Re: [Sursound] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31. March)
I do neto succeed in listening to this in Stockholm Sweden, any one succeeding outside of UK? Bo-Erik ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140317/3daa7aba/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
Kan Kaban wrote: We´re working on documentary series based on a/b-format. This BBC thing caught our attention... the future is here?. A-format? Progressive stuff...Why this? ;-) Best, Stefan Schreiber ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
Martin Leese wrote: Schumacher Marlon wrote: Hi, Thanks everybody for your well-considered comments. The reason for going for a 2-channel format is compatibility with distribution media formats (CD) - and I suppose it will mostly be listened to without a decoder. The possibility of recovering (2D) B-Format can be very useful, I think (although apparently not 100% possible). Nimbus Records archived most of their recordings in 2-channel UHJ. This was fine until, many years later, they wanted to release to multi-channel. Unfortunately, converting back from UHJ to B-Format (and then to other formats) cannot be done without loss. I would call this a serious case of incompetence. In the sense that it was possible to archive 3/4 channels, also in the 80s. If you archive in 3- or 4-channel B-Format then you can *immediately* produce 2-channel UHJ from this. In addition, you could later release to other formats without any loss. You can only gain by archiving in B-Format; there is no downside. Or distribute 3-4 channel UHJ, which is the stereo-compatible form of FOA. Of course this proposal didn't catch on, even if this should work. (I see this doesn't work for a CD distribution, but this is the only case by now. But if you chose physical distribution, you still could include the UHJ and/or B format version on some extra DVD. In this case you would not need 2-channel UHJ at all...) Best, Stefan ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
Stefan Schreiber wrote: I would call this a serious case of incompetence. In the sense that it was possible to archive 3/4 channels, also in the 80s. Strong words. I visited Nimbus in the early 90's. I must say that they used the best possible equipment that was available at the time. The people at Nimbus Records were a little bit idealistic. They wanted to gain as high quality as possible. To defend them, I need to tell that they were among the first record companies to use digital audio troughout the production. At the time multichannel digital audio recorders weren't available as commercial products for a record company. Nimbus used separate A/D converters and Beta video tape. That was two channel. The editing was made with a JVC video editing system, as digital audio workstations didn't exist. In practical terms, if Nimbus would have wanted to record B-Format, they would have needed to use analog multitrack with noise reduction (which wouldn't have been too bad quality either). Why they didn't do that, I don't know. They also did recordings elsewhere than in Wyastone Leys, in other countries. As far as I remember, those used DAT, which also was two channel. Eero ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] BBC Streaming trial
Hi I use Chrome mainly. I gave up with Firefox - it would delay starting while it updated far too often - and usually when I neededt look something up quickly! That aside, it worked OK. Chrome - if you have a Google account has one advantage - your bookmarks start page are there on all your computers. It also has a disadvantage - your bookmarks start page are there on all your computers! Id rather be able to choose what I want on start-up depending on what the computer is used for. I don't need my normal office start pages when I'm using the computer I use for putting presentations together for use on church, for example. I'd have a look at this, except I currently have no way of listening to surround other than a 5.1 system in the lounge. I remember the trials of quad back in the 11970's, using 2 FM stereo carriers late at night after normal programmes had shut down. That was interesting. Every Blessing Tony On 16/03/2014 17:55, Augustine Leudar wrote: Good find ! Chrome isn't so bad actually -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140317/cf98ee2d/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] BBC Streaming trial
I set up my system (MacPro into Metric Halo ULN-8 into BlueSky Media Desk) yesterday, using the online channel checker and after doing some very odd routing, got it all sorted. I have Chrome installed anyway, so no problems there. All I need is some firm idea of which broadcasts are actually in surround, but this information seems to be a bit hard to come by. I'm also away for most of the day and it seems that there's no option to stream previous broadcasts at the moment, which is a bit of a pain. I've probably missed something, so if anyone's got a definitive lead as tho which stuff lis in surround, that would be helpful. Using the MH software, I can also record to disc, so I'm quite keen to grab at least one broadcast. Regards, John On 17 Mar 2014, at 13:21, Rev Tony Newnham revtonynewn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Hi I use Chrome mainly. I gave up with Firefox - it would delay starting while it updated far too often - and usually when I neededt look something up quickly! That aside, it worked OK. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] BBC Streaming trial
Blue Sky media desk ! I have one too - amazing for the price - translates perfectly to the mega expensive Genelecs at work too ! On 17 March 2014 13:33, John Leonard j...@johnleonard.co.uk wrote: I set up my system (MacPro into Metric Halo ULN-8 into BlueSky Media Desk) yesterday, using the online channel checker and after doing some very odd routing, got it all sorted. I have Chrome installed anyway, so no problems there. All I need is some firm idea of which broadcasts are actually in surround, but this information seems to be a bit hard to come by. I'm also away for most of the day and it seems that there's no option to stream previous broadcasts at the moment, which is a bit of a pain. I've probably missed something, so if anyone's got a definitive lead as tho which stuff lis in surround, that would be helpful. Using the MH software, I can also record to disc, so I'm quite keen to grab at least one broadcast. Regards, John On 17 Mar 2014, at 13:21, Rev Tony Newnham revtonynewn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Hi I use Chrome mainly. I gave up with Firefox - it would delay starting while it updated far too often - and usually when I neededt look something up quickly! That aside, it worked OK. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- 07580951119 augustine.leudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140317/7d264c3b/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)
--On 17 March 2014 00:16 + Richard Dobson richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: It appears to be under the Live in Concert title. So the 19:30 concerts from the South Bank? That makes some sense - it also means that maybe tomorrow's reopening of the restored organ may be in surround (note to self: check multi-channel recording setup is OK). As an aside, I'm amused to see that the web page listing next week's concert on the RFH organ (another must-hear) is headed by a picture of the organ in the Albert Hall! Paul -- Paul Hodges ___ 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)
Am 17.03.14 16:25, schrieb Paul Hodges: (note to self: check multi-channel recording setup is OK). Speaking of which: how would one record this? I normally use Audio Hijack Pro for recording web streams but that doesn't work for signals with more than two channels. I'm on a Mac, BTW. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - Köln/Cologne, Germany Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf Web : http://www.fotoralf.de ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] BBC Streaming trial
I love this idea, and hope to tune in from Canada for some of the broadcasts. The channel checker assignations are obscure to me - does anyone know what they are? best, John On 17 March 2014 08:10, Augustine Leudar augustineleu...@gmail.com wrote: Blue Sky media desk ! I have one too - amazing for the price - translates perfectly to the mega expensive Genelecs at work too ! On 17 March 2014 13:33, John Leonard j...@johnleonard.co.uk wrote: I set up my system (MacPro into Metric Halo ULN-8 into BlueSky Media Desk) yesterday, using the online channel checker and after doing some very odd routing, got it all sorted. I have Chrome installed anyway, so no problems there. All I need is some firm idea of which broadcasts are actually in surround, but this information seems to be a bit hard to come by. I'm also away for most of the day and it seems that there's no option to stream previous broadcasts at the moment, which is a bit of a pain. I've probably missed something, so if anyone's got a definitive lead as tho which stuff lis in surround, that would be helpful. Using the MH software, I can also record to disc, so I'm quite keen to grab at least one broadcast. Regards, John On 17 Mar 2014, at 13:21, Rev Tony Newnham revtonynewn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Hi I use Chrome mainly. I gave up with Firefox - it would delay starting while it updated far too often - and usually when I neededt look something up quickly! That aside, it worked OK. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- 07580951119 augustine.leudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140317/7d264c3b/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- with best wishes, John -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140317/e8c83902/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)
--On 17 March 2014 15:25 + Paul Hodges pwh-surro...@cassland.org wrote: As an aside, I'm amused to see that the web page listing next week's concert on the RFH organ (another must-hear) is headed by a picture of the organ in the Albert Hall! Oops on my part, too - not the Albert Hall, but one I can't identify (definitely nothing like the Festival Hall, though). Paul -- Paul Hodges ___ 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)
--On 17 March 2014 16:32 +0100 Ralf R Radermacher fotor...@gmx.de wrote: Speaking of which: how would one record this? I normally use Audio Hijack Pro for recording web streams but that doesn't work for signals with more than two channels. I'm on a Mac, BTW. I'm using a PC, so I can't comment on the Mac approach; and my setup is very specific to my interface, which is an E-MU 1616m. I have set up Windows sound to use the multichannel output mode of the E-MU interface ( which is done using the sound applet in the control panel). In PatchMix (the control program for the E-MU) I pick out the front and rear channels of the 5.1 that is being sent to the interface for playing, and route them to four inputs of the alternate ASIO driver (as well as to the speakers). These ASIO inputs I can then pick up with any handy audio program - Reaper, WaveLab, or my favourite for doing this: AudioMulch. Paul -- Paul Hodges ___ 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)
Soundflower, perhaps? On 17 March 2014 15:32, Ralf R Radermacher fotor...@gmx.de wrote: Am 17.03.14 16:25, schrieb Paul Hodges: (note to self: check multi-channel recording setup is OK). Speaking of which: how would one record this? I normally use Audio Hijack Pro for recording web streams but that doesn't work for signals with more than two channels. I'm on a Mac, BTW. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - Köln/Cologne, Germany Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf Web : http://www.fotoralf.de ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University. These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University Dave Malham Honorary Fellow, Department of Music The University of York York YO10 5DD UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140317/ea5d18f9/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] Periphonic Irregular HO Ambisonics Decoder
Dear Sursounders, we released the code for calculating the coefficients for decoding high order ambisonics to your irregular periphonic layout. The project is called IDHOA and the code is hosted here [1] under GPL . Few words on the project. - The code is not written by software engineers. We have our evident limits. - The code has some dependacies to be satisfied: NLopt and some python packages (like matplotlib). - You can calculate the Ambisonics coefficients for decoding up to fifth order. - The software will try to optimize for you layout: (a) the number of speaker playing, (b) the order of ambisonics that your layout is able to reproduce. E.g. if you have 20 lodspeakers you won't be able to reproduce fourth order. The decoder will then mute the fourth ambisonics order. - You can select between: (basic), max-Re and in-phase decodings. The decoder will try to optimize the (pressure) energy and the (velocity) acoustic intensity. - After the installation you have to modify only the constants.py file, introducing your layout... and you are ready to go. Feel free to ask more information! We can also help in calculating your decoding matrix. We are interested to know your opinion by making a comparison with you actual decoder. Thanks! Davide Scaini Daniel Arteaga [1] https://github.com/BarcelonaMedia-Audio/idhoa -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140317/febd85f9/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)
I use very reliably jackosx p Le 17 mars 2014 à 16:59, Dave Malham dave.mal...@york.ac.uk a écrit : Soundflower, perhaps? On 17 March 2014 15:32, Ralf R Radermacher fotor...@gmx.de wrote: Am 17.03.14 16:25, schrieb Paul Hodges: (note to self: check multi-channel recording setup is OK). Speaking of which: how would one record this? I normally use Audio Hijack Pro for recording web streams but that doesn't work for signals with more than two channels. I'm on a Mac, BTW. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - Köln/Cologne, Germany Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf Web : http://www.fotoralf.de ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University. These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University Dave Malham Honorary Fellow, Department of Music The University of York York YO10 5DD UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140317/ea5d18f9/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] Question about UHJ
Eero Aro wrote: Stefan Schreiber wrote: I would call this a serious case of incompetence. In the sense that it was possible to archive 3/4 channels, also in the 80s. Strong words. I visited Nimbus in the early 90's. I must say that they used the best possible equipment that was available at the time. The people at Nimbus Records were a little bit idealistic. They wanted to gain as high quality as possible. To defend them, I need to tell that they were among the first record companies to use digital audio troughout the production. At the time multichannel digital audio recorders weren't available as commercial products for a record company. Nimbus used separate A/D converters and Beta video tape. That was two channel. The editing was made with a JVC video editing system, as digital audio workstations didn't exist. I don't know this for sure but would believe that digital multitrack recording should have been available at the beginning of the 90s, if not some years earlier. (Digital tape formats? I would assume that it was possible at this time to combine several stereo tapes into some virtual multitrack tape, for archiving of multitrack master recordings. Considering that they did DDD recordings since the beginning of the 80s...) In practical terms, if Nimbus would have wanted to record B-Format, they would have needed to use analog multitrack with noise reduction (which wouldn't have been too bad quality either). Why they didn't do that, I don't know. See above. They also did recordings elsewhere than in Wyastone Leys, in other countries. As far as I remember, those used DAT, which also was two channel. Eero DAT was a consumer format, certainly not developped for archiving purposes. Maybe I am wrong. In any case, many people on this list could have developped some custom solution, combining two stereo tapes, if we have to archive just 3 or 4 tracks. (The main problem would have been synchronization. This wouldn't be a problem today, as you could re-align samples which had been synchronized anyway) Best, Stefan ___ 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)
Right, i'm slowly pulling my hair here. Is anybody having a problem in hearing the surround rear on the chan id? Although the computer (Win XP) connected to the internet has an M-Audio 24/96 card, which is 2 in/2 out, one of the drivers that comes with it is a multi chan driver. So far i've been able to hear all but the rear surroun channel and i can't figure out why. I've set windows to use the multi driver, and using audiomulch set to record 6 channels, i still cant hear the rear surround channel Anyone having problems? --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140317/e59f55aa/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)
I have a GigaPort AG connected by USB to my MacBook Pro and it works correctly with Chrome Version 33.0.1750.152 I used Audio MIDI Setup (in /Applications/Utilites) and selected Multichannel/5.1 Surround for the speaker configuration of the GigaPort device. Aaron Heller (hel...@ai.sri.com) Menlo Park, CA US -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140317/441ef5d6/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
Hi The DASH format was published by Sony and Studer in 1982: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Stationary_Head Mitsubishi had their own format. I would assume that it was possible at this time to combine several stereo tapes into some virtual multitrack tape I find this today as an amusing suggestion. A little less than 20 years ago I suggested on this forum using two timecode DAT:s for recording B-Format. The response was fierce; normal chase timecode isn't phase accurate enough for B-Format. Little did we know, Donald MacLennan and I, when we just recorded B-Format with timecode locked DAT:s and were happy with the results. I even recorded B-Format onto two separate wild DAT Walkmans and syncked the recordings afterwards in a workstation. For nature recordings it was totally fine. I still have the DAT tapes somewhere. DAT was a consumer format, certainly not developped for archiving purposes. You are talking to a person, who has been working in broadcasting for 30 years and gone trough the development from analog to digital. DAT was such a small and handy format to use, that it was right away taken into use in professional use. Journalists were happy to leave the 8 kg Nagra back in the office and pack a small DAT recorder into their shoulderbag. Me too. You are right in that it's a lousy format for archiving. But guess why? The main reason is that it is difficult to find a DAT player, in which the tracking matches exactly with that of the recording. Been there, done that. Didn't get any T-shirts, though. Ah, the digital audio editor that Nimbus used, was not JVC. It was Sony DAE 1100, and it was made for audio, not video. But it used video tapes. Eero ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
Stefan Schreiber wrote: ... Or distribute 3-4 channel UHJ, which is the stereo-compatible form of FOA. Of course this proposal didn't catch on, even if this should work. (I see this doesn't work for a CD distribution, but this is the only case by now. But if you chose physical distribution, you still could include the UHJ and/or B format version on some extra DVD. In this case you would not need 2-channel UHJ at all...) 3- or 4-channel UHJ is only stereo compatible if it plays on stereo systems. 4-channel UHJ, for example, is most likely to be interpreted as quad, and how this is mixed down to stereo depends on the system, I think. You might hear only the two front channels (which is what you want), or the rear channels might be mixed into the front (producing a mishmash). Perhaps with DVD-V and/or DVD-A there is a way of using metadata to specify the downmix to stereo (I don't know whether this is possible, and would be interested to hear). In 2011, I suggested such metadata for WAVE-EX files, but it was not picked up; please see Example 1 at: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/Audio/StereoMix_chunk.html 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] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31.March)
Having tried earlier to get this to work -- unsuccessfully because I was messing with the Realtek HD Audio Manager which turend out to be irrelevant -- I decided to have another go at fooled around with my PC and, as is often the case, it suddenly started doing what I wanted (perseverance is in my experience the only way to achieve anything with computers...). I am running Windows 7 with an RME UFX connected to the Firewire port. This appears as Speakers/RME Fireface UFX in the windows Control_Panel/Sound/Playback panel. I set this as the default and clicked on Configure, selected the first of the two 5.1 Surround options (what the second one is for, I have no idea), and told it that I dont have a bass or centre speaker. This provides tones that can be used to determine the routing is correct. Then I installed Chrome (having previously set a System Restore Point), navigated to http://rdmedia.bbc.co.uk/radio3/faq.html and the lady's voice came over where it should do! (A thoughtful touch that she repeats the test several times!) The go to http://rdmedia.bbc.co.uk/radio3/index.html and click on the play button, and four channels of Brahms Tragic Overture appeared. Amazing! Playback Channels on the RME are 1 Left front 2 Right front 3 Center 4 Bass (LFE) 5 Left rear 6 right rear Using the Loopback function of Totalmix I have routed it to Samplitude. Ready for Rachmaninov PC.3. So far it sounds remarkably good. David ___ 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)
I installed Chrome (having previously set a System Restore Point), You are such a drama queen :) I'm glad you got it working though - Ill have to try this out ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- 07580951119 augustine.leudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140317/e4f98ffd/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Periphonic Irregular HO Ambisonics Decoder
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 06:05:11PM +0100, /dav/random wrote: The project is called IDHOA and the code is hosted here [1] under GPL . (after automatic conversion to python3) Traceback (most recent call last): File ./main.py, line 32, in module from constants import * File /data/build/idhoa/constants.py, line 106, in module WbinVec = fu.Wbinary() File /data/build/idhoa/functions.py, line 525, in Wbinary return thetaTest thetaThreshold TypeError: unorderable types: list() float() 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] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31.March)
--On 17 March 2014 20:52 +0100 David Pickett d...@fugato.com wrote: The go to http://rdmedia.bbc.co.uk/radio3/index.html and click on the play button, and four channels of Brahms Tragic Overture appeared. Followed by John Lill playing Rach 3 at the age of 70 - Magnificent! But as for the surround, well huh! The usual uncorrelated mish-mash in the rear channels, signifying nothing. Turning on the rear speakers did push the stereo image back from the front speakers just a bit. This was most convincing with the rear channels boosted by 6dB. Then I tried sitting sideways, facing the left; I should still have felt the image to be over to my right, but I got bits and pieces flying all over the place. When the applause started, I tried turning off both right speakers to see if any kind of image was formed by the left channels - but no, the applause was tied almost solidly to the rear speaker with no sense of space. But I will record the organ recitals (presuming they are included in the test broadcasts), and examine them at leisure. Paul -- Paul Hodges ___ 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)
At 21:07 17-03-14, Augustine Leudar wrote: I installed Chrome (having previously set a System Restore Point), You are such a drama queen :) I'm glad you got it working though - Ill have to try this out No. I have learned not to trust dwnloaded software, after some bad experiences! :-) A couple of inexplicable drop outs lasting several seconds during the Rachmaninov, but otherwise excellent sound. The trouble is that the RFH is not perhaps the best hall to provide exciting suround sound. But hearing the audience all around is a great bonus. The interval music is in stereo, which is a bit of a let down... Nasty click just then! Still not sure how to find out exactly what is going to be available during this period. Has anyone founda list? David ___ 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)
On 17 Mar 2014, at 21:46, Paul Hodges wrote: But as for the surround, well huh! The usual uncorrelated mish-mash in the rear channels, signifying nothing. Turning on the rear speakers did push the stereo image back from the front speakers just a bit. That's hardly a surprise when reading the BBC blog: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio3/posts/Radio-3-in-40 Our approach, to put it very simply, is to enhance the live stereo mix with some hall ambience in the rear loudspeakers. We hope you enjoy the experience. Kees de Visser ___ 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)
--On 17 March 2014 21:19 + Paul Hodges pwh-surro...@cassland.org wrote: the audience coughing in the gaps in the Brahms sounds from in front. Dvorak, of course - a senior moment while typing too fast. Paul -- Paul Hodges ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ From: Sampo Syreeni de...@iki.fi Date: 3/17/14 4:39 pm To: Surround Sound discussion group sursound@music.vt.edu On 2014-03-17, Eero Aro wrote: The DASH format was published by Sony and Studer in 1982: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Stationary_Head Weren't the first digital recorders actually adapted helical scan video ones? Because, I mean, those things are line accurate by necessity, so that once you have them time coded, you ought to be able to get sample accurate registration of the converted audio, when driven from house time. In many ways things like DAT and DASH might be trickier than that. The lurker decloaks The helical scan recorder to which you likely refer was the Sony PCM-F1. It was a two part device that had an audio processor (aka PCM adapter) connected to a portal Betamax transport. http://www.thevintageknob.org/sony-PCM-F1.html http://mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1981-sony-pcmf1/ I don't believe that most Betmax systems had the ability to lock to standard SMPTE time code. That didn't usually happen until one was faced with 3/4 Umatic VTRs. Even then it was only on the broadcast models (BVU series) not the lesser industrial machines of the VO Series. I think that the PCM-F1 was basically an adapter that presented something that the recorder could handle as a nominal video signal. As such it may have been used with various recorders, but it's most often associated with the SL-2000 model. That pair were cosmetically mated and made a nice portable (relatively) package. At around that time I was a teenage volunteer at a local cable channel that had Sony industrial Betamax infrastructure. We lusted after the PCM-F1. Michael -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140317/84d790cb/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
At 23:03 17-03-14, mgra...@mstvp.com wrote: Weren't the first digital recorders actually adapted helical scan video ones? Because, I mean, those things are line accurate by necessity, so that once you have them time coded, you ought to be able to get sample accurate registration of the converted audio, when driven from house time. In many ways things like DAT and DASH might be trickier than that. The lurker decloaks The helical scan recorder to which you likely refer was the Sony PCM-F1. It was a two part device that had an audio processor (aka PCM adapter) connected to a portal Betamax transport. http://www.thevintageknob.org/sony-PCM-F1.html http://mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1981-sony-pcmf1/ I don't believe that most Betmax systems had the ability to lock to standard SMPTE time code. That didn't usually happen until one was faced with 3/4 Umatic VTRs. Even then it was only on the broadcast models (BVU series) not the lesser industrial machines of the VO Series. I think that the PCM-F1 was basically an adapter that presented something that the recorder could handle as a nominal video signal. As such it may have been used with various recorders, but it's most often associated with the SL-2000 model. That pair were cosmetically mated and made a nice portable (relatively) package. Use of BVU Umatics ante-dated the PCM-F1. This could only be used with VHS recorders if an adjustment was made to avoid the replacement of bad lines with the previous line. In essence, DAT was the same as 16-bit PCM-F1 with the VCR and adapter in the same box, although it was 16-bit, rather than (14+2)-bit. David ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] BBC Concert tonight
Pace Paul, by the time it got to the third movement of the Dvorak, I was quite impressed. The Festival Hall is not over-endowed with ambiance, but when I turned the back up a bit, what I heard was akin to what I often hear in a concert hall when not too close to the stage, as opposed to when I am conducting. That is, a somewhat disembodied sound, with relatively little stereo information. I really had the impression of being there. The sound was not bad for mp3-quality, the dynamic range was quite satisfactory. I thought it sounded a little distorted at the end of the Rachmaninov, not overload distortion but digital grittiness. I was able to enjoy the music, which is what it is all about, isnt it? That said, the ability to stream four synchronised channels over the Internet is an impressive technological step forward. Much more polished than the BBC's stereo experiments with radio and tv channels together in the late 50s (for which one had to re-solder the wires on the radio Loudspeaker, if it proved to be out of phase!), or the two stereo radio channels used very late at night in the mid 60s for surround experiments... There is always room for improvement! David ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ From: David Pickett d...@fugato.com Date: 3/17/14 5:15 pm To: Surround Sound discussion group sursound@music.vt.edu At 23:03 17-03-14, mgra...@mstvp.com wrote: Weren't the first digital recorders actually adapted helical scan video ones? Because, I mean, those things are line accurate by necessity, so that once you have them time coded, you ought to be able to get sample accurate registration of the converted audio, when driven from house time. In many ways things like DAT and DASH might be trickier than that. The lurker decloaks The helical scan recorder to which you likely refer was the Sony PCM-F1. It was a two part device that had an audio processor (aka PCM adapter) connected to a portal Betamax transport. http://www.thevintageknob.org/sony-PCM-F1.html http://mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1981-sony-pcmf1/ I don't believe that most Betmax systems had the ability to lock to standard SMPTE time code. That didn't usually happen until one was faced with 3/4 Umatic VTRs. Even then it was only on the broadcast models (BVU series) not the lesser industrial machines of the VO Series. I think that the PCM-F1 was basically an adapter that presented something that the recorder could handle as a nominal video signal. As such it may have been used with various recorders, but it's most often associated with the SL-2000 model. That pair were cosmetically mated and made a nice portable (relatively) package. Use of BVU Umatics ante-dated the PCM-F1. This could only be used with VHS recorders if an adjustment was made to avoid the replacement of bad lines with the previous line. In essence, DAT was the same as 16-bit PCM-F1 with the VCR and adapter in the same box, although it was 16-bit, rather than (14+2)-bit. That's quite likely the case. At that time we had only Sony SL/SLO series and older EIAJ 1/2 open reel decks. We did edit using SLO series Betamax, but it was control track editing, nothing with reference time code. It was much later before I encountered anything that could be locked to proper SMPTE time code. Michael -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140317/752a05d5/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 04:04:43PM -0700, mgra...@mstvp.com wrote: We did edit using SLO series Betamax, but it was control track editing, nothing with reference time code. It was much later before I encountered anything that could be locked to proper SMPTE time code. I remember doing that. And if I remember correctly the editing was controlled by an Apple II. You had to cue the two machines (one playing, one recording) manually, and then the Apple would make both rewind the same number of frames, start them, and trigger record at +/- the right time. There was a good chance the edit failed, and if that happened you had to try again a few frames earlier. This ofter meant you had to redo the previous edit as well. We only used it to clean up live concert recordings, anything else would have been hell. I much preferred cutting and splicing tape... 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] Periphonic Irregular HO Ambisonics Decoder
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 05:06:32PM -0700, Aaron Heller wrote: On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.orgwrote: On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 06:05:11PM +0100, /dav/random wrote: The project is called IDHOA and the code is hosted here [1] under GPL . (after automatic conversion to python3) Traceback (most recent call last): File ./main.py, line 32, in module from constants import * File /data/build/idhoa/constants.py, line 106, in module WbinVec = fu.Wbinary() File /data/build/idhoa/functions.py, line 525, in Wbinary return thetaTest thetaThreshold TypeError: unorderable types: list() float() It runs fine in Python 2.7 with NLOpt 2.4.1 It took about 370 seconds to solve the example speaker array at 3rd-order. From a quick look at the usual performance metrics, the resulting coefficients look pretty good for a challenging array. It turns out that Python 2 allows to compare a list of floats to a float. But the result is probably not what the authors assumed it to be: Python 2.7.6 (default, Nov 26 2013, 12:52:49) [GCC 4.8.2] on linux2 Type help, copyright, credits or license for more information. A = [0.1, 0.2, 0.3] A 1000 True A -1000 True A 1000 False A -1000 False In other words, the compare that Python 3 refuses will always return True in Python 2. I suspect this is a bug. 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] BBC Streaming trial
Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:43:13 -0600, John Abram johnbab...@gmail.com wrote : I love this idea, and hope to tune in from Canada for some of the broadcasts. I'm also in Canada, and I can't listen to the concerts while at work... Are the 4 channels streams available after the concert? -- Marc ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Periphonic Irregular HO Ambisonics Decoder
Fons, here's my little code review: The bug is harmless, because the WbinVec variable is used only if WBIN is considered True, and WBIN is actually a constant set to 0. -- Marc Le Tue, 18 Mar 2014 01:01:25 +, Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.org a écrit : On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 05:06:32PM -0700, Aaron Heller wrote: On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.orgwrote: On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 06:05:11PM +0100, /dav/random wrote: The project is called IDHOA and the code is hosted here [1] under GPL . (after automatic conversion to python3) Traceback (most recent call last): File ./main.py, line 32, in module from constants import * File /data/build/idhoa/constants.py, line 106, in module WbinVec = fu.Wbinary() File /data/build/idhoa/functions.py, line 525, in Wbinary return thetaTest thetaThreshold TypeError: unorderable types: list() float() It runs fine in Python 2.7 with NLOpt 2.4.1 It took about 370 seconds to solve the example speaker array at 3rd-order. From a quick look at the usual performance metrics, the resulting coefficients look pretty good for a challenging array. It turns out that Python 2 allows to compare a list of floats to a float. But the result is probably not what the authors assumed it to be: Python 2.7.6 (default, Nov 26 2013, 12:52:49) [GCC 4.8.2] on linux2 Type help, copyright, credits or license for more information. A = [0.1, 0.2, 0.3] A 1000 True A -1000 True A 1000 False A -1000 False In other words, the compare that Python 3 refuses will always return True in Python 2. I suspect this is a bug. Ciao, ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
probably pointless, but I too can vouch for the reliabity of the pcm system. I did my first digital field recording in 1983, using PCM F1 and a portable VHS recorder. We have in the archives about 1000 VHS tapes with PCM. I bought a SPDIF adaptor for the F1 from Cricklewood Electronics about ten years ago, and slowly, bit by bit, these recordings are moving to hard disk. The only problems I had were with aging VHS recorders. Getting new old ones is getting difficult. I have gone through three studio DAT recorders. (I have also done some 4-channel recordings with the PCM F1 and the two FM audio tracks in SVHS, but not unfortunately any Ambisonic recordings.) Umashankar Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:43:09 -0700 From: hel...@ai.sri.com To: sursound@music.vt.edu Subject: Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ I used a PCM-F1/SL-2000 combo extensively in the 1980s; about 150 concert recordings total. Roughly half with my Soundfield MkIV used as a stereo mic (and a few in B-format to 4-track analog). I'd do very rudimentary 'pause-button editing' to take out long pauses; anything fancier was with analog tape and razor blades. I copied most to DAT in 1990 with a Sony TCD-D3 purchased in Akihabara before you could get them in the US. I now have a PCM-601ES/SLHF-450 betamax combo. All but a few of the earliest PCM-F1 tapes still play without error. Most of the DAT copies are unplayable. My earlier recordings made with a Nagra IV-S on Ampex 407 are playable if you bake them first. Since then, another 100 or so in B-format on DA-88, ADAT, HD24, or direct to laptop. Aaron (hel...@ai.sri.com) Menlo Park, CA US On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.orgwrote: On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 04:04:43PM -0700, mgra...@mstvp.com wrote: We did edit using SLO series Betamax, but it was control track editing, nothing with reference time code. It was much later before I encountered anything that could be locked to proper SMPTE time code. I remember doing that. And if I remember correctly the editing was controlled by an Apple II. You had to cue the two machines (one playing, one recording) manually, and then the Apple would make both rewind the same number of frames, start them, and trigger record at +/- the right time. There was a good chance the edit failed, and if that happened you had to try again a few frames earlier. This ofter meant you had to redo the previous edit as well. We only used it to clean up live concert recordings, anything else would have been hell. I much preferred cutting and splicing tape... 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 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140317/07720aae/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/20140318/03d65350/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
Martin Leese wrote: Stefan Schreiber wrote: ... Or distribute 3-4 channel UHJ, which is the stereo-compatible form of FOA. Of course this proposal didn't catch on, even if this should work. (I see this doesn't work for a CD distribution, but this is the only case by now. But if you chose physical distribution, you still could include the UHJ and/or B format version on some extra DVD. In this case you would not need 2-channel UHJ at all...) 3- or 4-channel UHJ is only stereo compatible if it plays on stereo systems. Exactly, this was the proposal. You hide the 3rd and 4th channel into a (max. 320 kbps) AAC stereo stream. (You can look back to the threads if you wish...) Again, in short form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding AAC supports inclusion of 48 full-bandwidth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_%28computing%29 (up to 96 kHz) audio channels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_channel in one stream plus 16 low frequency effects (LFE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-frequency_effects, limited to 120 Hz) channels, up to 16 coupling or dialog channels, and up to 16 data streams I think it would be possible to use the data streams as extension channels. (We speak of the T and Q channel in the UHJ format. These are not direct speaker channels, whereas L and R are. In this sense, I believe it is not just a kind of hack but the appropiate way to combine two audio and two data extension channels. A UHJ decoder brings LRS(T) back into WXY(Z) form.) Compare to AVC-MVC (for example): The 3D data stream (second video stream) is embedded into some plain AVC video stream, which can be read and decoded by a conventional AVC decoder... The 2nd (and more general) suggestion or option was to use certain properties of the (MP4) container format, to add 2 or more further audio extension channels to the L/R channels, L/R and the audio extensions being even more separated. (In different container areas. In case of doubt, don't forget that parallel stereo and 5.1 audio streams within the same video file are presented about in the same way. In our case, some 3/4 channel UHJ decoder would look for the T/(Q) channels, and convert LRT(Q) to B format.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP4 MPEG-4 Part 14 or MP4 is a digital multimedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia format most commonly used to store video http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_video and audio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_audio, but can also be used to store other data such as subtitles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtitles and still images.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP4#cite_note-1 Like most modern container formats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_format_%28digital%29, it allows streaming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_media over the Internet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet. The only official filename extension http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filename_extension for MPEG-4 Part 14 files is .mp4, but many have other extensions, most commonly .m4a and .m4p. M4A (audio only) is often compressed using AAC encoding (lossy), but can also be in Apple Lossless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless format. (You also could use other container formats to bundle AAC stereo files and extensions, like Ogg etc.) Note that I have proposed some potential extension of UHJ to higher (Ambisonics) orders, when I proposed a (simplistic...) Ambisonics 1st/3rd order format I have called sound field format. (Proposing also some form of HOA which would be backward-compatible to stereo. In this case I spoke of 3h and 3h1p .AMB files, brought into some LRTQ + extension form. My question if you could not just code this into LRTQ - UV PQ - the latter 4 channels from the B format hierarchy - has not been answered on this list. ;-) - This idea came basically from Jörn Nettingsmeier, who suggested that the stereo downmix from the .AMB components could be derived just from the 1st order components, with few or no obvious disadvantages.) 4-channel UHJ, for example, is most likely to be interpreted as quad, and how this is mixed down to stereo depends on the system, I think. You might hear only the two front channels (which is what you want), or the rear channels might be mixed into the front (producing a mishmash). I did not propose to introduce some 4-channel audio format, but an extended two-channel format. (= extended stereo) To implement this idea, I, you, BBC or anybody else would need the respective and full standard definitions, which I currently don't have. (Secondly, I didn't see any specific demand here. Too few reactions, and then I am certainly not too bored. ) Perhaps with DVD-V and/or DVD-A there is a way of using metadata to specify the downmix to stereo (I don't know whether this is possible, and would be interested to hear). Speaking of 5.1 (possible) or of quad (I think not possible.)? I don't think that
Re: [Sursound] Periphonic Irregular HO Ambisonics Decoder
When I run it in Python 2.7, thetaTest is an array, not a list as in Fons' example, so the comparison works as expected and produces a boolean array array([.1, .2, .3, .4]) .25 array([False, False, True, True], dtype=bool) and boolean types behave like the constants 0 and 1 under multiplication array([1,2,3,4]) * (array([.1, .2, .3, .4]) .25) array([0, 0, 3, 4]) I don't know much about Python 3. Aaron On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Marc Lavallée m...@hacklava.net wrote: Fons, here's my little code review: The bug is harmless, because the WbinVec variable is used only if WBIN is considered True, and WBIN is actually a constant set to 0. -- Marc Le Tue, 18 Mar 2014 01:01:25 +, Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.org a écrit : On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 05:06:32PM -0700, Aaron Heller wrote: On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.orgwrote: On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 06:05:11PM +0100, /dav/random wrote: The project is called IDHOA and the code is hosted here [1] under GPL . (after automatic conversion to python3) Traceback (most recent call last): File ./main.py, line 32, in module from constants import * File /data/build/idhoa/constants.py, line 106, in module WbinVec = fu.Wbinary() File /data/build/idhoa/functions.py, line 525, in Wbinary return thetaTest thetaThreshold TypeError: unorderable types: list() float() It runs fine in Python 2.7 with NLOpt 2.4.1 It took about 370 seconds to solve the example speaker array at 3rd-order. From a quick look at the usual performance metrics, the resulting coefficients look pretty good for a challenging array. It turns out that Python 2 allows to compare a list of floats to a float. But the result is probably not what the authors assumed it to be: Python 2.7.6 (default, Nov 26 2013, 12:52:49) [GCC 4.8.2] on linux2 Type help, copyright, credits or license for more information. A = [0.1, 0.2, 0.3] A 1000 True A -1000 True A 1000 False A -1000 False In other words, the compare that Python 3 refuses will always return True in Python 2. I suspect this is a bug. Ciao, ___ 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/20140317/9ab9562c/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
