Re: [Sursound] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31. March)

[John Leonard]

Tonight's effort a bit of a dog's breakfast with glitches, drop-outs and 
confusion over the recorded link pieces in the interval. However, when it was 
working, it was pretty damned impressive. They seem to have tweaked the 
surrounds a bit, so no need to up the gain any more. Together with some really 
nice playing (and bar someone's personal alarm going off a couple of minutes 
into the Tod und Verklärung, necessitating a restart) it was rather an 
encouraging evening: once the internet connection is sorted out, this would 
appear to be a viable approach to broadcasting at least some form of surround 
home systems, just using a browser and a sound-card.

I have bits of it recorded, if anyone wants a listen. Mind you, when I say 
bits, I mean bits. Several rather large gaps in transmission means that it's by 
no means a complete performance.

Off list to me if you want, and I'll prepare a file. It'll be a 48/24 wavex of 
the uninterrupted bit of the Strauss. 

Cheers,

John

On 16 Mar 2014, at 17:28, David Pickett  wrote:

> I just stumbled on this:
> 
> http://rdmedia.bbc.co.uk/radio3/faq.html
> 
> I have an appropriate soundcard; but am not sure I want to install Google 
> Chrome...  (Bummer that it doesnt work on Firefox!)
> 
> has anyone
> 
> David
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Sursound Digest, Vol 68, Issue 17

[Iain Mott]

Em Wed, 2014-03-19 às 20:21 +, Fons Adriaensen escreveu:
> Another approach would be to sent W only (at reference level)
> to the decoder, and then measure each individual speaker (by
> soloing it, ambdec provides the function) and adjusting for
> reference SPL - 10 * log(number_of speakers). This would be
> less accurate as it doesn't allow for the partial correlation
> between speaker signals (which will depend on frequency if
> you use dual band decoding). 

Great - yes, I was hoping this would work. The SPL meter arrived today
by post - but i've still only two channels of amplification. Will test
as soon as the equipment is organised.

Thanks a lot for your help.

Iain

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Sursound Digest, Vol 68, Issue 17

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 07:50:43PM +, Dave Hunt wrote:
 
> The panning approach won't work, as all speakers would be excited at
> various different levels.

Anything to substantiate that claim ? Practice ? Theory ?

FYI, I have used this method a number of times, with excellent
results. I've also done the maths that show it do be correct.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Sursound Digest, Vol 68, Issue 17

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 07:50:43PM +, Dave Hunt wrote:

> Surely the best approach is to feed the noise signal (post decoder)
> into each speaker channel in turn and adjust the amplification on
> each channel until the level measured at the centre listening point
> is the same for each speaker.

That would be a prerequisite for the method I explained.
But it still leaves you with an uncalibrated system, as
the decoder gain (no matter how you define it) isn't
included.
 
> The panning approach won't work, as all speakers would be excited at
> various different levels. It would be useful after the above
> calibration to see if the sound of the noise of the noise was
> consistent everywhere everywhere it was panned.

On the contrary, it's the only one that will give the correct
result. 

***   Calibration means to have a defined relation between
***   the level of the W channel and the measured SPL.

This can be done only with the decoder in the path.

Another approach would be to sent W only (at reference level)
to the decoder, and then measure each individual speaker (by
soloing it, ambdec provides the function) and adjusting for
reference SPL - 10 * log(number_of speakers). This would be
less accurate as it doesn't allow for the partial correlation
between speaker signals (which will depend on frequency if
you use dual band decoding).

Ciao,

-- 
FA

A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Sursound Digest, Vol 68, Issue 17

[Dave Hunt]

Hi,

Surely the best approach is to feed the noise signal (post decoder)  
into each speaker channel in turn and adjust the amplification on  
each channel until the level measured at the centre listening point  
is the same for each speaker.


The panning approach won't work, as all speakers would be excited at  
various different levels. It would be useful after the above  
calibration to see if the sound of the noise of the noise was  
consistent everywhere everywhere it was panned.


Ciao,

Dave



From: Iain Mott 
Date: 18 March 2014 21:38:29 GMT
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Subject: Re: [Sursound] calibrating ambisonic speakers using the k- 
system?
Reply-To: m...@reverberant.com, Surround Sound discussion group  




Em Tue, 2014-03-18 às 19:52 +, Fons Adriaensen escreveu:

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 03:32:55PM -0300, Iain Mott wrote:

Thanks a lot Fons. When I pan pink noise with at W at -20dBFS  
RMS, the
individual X and Y channels peak at about 3dB higher. Is that why  
you

said to meter at 86dB and not 83?


No. In a stereo system, with the levels as 0dB on the K-20 meter,  
each
speaker produces 83 dB SPL. Assuming the signals are mostly  
decorrelated,

the total level will be 86 dB. So the 'reference SPL' is 86 dB.



OK - I see what you intended.


For my current purposes, I'd like to reproduce as best as possible,
ambiental b-format recordings over an array of speakers - and  
preferably
try to match SPL measurements taken at each recording location.  
Do you
think the formula above would be correct to match levels in this  
way?

ie. if I make a recording at a site where the SPL is 70dB, during
playback I meter this material (the W channel) at -13dB RMS on a  
k-20
meter, and in the case of a 14 channel system, calibrate each  
speaker

channel at 71.5dB SPL (x = 83 - 10log14).


Your only chance to get this right is to calibrate *via the decoder*.
If you follow the procedure I explained, then 0 dB on the K-20 meter
for W will corresponds to 86 dB SPL, no matter how the sound is
distributed over the speakers. That's assuming you don't pan two
or more strongly correlated signals to different directions (if you
do that the result is no longer really Ambisonic).


I now understand that W in the metering has a direct relationship  
to the
total audio output of the array - no matter what the configuration  
- but

sorry, I'm still in doubt as to how to go about adjusting the speaker
output levels. I initially assumed that during the panning of the  
signal

and the output adjustment, the speaker that is most in focus (at the
peak level) would be soloed - but this wouldn't work because it  
wouldn't

factor in the additional output from the other channels. Are you
suggesting that all channels should be left open and the system  
tuned in

a number of passes? Dare I say it: might the "-10 log (N)" level be a
good starting point for each channel?

Thanks


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140319/7d24ab83/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Construction of purpose built ambisonic studio (Fons Adriaensen)

[Steve Boardman]

Thanks Fons

This looks like great space and probably a good goal to aim for.

I think the room will have a roughly rectangle footprint now , with the 
vertical sides tapering out towards the back. The vertical front wall will be 
slightly angled from the furthest away centre position to the sides.The ceiling 
will take advantage of the all ready sloped roof at the front, and then be just 
off parallel to the floor rising all the way back. The back vertical wall will 
be completely parallel to a fictional wall at the front, (I.e if the front wall 
wasn't angled at the centre). Haven't worked out listening position yet, as 
will need to do some calculations, and tests when built, to see which is best 
for sound and available space. It's always a compromise, but bass traps will be 
built!

I am wondering whether it would be better to get a few more speakers, and go to 
fourth order, and if so how many more, and would the improvement be that 
noticeable for a treated space this size?
Also although the rotation would provide 5.1/7.1 compatibility for the smaller 
satellites, it doesn't include the larger 10 of horizontal  full range 
speakers. These are really important to me as they are a speaker that I am very 
used to mixing on, and need to be included as it will mean less time getting 
acquainted to. In fact I think the whole system needs to be built around these 
as they will be the dominant force in my mixing. Everything will be done in HOA 
but decoded realtime for A/B' ing. Would it be better to replace the head 
height horizontal ring of satellites with 8 full range ones or add these in 
between, with a rotation on the same decoder?
I would probably always upscale lower orders to 3rd or forth, would this be a 
problem, or would it be better to have a dedicated sub set for each order? In 
which case not sure on the best sub set.
This is where it will get really complicated!

Cheers,

Steve
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:20:20 +
> From: Fons Adriaensen 
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Construction of purpose built ambisonic
>   studio. (Aaron Heller)
> Message-ID: <20140311002020.ga5...@linuxaudio.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:50:43PM +, Steve Boardman wrote:
> 
>> Stanford's CCRMA room does look (and undoubtably sound) good, but
>> the space below is maybe a bit over board for what I want to achieve,
>> in the space I have. The actual area of the build space is probably
>> around 180 square foot within a bigger space of 700 square foot on
>> two floors.
> 
> As an example of what can be done without digging holes in the ground
> have a look a this: <http://www.rossinispace.org/>.
> 
> This is at the conservatory of Pesaro, Italy, and the best sounding
> and most accurate higher order Ambisonics studio I know of. Size
> should be comparable to your 180 sq.ft. Shape is approximately a
> square, but with no parallel walls. The space has a very low RT60
> down to LF (bass traps are planned but not yet operational), the idea
> being that in AMB mixes most of the space should be provided by the
> signal and not by the room (which makes sense, creating virtual spaces
> is one reason to use full surround). The control desk, shown against
> the wall in the panaromic picture, can be moved to the center.
> 
> The speaker system consist of
> 
> * a ring of six at elevation -33 degrees (ideally this should
>  be -45 degrees, but this requires an elevated listening 
>  position),
> * a ring of eight at ear height,
> * a ring of six at +45 degrees
> * a speaker at the zenith.
> * one subwoofer
> 
> for a total of 21+1 speakers. This is an excellent setup for
> third order, in the sense that the decoder matrix is very
> well-conditioned (it doesn't rely on signals that would cancel
> acoustically).
> 
> If you have four subs there's no reason for not using them
> (put them in the corners, with a dedicated decoder).
> 
> One thing that could be improved is that the current ring of
> eight is oriented such that there is no front speaker. The
> alternative, rotating it 22.5 degrees, would provide a layout
> that is more compatible with formats such as 5.1 or 7.1.
> 
> One point not yet mentioned in the replies so far is that for
> lower order (and in particular first) you should use less
> speakers. Also for this the rotated ring of eight would
> be better - the subset used for first order at the moment
> does not have L-R symmetry.
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> -- 
> FA
> 
> A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
> It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
> and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
> 
&

Re: [Sursound] Sony's VR announcement

[Stefan Schreiber]

Christian Heinrichs wrote:

For those that haven't been following it: there's been a lot of 
mention of 3D audio in Sony's announcement of their VR devkit just 
now.  Looks like we'll be hearing a lot more of the term "3D Audio" in 
mainstream media from now on!


http://live.theverge.com/live-sony-playstation-future-of-innovation-gdc-2014/ 



"A lot of people leave the audio for last, but it's really important 
to design audio for VR at the same time. It will really help. It will 
amplify."


Audio: "True spatial sound, synthesized by simulating the human ear... 
Created by real world experiments using speaker/microphone arrays."
(*but* no mention about how they're solving the problem of 
personalised HRTFs)


All the best,
Christian


Hi Christian,

I believe they refer a lot to their VR glass project ("Project 
Morpheus"), which is basically a Sony copy of Oculus Rift / Crystal 
Cove, but - important for us - seems to cover binaural audio output. 
(Head-tracking probably included, as this is a VR device. My source says 
that the "correct position of noises will be calculated and reproduced 
via headphones. )


Sony's head-tracker is said to have a temporal accuracy of 1000Hz, which 
should be enough for any video and audio purposes.


My German sourse (heise.de, News section of today) says that this device 
will come to the market probably end of 2015.


The link you provided didn't work for me, BTW... 



Best,

Stefan
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Sursound Digest, Vol 68, Issue 10

[Steve Boardman]

m breakup
>> reflectors. Is this still a good idea?
> 
> i guess so. my (modest) experience tells me that overly dead rooms often 
> call for "freshening up" by thin layers of HF-diffusing surface on top 
> of the bass absorbers...
> 
>> A little room correction will of course be needed, especially for
>> bass.
>> 
>>> an off-the-cuff suggestion: * four subs in the corners. * the
>>> fullrange speakers on  a horizontal ring, with one speaker in
>>> front, for a decent approximation of ITU 5.1 and 7.1, if
>>> necessary. * the satellites in a lower ring-of-eight, an upper
>>> ring-of-eight, another ring of six, one zenith speaker. then you
>>> have two spares, and they will come in handy some day.
>>> 
>>> the bass management will be tricky. first of all, each speaker
>>> needs to be perfectly delay-compensated to the listening spot. then
>>> i'd try to create different layers of decoding:
>>> 
>>> * separate first-order decode for the subs, low-passed at 60,
>>> 24dB/oct * fourth-order decode for everything else * horizontal
>>> speakers high-passed at 120/24 * satellites high-passed at 120/24 *
>>> a separate horizontal-only decode (of the same full-sphere input
>>> signal) for the range from 60 to 120 hz, again at 24dB/oct
>>> 
>>> this lets you drive all speakers to the best of their abilities,
>>> and puts the missing bass frequencies in the correct direction.
>>> $DEITY help you if anything is not perfectly phase-aligned,
>>> though.
>>> 
>>> disclaimer: i've toyed with such hacked-up multiband setups, but
>>> none of them ever went to production (or had to), so there may be
>>> pitfalls i've overlooked.
>> 
>> First order decode for the four subs in the corners was what I was
>> thinking. Didn't think about going to fourth order on everything else
>> though, as I didn't think the increase in channel count was worth the
>> little improvement. I also want to leave some processing power for
>> mixing plugs (I use a lot) :)
> 
> well, i started from the number of speakers you said you had available.
> 
>> Agreed on the full range horizontal ring. I was more thinking of a
>> dodecahedron for the satellites, either only 20 on the vertices, or
>> get 5 more, and would it be possible to use the edges?
> 
> you mean you want to create entirely separate horizontal and full-sphere 
> systems?
> 
>> Is it better
>> to use platonic solids, or doesn't it matter?
> 
> with the recent advances in optimizing for irregular layouts by zotter 
> et al and heller et al, there is no longer a compelling reason to go for 
> platonic solids, except that they are kind of pretty :)
> layouts based on a horizontal ring have the big advantage of better 
> horizontal-only performance, without much degradation in the 3d case.
> 
>> Thanks again, and needless to say I will be asking a few more
>> questions as I progress. The build won't start for another month, and
>> when it's finished I would love for all you ambisonic heads to have a
>> listen.
> 
> can't wait to. where is your studio located?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> J?rn Nettingsmeier
> Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
> 
> Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio)
> Tonmeister VDT
> 
> http://stackingdwarves.net
> 

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140319/3c24a4c7/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31. March)

[David Pickett]

At 17:47 19-03-14, Aaron Heller wrote:
>I downloaded the MPD file on the FAQ page with
>   wget http://rdmedia.bbc.co.uk/dash/ondemand/channel_test/1/5.mpd

It asked me what you wanted to do with it automatically!  Just 
selected "download".


>If I'm reading it correctly, the channel announcements are 320 kbits/sec,
>48k sample rate.

48k is what the Head of Technology for BBC Radio told me too.  I 
changed to that for last night.  A bit scary that, as Paul said, 
Microsoft employ SRC automatically if you get it wrong...


I heard from one of the engineers responsible that they have been 
working on the server today and hope to have a more robust connection 
tonight.  The engineers update and monitor their Twitter account 
during the concert, and appreciate comments: #BBCR3surround


David


>
>
>Aaron
>
>
>On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Kees de Visser 
wrote:

>
>> On 19 Mar 2014, at 07:33, David Pickett wrote:
>> > I suspect that most of the problems last night were at the originating
>> end, though there were cases when there were beats missing as the stream
>> caught up, which seemed more likely to be delays in the Internet.
>>
>> from the BBC blog:
>> > 21. Rupert Brun, 18TH MARCH 2014 - 22:20
>> > I am sorry we lost the stream before the end of the concert this
>> evening, this was due to a problem with the internet connection to the
>> server at the Southbank.
>>
>> What would the bitrate be ? I'm also curious about the delay. Has anyone
>> been able to compare the streamed audio to "fast radio" ?
>>
>> Kees de Visser
>>
>> ___
>> Sursound mailing list
>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>>
>-- next part --
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
>19/cac673b8/attachment.html>
>___
>Sursound mailing list
>Sursound@music.vt.edu
>https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Sony's VR announcement

[Richard G Elen]

I'm watching these developments with interest due to my activities in 
virtual worlds...


Indeed, as we're talking about VR headsets here, where head-tracking is 
vital for the visual operation, I wouldn't worry about that being 
available for audio - it's already there and I don't see how you could 
do a VR device without it. Just listening what happens to the audio 
stage on headphones in a current virtual environment such as Second Life 
suggests that the addition of head tracking would make existing models 
work fine.


Whether or not VR content producers will bother to develop more detailed 
spatial sound models is another question, of course.


[Actually, I must say that at this point I am wondering how VR headsets 
will get around the issue of eye convergence without focus shift, which 
is likely to be a much bigger problem than anything in the audio arena :) ]


-_R

On 19/03/2014 16:11, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
 (Head-tracking probably included, as this is a VR device. My source 
says that the "correct position of noises will be calculated and 
reproduced via headphones. )


Sony's head-tracker is said to have a temporal accuracy of 1000Hz, 
which should be enough for any video and audio purposes.


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Construction of purpose built ambisonic studio. (Richard Furse)

[Steve Boardman]

Hi Richard

To start with, and to do some tests, I will be using what is freely available, 
but fully intend to migrate to a suite of encoders and decoders not unlike your 
own. It really depends on how it all sounds and functions. I may even consider 
doing some coding myself...Do you do deals on the complete works, encoders, 
decoders and upscalers (including harpex)? One of my main concerns in this area 
is one of control. As yet I haven't found a satisfactory way of using a 
controller to continuously rotate on any or all planes . A xyz trackball would 
be ideal but they are expensive and cumbersome, as they are geared towards 
graphics manipulation. I think I may take two normal kensington type trackballs 
apart and make one with the extra axis stuck on! (they only operate in two 
planes).

Reflections and echos won't be a problem, this I know for sure, as I have built 
many great sounding stereo studios. The walls will be open and hessian covered, 
allowing absorption into very thick high density resin rock wool. Which will 
mean low RT60. Bass will be controlled by traps, room eq and the fact that the 
room is contained with in a room, within my larger space. The brick walls will 
be quite some distance from the subs and hopefully energy will of dissipated 
enough before return!
Speaker placement shouldn't be a problem either, as this will have priority 
over windows and screens (or screen will open acoustically), apart from the 
door that is. Left and right symmetry is though, and I think this is quite 
critical.
Pretty much all noisy machinery will also be in a separate room, or i'll just 
turn up the volume to compensate :)

Thanks

Steve

> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:13:18 -
> From: "Richard Furse" 
> To: "'Surround Sound discussion group'" 
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Construction of purpose built ambisonic
>   studio.
> Message-ID: <008001cf3d44$d18182f0$748488d0$@muse440.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Hi there - sounds like a good venture!
> 
> Whether or not you need a regular speaker layout rather depends on how
> you're decoding. We built an ambisonic sound lab last year - there's a
> slightly blurry but current photo at
> http://www.blueripplesound.com/downloads/SoundLab20140311.jpg, and the
> speaker layout is actually the GUI example at
> http://www.blueripplesound.com/products/rapture-3d-advanced. This is
> definitely *not* regular, but sounds great IMO.
> 
> The space was about 6m x 7m x 2.5m before the sound proofing / treatment
> went in (RT60 ~= 1/6s). The height was okay, but not brilliant, so we
> treated the ceiling and walls but not the floor, and went for a low seat to
> keep what space we could above. IIRC we lost 18cm on each surface. The
> speaker distances range from 1.5m to 3.4m from the centre and their
> locations have no particular plan beyond aiming to get reasonable coverage
> (i.e. no large directional gaps) except beneath the listener, and to not get
> in the way of the screen, windows or door. All speakers can be moved except
> the ceiling ones, although we've not done this yet. The speakers in the room
> are currently set out roughly left/right symmetric, but this isn't
> necessary. We often use more irregular subsets of the 22 speakers when
> testing, but for general use it seems a shame not to turn them all on! (With
> Rapture3D, this is fine even for first order.) There are no centre speakers
> in the ceiling simply because of a metal beam there. The current weakest
> points are probably the fans in the projector and PC (there's no separate
> control room), but hopefully we'll upgrade those to silent ones soon(ish).
> When working with the projector on, the final essential components are a
> wireless keyboard and mouse - and sometimes a PC X-Box controller ;-)
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> --Richard

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140319/82a27242/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31. March)

[Aaron Heller]

I downloaded the MPD file on the FAQ page with
   wget http://rdmedia.bbc.co.uk/dash/ondemand/channel_test/1/5.mpd

If I'm reading it correctly, the channel announcements are 320 kbits/sec,
48k sample rate.


Aaron


On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Kees de Visser wrote:

> On 19 Mar 2014, at 07:33, David Pickett wrote:
> > I suspect that most of the problems last night were at the originating
> end, though there were cases when there were beats missing as the stream
> caught up, which seemed more likely to be delays in the Internet.
>
> from the BBC blog:
> > 21. Rupert Brun, 18TH MARCH 2014 - 22:20
> > I am sorry we lost the stream before the end of the concert this
> evening, this was due to a problem with the internet connection to the
> server at the Southbank.
>
> What would the bitrate be ? I'm also curious about the delay. Has anyone
> been able to compare the streamed audio to "fast radio" ?
>
> Kees de Visser
>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140319/cac673b8/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Periphonic Irregular HO Ambisonics Decoder

[/dav/random]

Thanks Fons! I will start from this!

Ciao
Davide
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140319/b12dba8b/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31. March)

[Kees de Visser]

On 19 Mar 2014, at 07:33, David Pickett wrote:
> I suspect that most of the problems last night were at the originating end, 
> though there were cases when there were beats missing as the stream caught 
> up, which seemed more likely to be delays in the Internet.

from the BBC blog:
> 21. Rupert Brun, 18TH MARCH 2014 - 22:20
> I am sorry we lost the stream before the end of the concert this evening, 
> this was due to a problem with the internet connection to the server at the 
> Southbank.

What would the bitrate be ? I'm also curious about the delay. Has anyone been 
able to compare the streamed audio to "fast radio" ?

Kees de Visser

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound