unfortunately working with 5.1, I didn't like it. > > Btw. even some consumers don't like 5.1, but perhaps because they set up > the speakers completely bad. IIUC they hardly could set up the speakers > completely bad, if they would use ambisonics. IIUC for large rooms there > are many speakers needed, perhaps this is the reason that shit like 5.1, > Dolby surround, Dolby stereo is common. OT: For film on cord Dolby > stereo anyway is nice for stereo, without Dolby there's hardcore wow and > flutter ... hm, regarding to wiki it's called dolby digital, doesn't > matter German filmmakers usually can't pay for Dolby. > > Thanx for the information :) > > Ralf _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
