[Sursound] 3DAA | Audio Alliance
Dear sursound fellows A technique journalist (and friend of mine) has sent me a link, which is relevant to this list: http://www.3daa.org/index.html I believe that this 3D Audio Alliance will announce a lot more at the CES 2011 (trade fairy). Currently, there is even no member list (Uli wrote this, important point!), which means that this is something at early stage. On the other hand, the audio standard will be object based, not speaker based. (I am using their terminology. Is a sound field an object? Probably not...) Is anybody involved in this project here? The description could fit to Ambisonics, but they do not mention any technical details. The first specifications is expected to be released in Q2 of 2012. Best, Stefan P.S.: I have recommended to use the word 3D Audio even some years ago, for mere marketing reasons... ;-) Original Message Subject:3DAA | Audio Alliance Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:47:31 +0100 From: Uli Loehneysen loehney...@aol.com To: Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt http://www.3daa.org/index.html Keine Angaben über Mitglieder . . . Grüße, Uli -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20101222/24ff599f/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 3DAA | Audio Alliance
Dear Helmut, many thanks for this contribution, too! However: How many dry recorded audio tracks are there? There might be dozens... Therefore, you can't control things like space or data rate for streaming. This is an important point or objection, I would say in my first reaction! Data of source position and recording room acoustics would have to be coded in a transparent and elegant form, and is there any agreement on this? This looks far from being trivial... Therefore, I think some medium order Ambisonics approach (might be 3rd order horizontal + 1st order height) has some real advantages, at least from current perspective: it is ready to be implemented, doesn't need a lot of further development work, and is good probably enough FAAP. (Quality aspect, important.) This is just my current opinion, though... Note that I am elsewhere accused to be a secret member of some supposed Ambisonics sect, but I personally think that I am just pragmatic. :-D Best, Stefan Helmut Oellers wrote: Hello Stefan, you wrote: *The** description could fit to Ambisonics, but they do not mention any technical details.* As far as I can see, the description closer related to the Holophony approach, see www.holophony.net . That's such an object based approach. The transmission is separate in content ( the dry recorded audio tracks ) and Form ( Data regarding source position and recording room acoustics. The synthesis is producing the direct wave from pure audio. In addition, all reflections become synthesized in the same manner, as the recording room produces all reflections from that source signal. By that way becomes possible, subtract the playback room acoustics during synthesis. That is a really interesting approach. Regards, H. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20101222/d3cc5691/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] 3DAA | Audio Alliance
Hello Stefan, good discussion. However: How many dry recorded audio tracks are there? There might be dozens... Therefore, you can't control things like space or data rate for streaming. I see the upper limit at 32. Nobody is able to separate more source positions in the real environment. We can merge together some sources, which pose fairly common positions in the recording room. On the other hand, often only one single source provides the audio content. By which reason we should transmit more as one single channel? Data of source position and recording room acoustics would have to be coded in a transparent and elegant form, and is there any agreement on this? This looks far from being trivial... Unfortunately, all trivial tasks are solved today. :) However, this seem solvable today. MPEG4 would be an appropriates standard, as example. Note that I am elsewhere accused to be a secret member of some supposed Ambisonics sect, but I personally think that I am just pragmatic. :-D ...Gezerons Ideas are gerat. I see a lot of starting points for common system approach from Holophony and Ambisonics. As example, the described loudspeaker field behind the silver screen would be able to produce uncurved wave fronts without too much impact of the playback room acoustics. Uncurved wavefronts are fundamentally for ambisonics. Regards Helmut -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20101222/9ab99d65/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 3DAA | Audio Alliance
Helmut Oellers wrote: Data of source position and recording room acoustics would have to be coded in a transparent and elegant form, and is there any agreement on this? This looks far from being trivial... Unfortunately, all trivial tasks are solved today. :) However, this seem solvable today. MPEG4 would be an appropriates standard, as example. Mpeg4 has a certain fame to be overly complex. (The multimedia part, which really never was used unless in academic practice, for teaching and student projects...) However, I think that you have some point. Things could be solved, even if not being trivial. :-) I would be still more worried because of memory space and data rate requirements to store/transmit 32 (PCM?) audio channels... Still better than WFS, though... O:-) Best, Stefan -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20101222/e78699e3/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 3DAA | Audio Alliance
Hi Mark, what you describe, finally is the typically american solution: Printing money for solving the crisis or increase the number of channels for improve the spatial impression. We call the worn- out ways as commercial. But finally, more creative solutions will get the drop on. Regards H. 2010/12/22 newme...@aol.com Folks: This is one of the standard approaches to technical standards nowadays. Get everyone interested to step up and pay-to-pay, divide up the issues, hire a professional association manager (i.e. Florencia Dazzi is with Assoc. Mgmt. Solutions.), etc . . . and give away the specifications. The goal is to have something for the home theater receiver DSP coders to aim at (whereas back when I was involved with IEEE 802 it was for the chip designers). The coders will make money selling microcode, Onkyo et al will make money selling receivers, Holophone et al will make money selling microphones and so on. Clearly there needs to a HEIGHT addition to 5.1, since 3D video is the only available NBT (Next Big Thing) for home video. The TVs are here and the studios are ready to rock-and-roll. 3D sports and music are a no-brainer. Btw, this is why I have been asking about Z-AXIS -- which seems to have been MAG's keen interest all along -- on this list for the past year+. As you might recall, the list has had little to say. g Since there is apparently NO company with a stake in Ambisonics, who will pay-to-pay on behalf of Ambisonics? Mark Stahlman Brooklyn NY In a message dated 12/22/2010 9:11:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, st...@mail.telepac.pt writes: Dear sursound fellows A technique journalist (and friend of mine) has sent me a link, which is relevant to this list: http://www.3daa.org/index.html I believe that this 3D Audio Alliance will announce a lot more at the CES 2011 (trade fairy). Currently, there is even no member list (Uli wrote this, important point!), which means that this is something at early stage. On the other hand, the audio standard will be object based, not speaker based. (I am using their terminology. Is a sound field an object? Probably not...) Is anybody involved in this project here? The description could fit to Ambisonics, but they do not mention any technical details. The first specifications is expected to be released in Q2 of 2012. Best, Stefan P.S.: I have recommended to use the word 3D Audio even some years ago, for mere marketing reasons... ;-) Original Message Subject:3DAA | Audio Alliance Date:Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:47:31 +0100 From: Uli Loehneysen loehney...@aol.com To: Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt http://www.3daa.org/index.html Keine Angaben über Mitglieder . . . Grüße, Uli -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20101222/24ff599f/attachment.html ___ 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/20101222/efc0cc5c/attachment.html ___ 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/20101222/8d178b1f/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 3DAA | Audio Alliance
On 22/12/2010 22:59, newme...@aol.com wrote: .. Maybe we just declare a standard? Fast track: - Ambisonics up to 3rd order, including mixed order systems - Channel order, coefficients: Furse-Malham system - B format is included (soundfield recordings) - standard configuration (within the standard... ;-) could be 3rd order horiz. + 1st order vertical, maybe 3rd order horiz./2nd order vert. for studio and cinema use. I remain convinced that such a thing will Never Happen. Too many variables, choices and permutations, as this list continues to demonstrate. Anything that is proposed will inevitably fall foul of multiple disagreements. And ostensibly there are no patent opportunities around which a business model can be built. Notwithstanding the above sad prognosis - I wish a Happy New Year to everyone (the Solstice has been and gone), and a Happy Christmas if that is what you do. Richard Dobson ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
