Re: [Sursound] Blue Ripple Sound & SN3D?

2016-08-11 Thread Dave Malham 
Agreed on all counts.

   Dave

On 11 August 2016 at 20:17, Fons Adriaensen  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:46:30PM +0100, Dave Malham wrote:
>
> > Awww, come on, a bit of mental exercise is good for the soul! :-) :-)
>
> Agree with that. But having done that sort of mental exercise more
> than once, IMHO the only good reason to inflict it on others is to
> show that it's not very productive. BTW, the exercise was 3rd order
> X-axis rotation. Of course, having a way to compute the N3D solution,
> all it takes is to multiply the matrix left and right with the gain
> factors and permutations. But there are lots of ways to get that
> wrong.
>
> OTOH, the conversion between N3D and SN3D that Richard worries about
> is simple enough, it's just one easily computed gain factor per degree.
>
> 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 - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



-- 

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/20160811/4771b834/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Blue Ripple Sound & SN3D?

2016-08-11 Thread Fons Adriaensen 
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:46:02AM +0100, Richard Furse wrote:

> What I'm really hoping doesn't happen is that we change convention
> and then some amazing new toy emerges using something different...

Consider it the other way round: _your_ amazing toys will have
their influence on others. 

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 - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Blue Ripple Sound & SN3D?

2016-08-11 Thread Fons Adriaensen 
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:46:30PM +0100, Dave Malham wrote:

> Awww, come on, a bit of mental exercise is good for the soul! :-) :-)

Agree with that. But having done that sort of mental exercise more
than once, IMHO the only good reason to inflict it on others is to
show that it's not very productive. BTW, the exercise was 3rd order
X-axis rotation. Of course, having a way to compute the N3D solution,
all it takes is to multiply the matrix left and right with the gain
factors and permutations. But there are lots of ways to get that
wrong. 

OTOH, the conversion between N3D and SN3D that Richard worries about
is simple enough, it's just one easily computed gain factor per degree.

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 - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Merging impulse responces, is it workable?

2016-08-11 Thread Richard Furse 
Yup, all good advice.

Not a direct answer to the question, but a possibly relevant new convolution
reverb approach:
http://www.blueripplesound.com/story/new-toa-shaped-convolution-reverb

Depending on how it's configured it can be a bit of a CPU hog, but worth it
IMHO...

--Richard

> -Original Message-
> From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of
> Politis Archontis
> Sent: 11 August 2016 08:51
> To: Surround Sound discussion group
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Merging impulse responces, is it workable?
> 
> Hi Bo-Erik,
> 
> you should first convolve each sound source sample with its respective B-
> format RIR, then sum the resulting B-format streams. Do not merge the RIRs
> before, it won't give you the result you are looking for.
> 
> What you can do however is, if you have an indication of mixing time of
the
> room or by trial and error, split the B-format RIRs into early parts, and
late
> reverberation. As the late reverb tail will most likely not vary much with
> position, you can keep only one set of them. Then you should still
convolve
> each source with the respective early part, but for the late part you can
sum
> the source signals first and convolve them with the single late reverb
RIR,
> assuming that they're going through the same "diffuse" reverberation. You
> save some computing this way with shorter convolutions. If that is not the
> issue though, you can go with the full RIRs which will I'd assume will
give you
> the give the most natural impression.
> 
> Best regards,
> Archontis
> 
> On Aug 11, 2016, at 2:21 AM, Bo-Erik Sandholm 
>  wrote:
> 
> > I want to introduce the impulse responce of a real room to a foa or toa
> > file with panned mono sources in fixed positions.
> > I have a few questions about how to create the best result in the
simplest
> > way.
> >
> > If I have the recorded bformat impulse responces of several sources
placed
> > in the same positions where the panned sources will be located.
> >
> > Questions on how to get most natural result:
> >
> > Should each positioned sound source be convolved with positional
specific
> > mono room impulse responce or a positional specific bformat RIR?
> >
> > Can all separately measured bformat positional RIRs be merged as one
> > bformat RIR in any way, if so how?
> >
> > Can the convolving be done in bformat after mixing to a single bformat
file
> > or should it be done for each before mixing to bformat?
> > Should that be done with mono or bformat RIR.
> >
> > How many convoling instances would be best to use in a setup?
> >
> > Bo-Erik Sandholm
> > Stockholm
> > -- next part --
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
>  11/4e8d149d/attachment.html>
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Blue Ripple Sound & SN3D?

2016-08-11 Thread Richard Furse 
I was about to say that this is the sort of thing you get right once and
then never need to touch, but actually I did see a plugin out in the wild
recently with the conversion wrong!

On SN3D, my main worries are (a) losing compatibility with existing
material/projects/kit and (b) it's SN3D, not N3D (which we HAD been
considering and is used in MPEG-H). BUT - those are definitely very
manageable issues and well worth it if there's a strong enough consensus
that modern tools are all heading that way! What I'm really hoping doesn't
happen is that we change convention and then some amazing new toy emerges
using something different...

Thanks,

--Richard


> -Original Message-
> From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of
> Dave Malham
> Sent: 10 August 2016 22:47
> To: Surround Sound discussion group
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Blue Ripple Sound & SN3D?
> 
> Awww, come on, a bit of mental exercise is good for the soul! :-) :-)
> 
> Well, that said, (and this maybe a shock to those that know me) I'm
> gradually moving towards the view that FuMa may have had its day. The only
> remaining reason really is compatibility with with earlier materiel and
> Soundfield mics and that can be dealt with conversion code, so long as
> everything is properly documented.
> 
> Dave
> 
> On 10 August 2016 at 22:27, Fons Adriaensen  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:53:33AM +0100, Richard Furse wrote:
> >
> > > Blue Ripple Sound are wondering about changing their TOA plugins from
> > FuMa
> > > to SN3D (ACN), see http://www.blueripplesound.
> > com/story/consultation-sn3d.
> > > Does anyone have strong feelings on this?
> >
> > Just do it.
> >
> > During the past months I've been explaining Ambisonics to some
> > people who are going to work on HOA based applications. All of
> > them are something like 20 years younger than FOA, and when they
> > think about Ambisonics theory that means arbitrary order. To them,
> > using anything but N3D, SN3D and ACN seems like a form of masochism.
> > Maybe because I made them work out X-axis rotation with FuMa in and
> > out as an exercise. None of them got it right.
> >
> > 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 - unsubscribe here,
> > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 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:
>  10/caba23bc/attachment.html>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Blue Ripple Sound & SN3D?

2016-08-11 Thread Steven Boardman 
+1 from me too. 

One standard makes it easier for everyone, Less confusing and less time 
consuming.
How many conversions does one has to do, just to use different plugins in the 
same chain?
I’ve been caught out a few times when checking rigs, only to realise the 
content has a different channel order…
Obviously legacy recordings are FuMa, but it will be easier to deal with them, 
by saying, “If it’s old, convert to SN3D-ACN…”

Steve



On 11 Aug 2016, at 08:53, Politis Archontis  wrote:

> +1 for (S)N3D / ACN. To us newbies, as Fons mentioned :-), FuMa makes sense 
> only for 1st-order, and then it is trivial to convert to the above if needed.
> 
> Best,
> Archontis
> 
> On Aug 10, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Richard Furse  wrote:
> 
>> Hi there!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Blue Ripple Sound are wondering about changing their TOA plugins from FuMa
>> to SN3D (ACN), see http://www.blueripplesound.com/story/consultation-sn3d.
>> Does anyone have strong feelings on this?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Opinions, rants and raves appreciated, but I'd like to avoid kicking off
>> another format debate on this list - perhaps any interested folk could
>> respond using the email link on the page?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Many thanks,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --Richard
>> 
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: 
>> 
>> ___
>> Sursound mailing list
>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
>> account or options, view archives and so on.
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
> account or options, view archives and so on.

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Blue Ripple Sound & SN3D?

2016-08-11 Thread Politis Archontis 
+1 for (S)N3D / ACN. To us newbies, as Fons mentioned :-), FuMa makes sense 
only for 1st-order, and then it is trivial to convert to the above if needed.

Best,
Archontis

On Aug 10, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Richard Furse  wrote:

> Hi there!
> 
> 
> 
> Blue Ripple Sound are wondering about changing their TOA plugins from FuMa
> to SN3D (ACN), see http://www.blueripplesound.com/story/consultation-sn3d.
> Does anyone have strong feelings on this?
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions, rants and raves appreciated, but I'd like to avoid kicking off
> another format debate on this list - perhaps any interested folk could
> respond using the email link on the page?
> 
> 
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> --Richard
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
> account or options, view archives and so on.

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Merging impulse responces, is it workable?

2016-08-11 Thread Politis Archontis 
Hi Bo-Erik,

you should first convolve each sound source sample with its respective B-format 
RIR, then sum the resulting B-format streams. Do not merge the RIRs before, it 
won't give you the result you are looking for.

What you can do however is, if you have an indication of mixing time of the 
room or by trial and error, split the B-format RIRs into early parts, and late 
reverberation. As the late reverb tail will most likely not vary much with 
position, you can keep only one set of them. Then you should still convolve 
each source with the respective early part, but for the late part you can sum 
the source signals first and convolve them with the single late reverb RIR, 
assuming that they're going through the same "diffuse" reverberation. You save 
some computing this way with shorter convolutions. If that is not the issue 
though, you can go with the full RIRs which will I'd assume will give you the 
give the most natural impression.

Best regards,
Archontis

On Aug 11, 2016, at 2:21 AM, Bo-Erik Sandholm 
 wrote:

> I want to introduce the impulse responce of a real room to a foa or toa
> file with panned mono sources in fixed positions.
> I have a few questions about how to create the best result in the simplest
> way.
> 
> If I have the recorded bformat impulse responces of several sources placed
> in the same positions where the panned sources will be located.
> 
> Questions on how to get most natural result:
> 
> Should each positioned sound source be convolved with positional specific
> mono room impulse responce or a positional specific bformat RIR?
> 
> Can all separately measured bformat positional RIRs be merged as one
> bformat RIR in any way, if so how?
> 
> Can the convolving be done in bformat after mixing to a single bformat file
> or should it be done for each before mixing to bformat?
> Should that be done with mono or bformat RIR.
> 
> How many convoling instances would be best to use in a setup?
> 
> Bo-Erik Sandholm
> Stockholm
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160811/4e8d149d/attachment.html>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
> account or options, view archives and so on.

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.