date:20110430


FYI...

http://www.codemasters.com/research/3D_sound_for_3D_games.pdf

This article is from 2009, and I think very well-written.


If I reflect about 3D audio initiatives O:-) , this article is way ahead 
even of some more recent attempts, in the sense that the represented 
solution actually works...



Now, 3D7.1 should not be the "general" solution. But if we speak about 
Ambisonics, the decoding stage is flexible.


Just some arguments for any further discussion...


Best,

Stefan Schreiber

P.S.: Unfortunately, Sony yet again started something years ago, without 
many practical consequences. At least this is my interpretation...


P.S. 2: Probably Sony was too "focused" to use this system just for 
Blu-Ray/PS3?


The potential is much bigger, of course. Not so if you stop every new 
attempt after just 1 or 2 years...


Of course, the mentioned games sold quite well, even in the PC 
versions. :-P



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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

2011-04-30 Thread umashankar mantravadi


maybe a little unrelated. i just sold a brahma 140 (14 mm capsules) and zoom 
modified to a new york film crew. they plan to use the microphone mounted on 
the camera. i had been a film sound recordist for 25 years, and even with 
stereo, i preferred a stable sound image for a whole scene, without shifting 
with the camera. i told them what i think, but they still plan to use an A 
format microphone on camera!
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 03:55:55 +0100
> From: st...@mail.telepac.pt
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale
> 
> Richard Dobson wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Should that be a surprise ? If as a composer you are used to just
> >> placing a speaker in the right place when you want a particular
> >> sound to come from a certain direction in a concert, would you be
> >> impressed by the performance of first order Ambisonics ?
> >
> >
> > Yes! I still am. Even on the bare minimum four speakers. I remember 
> > being impressed by it many years ago (eng. John Whiting, for Electric 
> > Phoenix). I think it is high time first-order was re-evaluated, in a 
> > more, um, "realistic" way. Let the question be, not how many speakers 
> > you can justify, but how few you can manage with.
> 
> 
> Very probably you ae right, but this will happen in a wider context.
> 
> >>
> >> The simple fact is that 1st order AMB has no chance against 5.1. For the
> >> applications that are wanted by the mass consumer market, 5.1 actually
> >> works and delivers better results than 1st order AMB ever could.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I seem to recall a certain patent was taken out a while back 
> > specifically to enable B-format to be rendered over 5.1. Not ideal, by 
> > any means, but ~possible~. And it ~would~ improve the vast majority of 
> > film soundtracks, most of which do pretty rubbish 
> > quasi-spatialization, where they bother at all.
> 
> 
> 5.1 is basically stereo with center channel (impotant in cinema use, 
> because it centers the voice to the screen), and two "envelope" channels.
> 
> It is not a perfect surround system, but it does what it is supposed to do.
> 
> Considering the distribution of spectators in a typical cinema, B format 
> doesn't "improve" on 5.1, even less with "4 speakers". 4 speakers might 
> work at home, for one or two listeners.
> (Sometimes it actually doesn't work, depending on room acoustics etc.)
> 
> 
> > And it ~would~ improve the vast majority of film soundtracks, most of 
> > which do pretty rubbish quasi-spatialization, where they bother at all.
> 
> 
> But maybe it is not all about "spatialization", even if we speak about 
> surround sound? I don't want to get too polemic here, but the most 
> important factors for film audio seems to be that you can understand the 
> actors even at soft levels, and that any music sounds well...
> 
> Few film fans would analyze if you can here that a sound comes from say 
> "170º back-right". 5.1 might not deliver this, but luckily the average 
> cineast doesn't know this...
> 
> It is fair to say that 1st order AMB is good (or "good enough"?) for 
> some things, but it is not "perfect surround sound forever". Some people 
> on this list are actually using 2nd/3rd and higher order Ambisonics, and 
> I think that any good standard should consider different 
> applications/requirements.
> 
> Frankly, if .AMB format includes B format (1st order), I don't see any 
> fundamental conflict < at all >.
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Stefan Schreiber
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale


Marc Lavallée wrote:



An appropriate discussion could be about how to scale the quality of the
experience from stereo to first-order ambisonics with four speakers up
to eight and more, in the same room. Installing a good surround system
is not very different from installing a good-enough stereo system. The
critical component of any reproduction system is the listening room;
starting with a dedicated room for stereo listening (with appropriate
acoustic treatments), going surround might be a big step because of the
added speakers around the listening area, but then going "up" to
horizontal ambisonics with six or eight speakers should be easy enough
if one is using a silent computer and a good software decoder (instead
of a vintage hardware decoder).
 



This is an important point!

Ambisonics actually does scale, which is one of the advantages. (For 
example, you can reproduce 3rd horizontal order "via just 4 speakers". 
And you could reproduce 3rd order on ITU 5.1, if you wish to do so.)


I mean that an Ambisonics decoder could "translate" to underspecified 
speaker arrays, as long as you have at least 4 speakers. (6 speakers are 
mostly better, we had this discussion years ago, speaking about 
practical implementations...)



Best,

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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

Sun, 1 May 2011 07:09:04 +0530,
umashankar mantravadi  a écrit :

> i have the sabrent. it works very well in windows with asio for all.
> it is advertised as 7.1 but has eight identical output channels (you
> have to watch out for virtual 7,1 boxes) i have bult myself an eight
> channel digiital amplifier using quad cards from sure electronics (50
> usd including shipping for each) and eight loudspeakers using vifa
> four inch full range drivers in small wooden boxes. 
> i have so far connected four speakers. the other four - now!

I also have a bunch of amps from sure electronics (stereo, 15W/channels,
$12 each); they can be driven directly from a good computer
power-supply. 

I have two "Alpair 7" 4 inches drivers; they are excellent
but a bit expensive to buy much more, so I'm evaluating a pair of
Fountek FR88EX 3 inches drivers. The only problem with small full-range
drivers is their poor bass performance...

For a good computer based solution, I would suggest checking the 
new "Zacate" all-in-one motherboards with 8 audio ouputs.


> umashankar
> 
> i have published my poems. read (or buy) at
> http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
> 
> 
>  
> > Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:08:43 -0400
> > From: m...@hacklava.net
> > To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale
> > 
> > Sun, 01 May 2011 01:44:38 +0100,
> > Stefan Schreiber  wrote :
> > 
> > > Gerard Lardner wrote:
> > > 
> > > >Perhaps something on the lines of a PlugComputer running Plug
> > > >Ubuntu, a USB sound card, Linux software packaged for simple use
> > > >and having a web control interface, and an iPhone app to control
> > > >it all? The hardware (PlugComputer and sound card) then could be
> > > ><$200, I think (excluding the iPhone - but some mobile providers
> > > >are now giving that away free with some service contracts).
> > > >
> > > >Anyone up to doing it?
> > > >
> > > >Gerard Lardner
> > > > 
> > 
> > That's a good idea, 
> > but where to find a cheap USB sound card with 8 output channels? 
> > I know about one, but I suspect it is not very good:
> > http://sabrent.com/v2/8-channel-3d-usb-2-0-external-7-1-surround-sound-box-wdigital-output/
> > Then an external 8 channels amplifier would be required...
> > 
> > It might be cheaper (and better) to use a desktop computer (small or
> > big) with an on-board sound card, and include 4 stereo class-D
> > amplifiers in the computer box, although such a configuration could
> > be subject to internal interferences.
> > 
> > > So you want to combine the cheap costs of of a Ubuntu media
> > > center (needs some programming work, though) with the beauty of
> > > your beloved iPhone?
> > 
> > Or any Android device?
> > 
> > > < g >
> > > 
> > > Stefan Schreiber
> > > 
> > > P.S.: Small hint
> > > 
> > > It would be better if the Linux software might work for other
> > > Linux distributions, too...
> > 
> > The main differences between Linux distributions are the packaging
> > systems and the versions of the included software. It's fairly easy
> > to convert a well packaged software for other distributions (and
> > packaging systems)
> > 
> > --
> > Marc
> > 
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> 
> ___ 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] Minim AD7 for sale


Richard Dobson wrote:



Should that be a surprise ? If as a composer you are used to just
placing a speaker in the right place when you want a particular
sound to come from a certain direction in a concert, would you be
impressed by the performance of first order Ambisonics ?



Yes! I still am. Even on the bare minimum four speakers. I remember 
being impressed by it many years ago (eng. John Whiting, for Electric 
Phoenix). I think it is high time first-order was re-evaluated, in a 
more, um, "realistic" way. Let the question be, not how many speakers 
you can justify, but how few you can manage with.



Very probably you ae right, but this will happen in a wider context.



The simple fact is that 1st order AMB has no chance against 5.1. For the
applications that are wanted by the mass consumer market, 5.1 actually
works and delivers better results than 1st order AMB ever could.




I seem to recall a certain patent was taken out a while back 
specifically to enable B-format to be rendered over 5.1. Not ideal, by 
any means, but ~possible~. And it ~would~ improve the vast majority of 
film soundtracks, most of which do pretty rubbish 
quasi-spatialization, where they bother at all.



5.1 is basically stereo with center channel (impotant in cinema use, 
because it centers the voice to the screen), and two "envelope" channels.


It is not a perfect surround system, but it does what it is supposed to do.

Considering the distribution of spectators in a typical cinema, B format 
doesn't "improve" on 5.1, even less with "4 speakers". 4 speakers might 
work at home, for one or two listeners.

(Sometimes it actually doesn't work, depending on room acoustics etc.)


And it ~would~ improve the vast majority of film soundtracks, most of 
which do pretty rubbish quasi-spatialization, where they bother at all.



But maybe it is not all about "spatialization", even if we speak about 
surround sound? I don't want to get too polemic here, but the most 
important factors for film audio seems to be that you can understand the 
actors even at soft levels, and that any music sounds well...


Few film fans would analyze if you can here that a sound comes from say 
"170º back-right". 5.1 might not deliver this, but luckily the average 
cineast doesn't know this...


It is fair to say that 1st order AMB is good (or "good enough"?) for 
some things, but it is not "perfect surround sound forever". Some people 
on this list are actually using 2nd/3rd and higher order Ambisonics, and 
I think that any good standard should consider different 
applications/requirements.


Frankly, if .AMB format includes B format (1st order), I don't see any 
fundamental conflict < at all >.



Best,

Stefan Schreiber

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

Fons Adriaensen wrote:

Or snobs as the OP called them. And yes, I'd agree that the battle to
get 1st order into the consumer world has been lost. It was lost at
least ten years ago. I'm not going to sit in a corner and make myself
unhappy because of that.

Ciao,

However, there are now some (early!) attempts to introduce 3D audio into
cinemas, and maybe to define a standad for CE applications/home theaters.

If we speak about suround sound with height, Ambisonics is the "market
leader". (Current WFS doesn't include height. And it would prove to be
costly to do so, in every sense. O:-) )

The only competition are binaural recordings.

I have argued to introduce some "common file format" for 3D audio, for
example Ambisonics up to third order.

This standard could be based on the already existing FMH-Format.

Now, I am supposedly one of the "snobs"... But FMH is including B
format, or say FMH is superseding B format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics

(Table "Higher order B-format channels")

It is obvious that any translation from 3rd order Ambisonics to 5.1
works better than from B format to 5.1.(If 5.1 shall be "superseded" by
a 3D standard, we need backwards-compatibility to 5.1. 5.1 is the
established film standard, 10% of movies might use "7.1" suround, which
usually is 6.1.)

3rd order is a good compromise of number of channels/loudspeakers vs.
performance. And compared to WFS (also studied for cinema use),
Ambisonics certainly need less resources than WFS.

If B format is so good for everything: Why do they use 3rd order
Ambisonics in computer games, not B format?

http://etiennedeleflie.net/2008/06/24/codemasters-ups-their-useage-of-ambisonics-on-race-driver-grid/

I could imagine "why", but I don't want to disturb the discussion
between the "reasonable" B fomat adepts and snobistic "HOA" rocket
scientists...

Running away... :-D

Best,

Stefan Schreiber

P.S.: Speaking of B format recordings, there are the well-known issues
of sound quality. SNR? High frequencies?

A typical B format mic is good for ambience recordings, but maybe not
for orchestral recordings, or in fact any musical recoding with a group
of people playing.
(I have participated in quite some surround recordings. Not any
tonemaster I know would do an orchestral recording with just one B
format microphone. This is not the case because tonemasters supposedly
don't know Ambisonics. There are probably too many disadvantages and
limitations?

Just speaking from a practical point of view...)
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

2011-04-30 Thread umashankar mantravadi


i have the sabrent. it works very well in windows with asio for all. it is 
advertised as 7.1 but has eight identical output channels (you have to watch 
out for virtual 7,1 boxes)
 
i have bult myself an eight channel digiital amplifier using quad cards from 
sure electronics (50 usd including shipping for each)
 
and eight loudspeakers using vifa four inch full range drivers in small wooden 
boxes.
 
i have so far connected four speakers. the other four - now!
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:08:43 -0400
> From: m...@hacklava.net
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale
> 
> Sun, 01 May 2011 01:44:38 +0100,
> Stefan Schreiber  wrote :
> 
> > Gerard Lardner wrote:
> > 
> > >Perhaps something on the lines of a PlugComputer running Plug
> > >Ubuntu, a USB sound card, Linux software packaged for simple use and
> > >having a web control interface, and an iPhone app to control it all?
> > >The hardware (PlugComputer and sound card) then could be <$200, I
> > >think (excluding the iPhone - but some mobile providers are now
> > >giving that away free with some service contracts).
> > >
> > >Anyone up to doing it?
> > >
> > >Gerard Lardner
> > > 
> 
> That's a good idea, 
> but where to find a cheap USB sound card with 8 output channels? 
> I know about one, but I suspect it is not very good:
> http://sabrent.com/v2/8-channel-3d-usb-2-0-external-7-1-surround-sound-box-wdigital-output/
> Then an external 8 channels amplifier would be required...
> 
> It might be cheaper (and better) to use a desktop computer (small or
> big) with an on-board sound card, and include 4 stereo class-D
> amplifiers in the computer box, although such a configuration could be
> subject to internal interferences.
> 
> > So you want to combine the cheap costs of of a Ubuntu media center 
> > (needs some programming work, though) with the beauty of your beloved 
> > iPhone?
> 
> Or any Android device?
> 
> > < g >
> > 
> > Stefan Schreiber
> > 
> > P.S.: Small hint
> > 
> > It would be better if the Linux software might work for other Linux 
> > distributions, too...
> 
> The main differences between Linux distributions are the packaging
> systems and the versions of the included software. It's fairly easy to
> convert a well packaged software for other distributions (and packaging
> systems)
> 
> --
> Marc
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

Sun, 01 May 2011 01:44:38 +0100,
Stefan Schreiber  wrote :

> Gerard Lardner wrote:
> 
> >Perhaps something on the lines of a PlugComputer running Plug
> >Ubuntu, a USB sound card, Linux software packaged for simple use and
> >having a web control interface, and an iPhone app to control it all?
> >The hardware (PlugComputer and sound card) then could be <$200, I
> >think  (excluding the iPhone - but some mobile providers are now
> >giving that away free with some service contracts).
> >
> >Anyone up to doing it?
> >
> >Gerard Lardner
> >  

That's a good idea, 
but where to find a cheap USB sound card with 8 output channels? 
I know about one, but I suspect it is not very good:
http://sabrent.com/v2/8-channel-3d-usb-2-0-external-7-1-surround-sound-box-wdigital-output/
Then an external 8 channels amplifier would be required...

It might be cheaper (and better) to use a desktop computer (small or
big) with an on-board sound card, and include 4 stereo class-D
amplifiers in the computer box, although such a configuration could be
subject to internal interferences.

> So you want to combine the cheap costs of of a Ubuntu media center 
> (needs some programming work, though) with the beauty of your beloved 
> iPhone?

Or any Android device?

> < g >
> 
> Stefan Schreiber
> 
> P.S.: Small hint
> 
> It would be better if the Linux software might work for other Linux 
> distributions, too...

The main differences between Linux distributions are the packaging
systems and the versions of the included software. It's fairly easy to
convert a well packaged software for other distributions (and packaging
systems)

--
Marc

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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale


Gerard Lardner wrote:


Perhaps something on the lines of a PlugComputer running Plug Ubuntu, a
USB sound card, Linux software packaged for simple use and having a web
control interface, and an iPhone app to control it all? The hardware
(PlugComputer and sound card) then could be <$200, I think  (excluding
the iPhone - but some mobile providers are now giving that away free
with some service contracts).

Anyone up to doing it?

Gerard Lardner
 



So you want to combine the cheap costs of of a Ubuntu media center 
(needs some programming work, though) with the beauty of your beloved 
iPhone?


< g >

Stefan Schreiber

P.S.: Small hint

It would be better if the Linux software might work for other Linux 
distributions, too...



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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:50:19 +0100,
Richard Dobson  wrote :

> The preoccupation on this list has always been the pursuit of 
> "the best possible", defined as mm-perfect localization over a more
> or less large area, with cost and number of speakers no object. 

Then why not start a dedicated forum (or discussion on this forum) for
the "best enough" localization in a small domestic listening area with
little effort and money? While keeping an eye on the discussions
about "the best possible"?

> While for mere users the attraction of a format is clearly in inverse
> proportion to the number of speakers required, and to the the number
> of decisions they have to make before pressing "play". 

As a domestic listener, I'm not interested by systems for large
rooms; I'm listening to stereo recordings in a very small room (often
using XTC), and I'm not sure how much time and energy I should
reasonably spend on installing an ambisonics (or even a surround)
system.

> Those discussions about the ultimate HOA file format (4th-order or
> better, no doubt) are, I imagine, still ongoing. Worse than useless
> to anyone still pondering whether to go up to a "full" 5.1 system.

An appropriate discussion could be about how to scale the quality of the
experience from stereo to first-order ambisonics with four speakers up
to eight and more, in the same room. Installing a good surround system
is not very different from installing a good-enough stereo system. The
critical component of any reproduction system is the listening room;
starting with a dedicated room for stereo listening (with appropriate
acoustic treatments), going surround might be a big step because of the
added speakers around the listening area, but then going "up" to
horizontal ambisonics with six or eight speakers should be easy enough
if one is using a silent computer and a good software decoder (instead
of a vintage hardware decoder).

> And of course there is absolutely no mileage whatsoever in any
> research application dealing with first-order. Any such application
> would, I have no doubt, be likely shot down in flames by those asked
> to referee the proposal. I even have such a project in mind -
> periphonic sonification of LHC collision data. There are reasons
> enough why such a project would get short shrift from the powers that
> be, but one of them would certainly be "should be using at least
> third-order".

Is first-order enough for domestic listeners? Probably. We don't
all have the same agenda: I just want a better experience, not
listen to "god particles"...

The Harpex technology is an effort at "enhancing" first-order
ambisonics, but it's proprietary, patented, expensive and targeted as
a tool for audio engineers; I would only try the free player to
test different speakers configurations (like the 5.1 decoding preset).

I will follow these instructions by Jörn Nettingsmeier:
http://stackingdwarves.net/public_stuff/linux_audio/ambi_at_home/
As a software user, I plan to document my effort and maybe program a
software player, even if it's not very useful for the promotion of
ambisonics.

> So I fear the battle for Ambisonics has already been lost; it remains
> a niche interest for a few researchers and individuals with the time, 
> money and space to indulge it.

Why should it be a battle? Should everything on earth be a market with
winners and losers? Mono was enough to build a big market for sound
reproduction, and reaching high quality with more than one speaker
created lots of niche markets. There's a market for mono recordings on
vinyl records, so I'm sure there is a market for retro-futuristic
ambisonics that will always "suffer" from the competition of other
reproduction techniques like surround, XTC, ambiophonics, WFS...

Hollywood was able to impose surround in reproduction devices, but it
failed at forcing people to use more than two speakers for watching
blockbusters. Cheap computers can play 8 channels on cheap full-range
drivers using cheap class-D amplifiers, so why not use these available
technologies for ambisonics instead of waiting for Hollywood, and before
the mainstream culture streams exclusively on "intelligent" telephones?

> And then there is Wavefield Synthesis...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but WFS is useless in small listening areas,
unless we can use thousands of sub-miniature full-range drivers.

--
Marc



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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

2011-04-30 Thread Gerard Lardner

I have an AD10 in the music system in my office. The AD10 had circuitry
for B-format input as well as more options on the front switches. I have
also read that the component quality of the AD10 was better than that
for the AD7, but never having seen an AD7 I can't comment on that.

>From some documentation I found a couple of years ago that appears
originally to have been Minim publicity:

*Ambisonic Surround Sound Decoder AD10*

A decoder with a very high technical  specification that 
incorporates all the currently available facilities in Ambisonic
Surround Sound technology.  It will accept UHJ encoded 2 channel
signals from sources such as record, tape or tuner and  3  channel 
B  format  input  signals  suitable  for  professional  playback
systems.  These  will  be  decoded  into  signals  for  feeding  to 
a four speaker system. A layout control compensates for different
speaker arrangements and is continuously adjustable between aspect
ratio 2:1 and 1:2. The circuit elements used are designed for
minimum in circuit crosstalk. Where speakers are placed more than 3m
from the listener a distance button compensates for the different
ways in which wave fronts travel at low frequencies.

Two special  controls  are included on this model. FOCUS allows the
listener to make alterations in the soundfield as heard in the
listening room which enables him to focus more easily on details  in
the front sound stage. POSITION gives more weight to sounds from the
front or back, depending on the switch, so that the  listener  may, 
effectively  move  himself  forwards  or  backwards  in  the
'concert hall'. An example of when this might be used is in the
relay of a live concert where FORWARD POSITION would be applied
during the music to reduce the audience coughs etc and BACKWARD
POSITION at the end so that the listener felt more part of the
audience.

With normal  stereo sources the STEREO ENHANCE control can be used
to widen the sound  stage  from  a  central  mono  image to a
complete surround picture.  With classical  music  the  enhance 
control  can  be  used  to  provide  an  illusion of ambience which
is most pleasurable. With pop music, effects can be created to
provide greater involvement for the listener in the music.

There  is  a stereo BYPASS switch so that conventional  stereo
playback may be irade through the front two speakers without having
to disconnect the decoder. An omnidirectional signal is available to
feed sub-woofers.

The  circuitry  used  in  the  AD10 has been optimised for the most
accurate Ambisonic playback and highest quality sound reproduction.
Special versions are available to meet monitoring and professional
requirements and a conversion for six speaker layouts will be
available.

*Ambisonic Surround Sound Decoder AD7 *

For listeners who wish to enjoy the benefits of Ambisonic Surround
Sound but do not require all  the available facilities the AD7 will
be suitable. Smaller in size it decodes UHJ  2 channel  signals  and
B format signals.  It also has the stereo  enhance  facility  with 
the  amount  of  extra width  adjustable  by  the listener using the
stereo enhance control. So that the listener can return to
conventional  2 speaker stereo without disconnecting the decoder a
stereo bypass switch is fitted.

By minimising the number of controls we have been able to sensibly
reduce the circuitry and  not sacrifice the high quality components.
A switched layout control compensates for different speaker layouts.
The AD7 is capable of most pleasing musical results.

Looking inside the AD10 the quality does not seem to be anything
extraordinary, but neither does it use noticeably 'cheap' components.

I read in a review that the AD10 was intended to be sold at a realistic
price of about $600 and the AD7 sold at a bargain $200. That review also
mentioned that the AD10 used closer-tolerance components that would
additionally be hand-selected for closer matching. Since the review
appears to have been written before production was fully under way, I
wonder if that was indeed done for production AD10 units.

Over the years I have found two different circuit diagrams that seem
both to be for the AD7, but none for the AD10. One circuit diagram shows
a B-format input option, like my AD10 has, but lacks several of the
other features of the AD10 (Focus control, Layout control as a pot
rather than a 3-way selector switch, Position selector switch, Stereo
Enhancement control, Distance compensation, 'Set' (sends mono to all
outputs, for level balancing), etc.); the other circuit diagram lacks
also the B-format input.

Does anyone have or know of a circuit diagram for the AD10?

Gerard Lardner

On 30/04/2011 11:58, Richard wrote:
> Hmmm, out of interest,

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

2011-04-30 Thread Gerard Lardner

Perhaps something on the lines of a PlugComputer running Plug Ubuntu, a
USB sound card, Linux software packaged for simple use and having a web
control interface, and an iPhone app to control it all? The hardware
(PlugComputer and sound card) then could be <$200, I think  (excluding
the iPhone - but some mobile providers are now giving that away free
with some service contracts).

Anyone up to doing it?

Gerard Lardner

On 30/04/2011 15:28, umashankar mantravadi wrote:
> it would be nice if somebody put together - created a recipe - with readily 
> available components which will do one thing only. play four channel Bformat 
> files through an eight output sound card. just enough controls to set up the 
> speakers and select files to be played.
>  
> it would be nice if it cost very little (the hardware should not be more than 
> 200 usd)
>  
> umashankar
>
> i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
>
>
>  
>> From: mgra...@mstvp.com
>> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
>> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 09:05:16 -0500
>> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:57:53 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/29/2011 02:30 PM, Michael Graves wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:28:06 +0300, Eero Aro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All
>>>>>
>>>>> A Minim AD7 Ambisonic decoder seems to be for sale on a
>>>>> Finnish discussion forum:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.hifiharrastajat.org/forum/index.php?topic=1037823.0
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know the person selling the decoder.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eero
>>>> Could any one comment on the utility of this device? That is, if I'm
>>>> starting from scratch to build a small residential ambi playback
>>>> environment would I want it? or should I go another route?
>>> i'd say unless you are very traditional in what goes into your hifi
>>> stack, get a small, quiet computer with a good soundcard and do your
>>> decoding in software. much more future-proof, cheaper, and more
>>> flexible. unless you have stacks of UHJ-encoded LPs or CDs, where a
>>> dedicated old-school hardware box might actually realize its potential
>>> for userfriendliness.
>> Many thanks for the comments. This is as I expected. I struggle my own
>> desire for small appliance-like devices over the compexity of
>> computers. Yet, around my home there are a dozen computers. I like
>> single board computers for thngs like routers, because of their low
>> power, low noise, low maintainance requirements. I suppose a media PC
>> could be assembled in a similar fashion.
>>
>> Michael
>> --
>> Michael Graves
>> mgravesmstvp.com
>> http://www.mgraves.org
>> o713-861-4005
>> c713-201-1262
>> sip:mgra...@mstvp.onsip.com
>> skype mjgraves
>> Twitter mjgraves
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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/20110430/95cf90e0/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] Minim AD7 for sale

Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:57:33 +0100,
"Richard"  wrote :

> Seems you need to be a member

It's $20 for non-members.

>   LSat, 30 Apr 2011 21:39:56 +0100,
>   "Richard"  wrote :
> 
>   > Many thanks for that priceless info, shame the paper isn't
>   > available
> 
>   Here it is (for a fee):
>   http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=4419
> 
>   >   :
>   >   This is described in MAG's 1985 JAES article;
>   >   look at Appendix A3.1.2 "Simplified UHJ
>   >   decoding equations using three phase shifters",
>   >   and particularly at Fig 13.  The unsimplified
>   >   block diagram in Fig. 14 uses four phase
>   >   shifters.
>   > 
>   >   The key was that the simplified design used
>   >   fewer op-amps (which came in packages of
>   >   four), and so could be implemented for less
>   >   money.  As Eero pointed out, the AD 7 was
>   >   cheap and cheerful.  The AD 10 was the
>   >   "proper" decoder.
>   > 
>   >   The paper should be in the Ambisonic
>   >   Motherlode, but I don't see it.  You never know,
>   >   perhaps the Magic Paper Fairy will drop a
>   >   copy into your inbox.
>   > 
>   >   Regards,
>   >   Martin
>   >   -- 
>   >   Martin J Leese
>   >   E-mail: martin.leese  stanfordalumni.org
>   >   Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
>   >   ___
>   >   Sursound mailing list
>   >   Sursound@music.vt.edu
>   >   https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>   > 
>   > 
>   >   -
>   >   No virus found in this message.
>   >   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>   >   Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3606 - Release Date:
>   > 04/30/11 -- next part --
>   > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>   > URL:
>   > 
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110430/07fa7855/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
> 
> 
>   -
>   No virus found in this message.
>   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>   Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3606 - Release Date:
> 04/30/11 -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110430/af42c4b8/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] Mark Decker & "The Bells!"


Luiz Gonçalo de Moraes Prado wrote:

Could it be that someone at the BBC didn't know what to do with a four-track
b-format master?


There were no B-Format masters. Mark was encoding into UHJ and editing
in UHJ. The transmission copies are UHJ.

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

Re: [Sursound] Mark Decker & "The Bells!"


I wrote:

Please don't make a number of this copy of mine
on the list. I'd rather keep it low profile :-)


Haha! My own fault! Didn't watch what I was doing.
I guess it's time for be for me...

Sorry bout that :-)

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

Re: [Sursound] Mark Decker & "The Bells!"

2011-04-30 Thread Luiz Gonçalo de Moraes Prado




On 30/04/11 18:16, "Eero Aro"  wrote:

> The Nine Tailors, 29/8/86
> 
> http://members.cox.net/surround/uhjdisc/uhjhtm.htm#Radio
> 
> Eero
> 


Ouch!... I picked the wrong taylors... :p


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

Re: [Sursound] Mark Decker & "The Bells!"


Hi Richard

I do have a DAT copy of the Nine Tailors.

I can make a copy if you wish.
Would you happen to have that article in pdf?

The duration is...errh... longish.
I try to find some time to do the copy.

Please don't make a number of this copy of mine
on the list. I'd rather keep it low profile :-)

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

Re: [Sursound] Mark Decker & "The Bells!"

2011-04-30 Thread Luiz Gonçalo de Moraes Prado

Hmm... This "scene" where a man is killed-by-acoustics in the belfry happens
- it's actually pivotal to the plot - in Dorothy L. Sayers "The Nine
Taylors" which was dramatized by Alastair Beaton and directed by Martin
Fisher... Ian Carmichael played Lord Peter... And it was broadcast on Radio
Four, on eight episodes, in 1980 Now, I could be making a major mistake
here because, even if the plot uses the same fact, the cd I have - published
by BBC Audio - is of a glorified mono recording (a good one at that)...
Could it be that someone at the BBC didn't know what to do with a four-track
b-format master? Or the belfry thing is just a coincidence?


>From a Brazilian Anglophile,

Luiz



P.S.: "The Nine Taylors", BBC Radio Collection; ISBN 978-0-563-47835-5






On 01/05/11 03:46, "Richard Lee"  wrote:

> IIRC, Mark Decker recorded a BBC radio drama where a man is killed by being
> tied up in a bellfry with the bells pealing away.
> 
> Can't remember the title but I remember reading a web page where he describes
> this experience which was his first use of a Mk4 Calrec Soundfield.
> 
> I'd appreciate a link to this page if anyone is better at searching.
> 
> Also if anyone has a recording of the actual thing 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> 
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Atualizado em 30/04/2011
> 


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

Re: [Sursound] Mark Decker & "The Bells!"


Richard Lee wrote:

IIRC, Mark Decker recorded a BBC radio drama where a man is killed by
being tied up in a bellfry with the bells pealing away.

Can't remember the title but I remember reading a web page where he
describes this experience which was his first use of a Mk4 Calrec
Soundfield.

I'd appreciate a link to this page if anyone is better at searching.


The Nine Tailors, 29/8/86

http://members.cox.net/surround/uhjdisc/uhjhtm.htm#Radio

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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

Seems you need to be a member





  LSat, 30 Apr 2011 21:39:56 +0100,
  "Richard"  wrote :

  > Many thanks for that priceless info, shame the paper isn't available

  Here it is (for a fee):
  http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=4419

  >   :
  >   This is described in MAG's 1985 JAES article;
  >   look at Appendix A3.1.2 "Simplified UHJ
  >   decoding equations using three phase shifters",
  >   and particularly at Fig 13.  The unsimplified
  >   block diagram in Fig. 14 uses four phase
  >   shifters.
  > 
  >   The key was that the simplified design used
  >   fewer op-amps (which came in packages of
  >   four), and so could be implemented for less
  >   money.  As Eero pointed out, the AD 7 was
  >   cheap and cheerful.  The AD 10 was the
  >   "proper" decoder.
  > 
  >   The paper should be in the Ambisonic
  >   Motherlode, but I don't see it.  You never know,
  >   perhaps the Magic Paper Fairy will drop a
  >   copy into your inbox.
  > 
  >   Regards,
  >   Martin
  >   -- 
  >   Martin J Leese
  >   E-mail: martin.leese  stanfordalumni.org
  >   Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
  >   ___
  >   Sursound mailing list
  >   Sursound@music.vt.edu
  >   https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
  > 
  > 
  >   -
  >   No virus found in this message.
  >   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  >   Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3606 - Release Date:
  > 04/30/11 -- next part --
  > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
  > URL:
  > 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110430/07fa7855/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


  -
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3606 - Release Date: 04/30/11
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110430/af42c4b8/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

LSat, 30 Apr 2011 21:39:56 +0100,
"Richard"  wrote :

> Many thanks for that priceless info, shame the paper isn't available

Here it is (for a fee):
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=4419

>   :
>   This is described in MAG's 1985 JAES article;
>   look at Appendix A3.1.2 "Simplified UHJ
>   decoding equations using three phase shifters",
>   and particularly at Fig 13.  The unsimplified
>   block diagram in Fig. 14 uses four phase
>   shifters.
> 
>   The key was that the simplified design used
>   fewer op-amps (which came in packages of
>   four), and so could be implemented for less
>   money.  As Eero pointed out, the AD 7 was
>   cheap and cheerful.  The AD 10 was the
>   "proper" decoder.
> 
>   The paper should be in the Ambisonic
>   Motherlode, but I don't see it.  You never know,
>   perhaps the Magic Paper Fairy will drop a
>   copy into your inbox.
> 
>   Regards,
>   Martin
>   -- 
>   Martin J Leese
>   E-mail: martin.leese  stanfordalumni.org
>   Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
>   ___
>   Sursound mailing list
>   Sursound@music.vt.edu
>   https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> 
> 
>   -
>   No virus found in this message.
>   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>   Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3606 - Release Date:
> 04/30/11 -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110430/07fa7855/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

[Sursound] Mark Decker & "The Bells!"

2011-04-30 Thread Richard Lee

IIRC, Mark Decker recorded a BBC radio drama where a man is killed by being 
tied up in a bellfry with the bells pealing away.

Can't remember the title but I remember reading a web page where he describes 
this experience which was his first use of a Mk4 Calrec Soundfield.

I'd appreciate a link to this page if anyone is better at searching.

Also if anyone has a recording of the actual thing 
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

Many thanks for that priceless info, shame the paper isn't available


  :
  This is described in MAG's 1985 JAES article;
  look at Appendix A3.1.2 "Simplified UHJ
  decoding equations using three phase shifters",
  and particularly at Fig 13.  The unsimplified
  block diagram in Fig. 14 uses four phase
  shifters.

  The key was that the simplified design used
  fewer op-amps (which came in packages of
  four), and so could be implemented for less
  money.  As Eero pointed out, the AD 7 was
  cheap and cheerful.  The AD 10 was the
  "proper" decoder.

  The paper should be in the Ambisonic
  Motherlode, but I don't see it.  You never know,
  perhaps the Magic Paper Fairy will drop a
  copy into your inbox.

  Regards,
  Martin
  -- 
  Martin J Leese
  E-mail: martin.leese  stanfordalumni.org
  Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
  ___
  Sursound mailing list
  Sursound@music.vt.edu
  https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound


  -
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3606 - Release Date: 04/30/11
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110430/07fa7855/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

[Sursound] Question regarding UHJ Encoding - Decoding

2011-04-30 Thread Richard Lee

I have questions about UHJ decoding too.

Richard, how did you get your decoding eqns?

My question is about 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonic_UHJ_format

It has separate decoding eqns for 2 & 3 channel UHJ.  They are consistent 
except for Y

Y = 0.763*D   + j*0.385*S   2-channel
Y = 0.796*D - 0.676*T + j*0.187*S   3 channel

It's been 30+ yrs since I pretended to unnerstan dis stuff but if IIRC, 3 
channel decoding was supposed to be robust to the T channel. ie if the T 
channel faded out, decode would revert seamlessly to the 2 channel eqns.

The idea was that the Velocity & "Energy" Vector directions would remain the 
same but T would increase the Vector Magnitudes.

I thought I had this scribbled somewhere but all I can find is stuff for 45J 
which is UHJ's immediate predecessor and shows how long ago this was.  I worked 
on the Calrec version of the Transcoder which was UHJ but I can't remember 
doing any UHJ work on the Calrec Ghetto Blasters which was Ken Farrar/Ellis's 
Periphonic System(s).  I did their speaker matrix stuff though.

And where do these eqns come from?  I can't remember a formal 
document/published paper where MAG or Geoffrey Barton state the UHJ Encoding & 
Decoding Eqns.

One coudl take the attitude that only Encoding needs to be specified and the 
user can do what he likes on Decode.  Simple Matrix Inversion would give you a 
formal 3 channel Decode but that doesn't help me cos kunt kont or reed en rite 
.. 8>D

Martin, when we resolve this issue, or even if we don't, we should put 
something in wikipedia stating the source or else something like

"there is no formal source but we have this from Dr. Geoffrey Barton" 
or 
" we got these from reverse engineering the Audio & Design Trancoder & Decoder".

I have been unsuccesful in my application to become a wiki editor cos kunt 

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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

2011-04-30 Thread Martin Leese

"Richard"  wrote:

> I think Eero wrote:
>>   The AD-7 was designed to use a small number of components,
>>   it has just three phase shifters. The AD-7 is not a precision
>>   reference decoder, but at least for me, it did it's job for music
>>   listening.
>
> Hmmm, out of interest, how many more should there be. Also a question, I
> thought on only X & Y were phase shifted +90 degrees during encoding, am I
> wrong in this thinking?

This is described in MAG's 1985 JAES article;
look at Appendix A3.1.2 "Simplified UHJ
decoding equations using three phase shifters",
and particularly at Fig 13.  The unsimplified
block diagram in Fig. 14 uses four phase
shifters.

The key was that the simplified design used
fewer op-amps (which came in packages of
four), and so could be implemented for less
money.  As Eero pointed out, the AD 7 was
cheap and cheerful.  The AD 10 was the
"proper" decoder.

The paper should be in the Ambisonic
Motherlode, but I don't see it.  You never know,
perhaps the Magic Paper Fairy will drop a
copy into your inbox.

Regards,
Martin
-- 
Martin J Leese
E-mail: martin.leese  stanfordalumni.org
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

2011-04-30 Thread Richard Dobson


On 30/04/2011 18:47, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 03:50:19PM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote:


On 30/04/2011 01:12, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:


I sometimes wish these people could be locked away in a closet and
released only after 1st order Ambisonics is sufficiently accepted by
the audio community at large and the consumer electronics and
computer software makers. Maybe we might get somewhere that way.



I remember arguing much the same point ten years ago (or eleven - AMB
was announced at ICMC in 2000)


and had existed for some 25 years before that...



AMB is the file format I defined (following a somewhat one-directional 
"consultation" on this list). I made freely available some tools to use 
it very shortly afterwards, in the form of the CDP Toolkit. Perhaps that 
has already faded into obscurity after all this time.



and got precisely nowhere.


Should that be a surprise ? If as a composer you are used to just
placing a speaker in the right place when you want a particular
sound to come from a certain direction in a concert, would you be
impressed by the performance of first order Ambisonics ?


Yes! I still am. Even on the bare minimum four speakers. I remember 
being impressed by it many years ago (eng. John Whiting, for Electric 
Phoenix). I think it is high time first-order was re-evaluated, in a 
more, um, "realistic" way. Let the question be, not how many speakers 
you can justify, but how few you can manage with.


The simple fact is that 1st order AMB has no chance against 5.1. For the
applications that are wanted by the mass consumer market, 5.1 actually
works and delivers better results than 1st order AMB ever could.




I seem to recall a certain patent was taken out a while back 
specifically to enable B-format to be rendered over 5.1. Not ideal, by 
any means, but ~possible~. And it ~would~ improve the vast majority of 
film soundtracks, most of which do pretty rubbish quasi-spatialization, 
where they bother at all.



And of course there is absolutely no mileage whatsoever in any research
application dealing with first-order. Any such application would, I have
no doubt, be likely shot down in flames by those asked to referee the
proposal. I even have such a project in mind - periphonic sonification
of LHC collision data. There are reasons enough why such a project would
get short shrift from the powers that be, but one of them would
certainly be "should be using at least third-order".


Compared to the cost of the LHC and the data obtained from it, a third
order system would be cheap.



Not if we want this to be available in schools, or for small public 
workshops, it isn't! But I guess you have proved my point.


..

So I fear the battle for Ambisonics has already been lost; it remains a
niche interest for a few researchers and individuals with the time,
money and space to indulge it.


Or snobs as the OP called them. And yes, I'd agree that the battle to
get 1st order into the consumer world has been lost.



But you are not going to get Ambisonics of higher order into the 
consumer world either - unless it can be put into 5.1  (so just ~maybe~, 
2nd order; seems to work pretty well). Indeed I have not seem any 
suggestion of that goal for ages on this list. Not much reference to 
composers either, for that matter. The issue for the consumer is simple 
- the number of speakers needed for credible surround, and (geeks 
excepted) the minimum of "setting up" and fiddling around.


In sum, the work I am involved in is called, broadly, "outreach".  The 
one aspect conspicuous by its absence in all the discussions here has 
been outreach. When a third-order system is decribed as "cheap", you 
just know that the consumer (or any other outreach target) has been left 
far behind.






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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

2011-04-30 Thread Fons Adriaensen

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 03:50:19PM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote:

> On 30/04/2011 01:12, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
>
>> I sometimes wish these people could be locked away in a closet and
>> released only after 1st order Ambisonics is sufficiently accepted by
>> the audio community at large and the consumer electronics and
>> computer software makers. Maybe we might get somewhere that way.
>>
>
> I remember arguing much the same point ten years ago (or eleven - AMB  
> was announced at ICMC in 2000)

and had existed for some 25 years before that...

> and got precisely nowhere.

Should that be a surprise ? If as a composer you are used to just
placing a speaker in the right place when you want a particular
sound to come from a certain direction in a concert, would you be
impressed by the performance of first order Ambisonics ? It just
fails miserably in such an application. The only thing it could
be used for is to reproduce something designed for it, accepting
the limits.

> preoccupation on this list has always been the pursuit of "the best  
> possible", defined as mm-perfect localization over a more or less large  
> area, with cost and number of speakers no object. While for mere users  
> the attraction of a format is clearly in inverse proportion to the  
> number of speakers required, and to the the number of decisions they  
> have to make before pressing "play". Those discussions about the  
> ultimate HOA file format (4th-order or better, no doubt) are, I imagine,  
> still ongoing. Worse than useless to anyone still pondering whether to  
> go up to a "full" 5.1 system.

The simple fact is that 1st order AMB has no chance against 5.1. For the
applications that are wanted by the mass consumer market, 5.1 actually
works and delivers better results than 1st order AMB ever could.

> And of course there is absolutely no mileage whatsoever in any research  
> application dealing with first-order. Any such application would, I have  
> no doubt, be likely shot down in flames by those asked to referee the  
> proposal. I even have such a project in mind - periphonic sonification  
> of LHC collision data. There are reasons enough why such a project would  
> get short shrift from the powers that be, but one of them would  
> certainly be "should be using at least third-order".

Compared to the cost of the LHC and the data obtained from it, a third
order system would be cheap. Very cheap. Would you force scientists
to look at their data using VGA graphics when they can have 40" screens
driven by sophisticated 3D graphics libraries ?

> So I fear the battle for Ambisonics has already been lost; it remains a  
> niche interest for a few researchers and individuals with the time,  
> money and space to indulge it.

Or snobs as the OP called them. And yes, I'd agree that the battle to
get 1st order into the consumer world has been lost. It was lost at
least ten years ago. I'm not going to sit in a corner and make myself
unhappy because of that.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

Hmmm, thanks for that. I was thinking of doing a software decoder. I've been
using Audiomulch and the UHJ impulses up till now, but have been having phase
issues with the final audio (which by he way the hardware decoders suffer from
as well)

Just thought it would be interesting to do a software version of a hardware
decoder
I am definitely not the right person to answer to that, but:
UHJ decoders with better directional "resolution" used to have
four 10-pole phase shifters. The three AD7 shifters are eight pole
(if I remember right, would need to check the schematics.)

> Also a
> question, I thought on only X& Y were phase shifted +90 degrees
> during encoding, am I wrong in this thinking?

AFAIK it is difficult to design phase shifters with so "low" shifts.
It is the relative phase difference between the phase shifters
inside the decoder that counts. The W shifter has a certain phase shift
and the other shifter outputs are leading or lacking the W in phase.

A further difficulty is that the relative phase difference between the
component signals should be the same on all frequencies.
Again - as far as I have understood, this is difficult to solve in
analog phase shifters.

As the encoders also were made with analog phase shifters, errors
in both of them added up as directional distortion.

This is the way a sound designer sees it, other people on the list
may be able to give you a more scientific explanation.

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

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3606 - Release Date: 04/30/11
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110430/198313a3/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale


Richard wrote:

Hmmm, out of interest, how many more should there be.


I am definitely not the right person to answer to that, but:
UHJ decoders with better directional "resolution" used to have
four 10-pole phase shifters. The three AD7 shifters are eight pole
(if I remember right, would need to check the schematics.)


Also a
question, I thought on only X&  Y were phase shifted +90 degrees
during encoding, am I wrong in this thinking?


AFAIK it is difficult to design phase shifters with so "low" shifts.
It is the relative phase difference between the phase shifters
inside the decoder that counts. The W shifter has a certain phase shift
and the other shifter outputs are leading or lacking the W in phase.

A further difficulty is that the relative phase difference between the
component signals should be the same on all frequencies.
Again - as far as I have understood, this is difficult to solve in
analog phase shifters.

As the encoders also were made with analog phase shifters, errors
in both of them added up as directional distortion.

This is the way a sound designer sees it, other people on the list
may be able to give you a more scientific explanation.

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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

2011-04-30 Thread Richard Dobson


On 30/04/2011 01:12, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:

On 29 Apr 2011, at 19:15, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:

..
I sometimes wish these people could be locked away in a closet and
released only after 1st order Ambisonics is sufficiently accepted by
the audio community at large and the consumer electronics and
computer software makers. Maybe we might get somewhere that way.



I remember arguing much the same point ten years ago (or eleven - AMB 
was announced at ICMC in 2000) - and got precisely nowhere. The 
preoccupation on this list has always been the pursuit of "the best 
possible", defined as mm-perfect localization over a more or less large 
area, with cost and number of speakers no object. While for mere users 
the attraction of a format is clearly in inverse proportion to the 
number of speakers required, and to the the number of decisions they 
have to make before pressing "play". Those discussions about the 
ultimate HOA file format (4th-order or better, no doubt) are, I imagine, 
still ongoing. Worse than useless to anyone still pondering whether to 
go up to a "full" 5.1 system.


And of course there is absolutely no mileage whatsoever in any research 
application dealing with first-order. Any such application would, I have 
no doubt, be likely shot down in flames by those asked to referee the 
proposal. I even have such a project in mind - periphonic sonification 
of LHC collision data. There are reasons enough why such a project would 
get short shrift from the powers that be, but one of them would 
certainly be "should be using at least third-order".


So I fear the battle for Ambisonics has already been lost; it remains a 
niche interest for a few researchers and individuals with the time, 
money and space to indulge it.


And then there is Wavefield Synthesis...



Richard Dobson

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

[Sursound] Question regarding UHJ Encoding - Decoding


Hi all



I have been a bit of a lurker here for a while, trying to get to grips with 
some issues regarding UHJ. Now I know quite a bit about the decoding of the 
Quadraphonic matrix systems (I created the SQ360/QS360 scripts) but am a little 
confused by the way the decode formula is written, so I'm hoping someone here 
can shed some light on something.



When you encode to UHJ there is a single +90 degree shift used on both the X & 
Y signals, with W left untouched:

W' = W*sqrt(2)
S = 0.9396926*W' + 0.1855740*X
D = j(-0.3420201*W' + 0.5098604*X) + 0.6554516*Y
Left = (S + D)/2.0
Right = (S - D)/2.0 



So, the question I have is: why is the phase shift required on decode not -90 
degree (where the j should read -j)

W = 0.5*(0.982*L + 0.982*R + j*0.164*L - j*0.164*R)

X = 0.5*(0.419*L + 0.419*R - j*0.828*L + j*0.828*R)

Y = 0.5*(0.763*L - 0.763*R + j*0.385*L + j*0.385*R)




-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110430/f8a3bcee/attachment.html>
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5675 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110430/f8a3bcee/attachment.jpe>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

2011-04-30 Thread umashankar mantravadi


it would be nice if somebody put together - created a recipe - with readily 
available components which will do one thing only. play four channel Bformat 
files through an eight output sound card. just enough controls to set up the 
speakers and select files to be played.
 
it would be nice if it cost very little (the hardware should not be more than 
200 usd)
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> From: mgra...@mstvp.com
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 09:05:16 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale
> 
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:57:53 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> 
> >On 04/29/2011 02:30 PM, Michael Graves wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:28:06 +0300, Eero Aro wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hi All
> >>>
> >>> A Minim AD7 Ambisonic decoder seems to be for sale on a
> >>> Finnish discussion forum:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.hifiharrastajat.org/forum/index.php?topic=1037823.0
> >>>
> >>> I don't know the person selling the decoder.
> >>>
> >>> Eero
> >> 
> >> Could any one comment on the utility of this device? That is, if I'm
> >> starting from scratch to build a small residential ambi playback
> >> environment would I want it? or should I go another route?
> >
> >i'd say unless you are very traditional in what goes into your hifi
> >stack, get a small, quiet computer with a good soundcard and do your
> >decoding in software. much more future-proof, cheaper, and more
> >flexible. unless you have stacks of UHJ-encoded LPs or CDs, where a
> >dedicated old-school hardware box might actually realize its potential
> >for userfriendliness.
> 
> Many thanks for the comments. This is as I expected. I struggle my own
> desire for small appliance-like devices over the compexity of
> computers. Yet, around my home there are a dozen computers. I like
> single board computers for thngs like routers, because of their low
> power, low noise, low maintainance requirements. I suppose a media PC
> could be assembled in a similar fashion.
> 
> Michael
> --
> Michael Graves
> mgravesmstvp.com
> http://www.mgraves.org
> o713-861-4005
> c713-201-1262
> sip:mgra...@mstvp.onsip.com
> skype mjgraves
> Twitter mjgraves
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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/20110430/95cf90e0/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

2011-04-30 Thread Michael Graves

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:57:53 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:

>On 04/29/2011 02:30 PM, Michael Graves wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:28:06 +0300, Eero Aro wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> A Minim AD7 Ambisonic decoder seems to be for sale on a
>>> Finnish discussion forum:
>>>
>>> http://www.hifiharrastajat.org/forum/index.php?topic=1037823.0
>>>
>>> I don't know the person selling the decoder.
>>>
>>> Eero
>> 
>> Could any one comment on the utility of this device? That is, if I'm
>> starting from scratch to build a small residential ambi playback
>> environment would I want it? or should I go another route?
>
>i'd say unless you are very traditional in what goes into your hifi
>stack, get a small, quiet computer with a good soundcard and do your
>decoding in software. much more future-proof, cheaper, and more
>flexible. unless you have stacks of UHJ-encoded LPs or CDs, where a
>dedicated old-school hardware box might actually realize its potential
>for userfriendliness.

Many thanks for the comments. This is as I expected. I struggle my own
desire for small appliance-like devices over the compexity of
computers. Yet, around my home there are a dozen computers. I like
single board computers for thngs like routers, because of their low
power, low noise, low maintainance requirements. I suppose a media PC
could be assembled in a similar fashion.

Michael
--
Michael Graves
mgravesmstvp.com
http://www.mgraves.org
o713-861-4005
c713-201-1262
sip:mgra...@mstvp.onsip.com
skype mjgraves
Twitter mjgraves



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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale