[Sursound] Blackmagic Fairlight

[Gary Gallagher]

Buried in the release notes of the the latest DaVinci Resolve beta release
is mention of a 3d audio panner for working with "advanced surround formats
such as Auro 3d and NHK 22.2 (more information about specific support for
these and other formats will come later)." It doesn't appear to be
implemented in the beta yet. Unfortunately it doesn't mention Ambisonics,
but it might be an option for those who output to 22.2. Interestingly the
reverb has height/length/width options in it's setup panel - not sure
whether that flows through into the 3d mix.

Gary
-- 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.

Re: [Sursound] Curious

[Augustine Leudar]

Tx Fons make sense

On 14 April 2018 at 13:46, Fons Adriaensen  wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 01:20:17PM +0100, Augustine Leudar wrote:
> > I don't know if anyone else will get the same effect - but playing this
> > album on my laptop speakers :
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8wUKUBAXMk
> >
> > The sound seems to be hovering about several inches to the left of my
> > laptop - whereas other albums arent having this effect (same
> > laptop/position) . Must be some kind of... phase thing perhaps, or its an
> > interaction with my own HRTF, anyway curious if anyone else is getting
> the
> > same effect and if so what theories you might have as to its cause
> > Its not psychedelias finest moment but still.
>
> It's just mono with one channel inverted.
>
> Ciao,
>
> --
> FA
>
>
> ___
> 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.
>



-- 
Dr. Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
www.magikdoor.net
+44(0)7719456112
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180414/b8cc235d/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] Steinberg and Multichannel files

[David Pickett]

I can handle those. :)

At 20:08 14-04-18, Jack Reynolds wrote:
>
>RF64 is also an option for 64bit WAV files via libsndfile.
>I am attempting to add BW64 to the library for ADM purposes, but
>it’s taking a while.
>
>___
>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] Steinberg and Multichannel files

[Jack Reynolds]

RF64 is also an option for 64bit WAV files via libsndfile. 
I am attempting to add BW64 to the library for ADM purposes, but it’s taking a 
while. 
J
___
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] Steinberg and Multichannel files

[Marc Lavallée]

Le 2018-04-14 à 01:22 PM, David Pickett a écrit :



At 17:51 14-04-18, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 05:42:11PM +0200, David Pickett wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, one of the drawbacks of multichannel wavfiles for HOA 
is their
>> large size for any reasonable length of musical composition. At 
48kHz, a
>> 9-channel 2nd order file takes c. 74MB for 1 minute of music. 
Alternatively,
>> 1GB lasts about 13.5 minutes in 2nd order or about 30.4 mins in 1st 
order.

>
>This is one of the reasons why the CAF file format was chosen for Ambix.
>It doesn't have the 32-bit file size limit of most other formats (all
>size fields are 64-bit).

Doesnt this limit one to the Apple environment?

David


Hi David.

Short answer: no.

More info (and a sample file) here:
http://samplephotovideo.com/2015/12/download-caf-apple-core-audio-format-caf/

Any software using libsndfile (ex: sox, ffmpeg) can read (and possibly 
write) CAF files:

http://www.mega-nerd.com/libsndfile/

--
Marc
___
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] Steinberg and Multichannel files

[David Pickett]

At 17:51 14-04-18, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 05:42:11PM +0200, David Pickett wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, one of the drawbacks of multichannel wavfiles for 
HOA is their

>> large size for any reasonable length of musical composition. At 48kHz, a
>> 9-channel 2nd order file takes c. 74MB for 1 minute of music. 
Alternatively,

>> 1GB lasts about 13.5 minutes in 2nd order or about 30.4 mins in 1st order.
>
>This is one of the reasons why the CAF file format was chosen for Ambix.
>It doesn't have the 32-bit file size limit of most other formats (all
>size fields are 64-bit).

Doesnt this limit one to the Apple environment?

David  


___
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] Ambix to FuMa conversion

[Andres Pérez López]

Dear David,

regarding Ambisonics normalization ("level differences"), you might find 
interesting the following article by T. Carpentier: "Normalization 
Schemes in Ambisonic: Does it Matter? 
<http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18645>".


Best,

Andrés



El 14/04/18 a las 10:17, David Pickett escribió:
In 
https://www.waves.com/ambisonics-explained-guide-for-sound-engineers 
it says:


"...there are two conventions within the Ambisonics B-format standard: 
AmbiX and FuMa. They are quite similar, but not interchangeable: they 
differ by the sequence in which the four channels are arranged..."


Could someone be so kind as to tell me what the exact sequence and 
level differences are, so that I can convert first and second order 
B-format files between the two standards? (I am working with separate 
B-format wavfiles -- not multichannel wavfiles -- and as far as I can 
find there are no plugins for this situation.)


Many thanks in advance!

David


___
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.




-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180414/5cadd91c/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] Ambix to FuMa conversion

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 05:28:57PM +0200, David Pickett wrote:

> Thanks, Fons. I was hoping it was something as simple as this. I failed to
> find anything on the internet that expresses the relationships so simply.
> Did I actually miss a page?

Not one I know of. Some of my programs (e.g. Ambdec) do the conversion
when required, so I just took these gain figures from my source code.

Ciao,

-- 
FA


___
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] Steinberg and Multichannel files

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 05:42:11PM +0200, David Pickett wrote:

> Incidentally, one of the drawbacks of multichannel wavfiles for HOA is their
> large size for any reasonable length of musical composition. At 48kHz, a
> 9-channel 2nd order file takes c. 74MB for 1 minute of music. Alternatively,
> 1GB lasts about 13.5 minutes in 2nd order or about 30.4 mins in 1st order.

This is one of the reasons why the CAF file format was chosen for Ambix. 
It doesn't have the 32-bit file size limit of most other formats (all
size fields are 64-bit).

Ciao,

-- 
FA

___
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] Ambix to FuMa conversion

[David Pickett]

Thanks, Fons. I was hoping it was something as simple as this. I 
failed to find anything on the internet that expresses the 
relationships so simply. Did I actually miss a page?


David

At 12:55 14-04-18, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Jack Reynolds wrote:
>
>> FuMa is WXYZ and ambiX is WYZX with SN3D normalisation.
>> I forget the gains off the top of my head, but will have
>> a look and get back if no one else has chipped in.
>
>
>Convert FuMa to Ambix
>-
>
>ACN-0  =  1.4142 * W(+3.01 dB)
>ACN-1  =  Y
>ACN-2  =  Z
>ACN-3  =  X
>--
>ACN-4  =  0.8660 * V   (-1.25 dB)
>ACN-5  =  0.8660 * T
>ACN-6  =  R
>ACN-7  =  0.8660 * S
>ACN-8  =  0.8660 * U
>--
>ACN-9  =  0.7906 * Q   (-2.04 dB)
>ACN-10 =  0.7454 * O   (-2.55 dB)
>ACN-11 =  0.8433 * M   (-1.48 dB)
>ACN-12 =  K
>ACN-13 =  0.8433 * L
>ACN-14 =  0.7454 * N
>ACN-15 =  0.7906 * P
>
>Ambix files should use CAF (Apple's Core Audio Format),
>but in practice WAVEX is used as well.
>
>
>Convert Ambix to Fuma
>-
>
>W = 0.7071 * ACN-0 (-3.01 dB)
>X = ACN-3
>Y = ACN-1
>Z = ACN-2
>-
>R = ACN-6
>S = 1.1547 * ACN-7 (+1.25 dB)
>T = 1.1547 * ACN-5
>U = 1.1547 * ACN-8
>V = 1.1547 * ACN-4
>-
>K = ACN-12
>L = 1.1859 * ACN-13(+1.48 dB)
>M = 1.1859 * ACN-11
>N = 1.3416 * ACN-14(+2.55 dB)
>O = 1.3416 * ACN-10
>P = 1.2649 * ACN-15(+2.04 dB)
>Q = 1.2649 * ACN-9
>
>
>Ciao,
>
>--
>FA
>___
>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] Steinberg and Multichannel files

[David Pickett]

I have never used Steinberg's Wavelab for anything. :) But it sounds 
like it has similar drawbacks to the otherwise excellent Samplitude, 
which I DO use.


Incidentally, one of the drawbacks of multichannel wavfiles for HOA 
is their large size for any reasonable length of musical composition. 
At 48kHz, a 9-channel 2nd order file takes c. 74MB for 1 minute of 
music. Alternatively, 1GB lasts about 13.5 minutes in 2nd order or 
about 30.4 mins in 1st order.


David

At 12:42 14-04-18, Paul Hodges wrote:
>--On 14 April 2018 10:17 +0200 David Pickett  wrote:
>
>> (I am working with separate B-format wavfiles -- not multichannel
>> wavfiles -- and as far as I can find there are no plugins for this
>> situation.)
>
>There are many reasons not to use Steinberg's WaveLab for ambisonics
>(though it works fine for me, doing just 1st order), but it is standard
>practice in WaveLab to have a montage with a file per channel, writing
>four separate files for output, but having a four-channel plugin in the
>master section.  It's how I do /all/ my ambisonic work at present! (it
>can also write 4-channel files for distribution).
>
>Paul
>
>--
>Paul Hodges
>
>___
>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] Curious

[Marc Lavallée]

Le 2018-04-14 à 08:46 AM, Fons Adriaensen a écrit :


On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 01:20:17PM +0100, Augustine Leudar wrote:

I don't know if anyone else will get the same effect - but playing this
album on my laptop speakers :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8wUKUBAXMk

The sound seems to be hovering about several inches to the left of my
laptop - whereas other albums arent having this effect (same
laptop/position) . Must be some kind of... phase thing perhaps, or its an
interaction with my own HRTF, anyway curious if anyone else is getting the
same effect and if so what theories you might have as to its cause
Its not psychedelias finest moment but still.

It's just mono with one channel inverted.

Ciao,

Confirmed!
See the attached screenshot of Audacity showing the start of the album.
Mixing to mono silence the whole album, so one channel was inverted to 
create the other.

Blame the youtube user.
I found mp3s of some songs of the album and they are "properly" mastered 
in stereo.

--
Marc
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: psychedelic_inverted_mono.png
Type: image/png
Size: 14149 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180414/e581c112/attachment.png>
___
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] Curious

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 01:20:17PM +0100, Augustine Leudar wrote:
> I don't know if anyone else will get the same effect - but playing this
> album on my laptop speakers :
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8wUKUBAXMk
> 
> The sound seems to be hovering about several inches to the left of my
> laptop - whereas other albums arent having this effect (same
> laptop/position) . Must be some kind of... phase thing perhaps, or its an
> interaction with my own HRTF, anyway curious if anyone else is getting the
> same effect and if so what theories you might have as to its cause
> Its not psychedelias finest moment but still.

It's just mono with one channel inverted.

Ciao,

-- 
FA


___
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] Curious

[Augustine Leudar]

I don't know if anyone else will get the same effect - but playing this
album on my laptop speakers :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8wUKUBAXMk

The sound seems to be hovering about several inches to the left of my
laptop - whereas other albums arent having this effect (same
laptop/position) . Must be some kind of... phase thing perhaps, or its an
interaction with my own HRTF, anyway curious if anyone else is getting the
same effect and if so what theories you might have as to its cause
Its not psychedelias finest moment but still.



-- 
Dr. Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
www.magikdoor.net
+44(0)7719456112
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180414/47e95d30/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] Rode Soundfield NT-SF1

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 11:49:07AM +0100, Chris Woolf wrote:

> I'd be very interested to know the argument behind that.
> 
> Although bass response is affected by size in speakers I don't know of any
> reason for that in microphones.

This has little to do with response, and all with directivity.

It's perfectly possible to have a tiny mic with excellent bass
response. But it's quite difficult to maintain directivity
as size goes down. Also self-noise will be worse for small
capsules - they just get less acoustic energy.

If the capsules don't provide directivity, then it has to
be obtained by amplifying the differences between capsule
outputs. The required gain (for first order) is proportional
to the ratio wavelenght / capsule distance, so it will be
higher as frequency and/or mic size go down.
There are practical limits to what can be done this way,
and that more or less imposes a minimum practical size.

Ciao,

-- 
FA


___
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] Ambix to FuMa conversion

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Jack Reynolds wrote:

> FuMa is WXYZ and ambiX is WYZX with SN3D normalisation. 
> I forget the gains off the top of my head, but will have
> a look and get back if no one else has chipped in. 


Convert FuMa to Ambix
-

ACN-0  =  1.4142 * W(+3.01 dB)
ACN-1  =  Y
ACN-2  =  Z
ACN-3  =  X
--
ACN-4  =  0.8660 * V   (-1.25 dB)
ACN-5  =  0.8660 * T
ACN-6  =  R
ACN-7  =  0.8660 * S
ACN-8  =  0.8660 * U
--
ACN-9  =  0.7906 * Q   (-2.04 dB)  
ACN-10 =  0.7454 * O   (-2.55 dB)
ACN-11 =  0.8433 * M   (-1.48 dB)
ACN-12 =  K
ACN-13 =  0.8433 * L
ACN-14 =  0.7454 * N 
ACN-15 =  0.7906 * P

Ambix files should use CAF (Apple's Core Audio Format),
but in practice WAVEX is used as well.


Convert Ambix to Fuma
-

W = 0.7071 * ACN-0 (-3.01 dB)
X = ACN-3
Y = ACN-1
Z = ACN-2
-
R = ACN-6
S = 1.1547 * ACN-7 (+1.25 dB)
T = 1.1547 * ACN-5
U = 1.1547 * ACN-8
V = 1.1547 * ACN-4
-
K = ACN-12
L = 1.1859 * ACN-13(+1.48 dB)
M = 1.1859 * ACN-11   
N = 1.3416 * ACN-14(+2.55 dB)
O = 1.3416 * ACN-10
P = 1.2649 * ACN-15(+2.04 dB)
Q = 1.2649 * ACN-9


Ciao,

-- 
FA
___
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] Rode Soundfield NT-SF1

[Chris Woolf]

I'd be very interested to know the argument behind that.

Although bass response is affected by size in speakers I don't know of 
any reason for that in microphones.


Chris Woolf


On 13/04/2018 18:58, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:

On 04/13/2018 10:23 AM, Jack Reynolds wrote:

That’s what I thought.
I have also heard that a radius smaller than 15mm or so has 
detrimental effects on the low end


The is probably related to the size of the capsules. As you bring the 
radius down you have to use smaller capsules and the low frequency 
response will suffer (for example, I can see a big difference in low 
end response between microphones I have built using 10mm capsules - 
array radius of 9.2mm - vs. 14mm capsules - array radius 11mm, but 
that is because of the capsules themselves).


-- Fernando

___
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.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
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] Ambix to FuMa conversion

[Paul Hodges]

--On 14 April 2018 10:17 +0200 David Pickett  wrote:

> (I am working with separate B-format wavfiles -- not multichannel
> wavfiles -- and as far as I can find there are no plugins for this
> situation.)

There are many reasons not to use Steinberg's WaveLab for ambisonics
(though it works fine for me, doing just 1st order), but it is standard
practice in WaveLab to have a montage with a file per channel, writing
four separate files for output, but having a four-channel plugin in the
master section.  It's how I do /all/ my ambisonic work at present! (it
can also write 4-channel files for distribution).

Paul

-- 
Paul Hodges

___
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] Ambix to FuMa conversion

[Jack Reynolds]

FuMa is WXYZ and ambiX is WYZX with SN3D normalisation. 
I forget the gains off the top of my head, but will have a look and get back if 
no one else has chipped in. 
J
___
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] Ambix to FuMa conversion

[David Pickett]

In 
https://www.waves.com/ambisonics-explained-guide-for-sound-engineers it says:


"...there are two conventions within the Ambisonics B-format 
standard: AmbiX and FuMa. They are quite similar, but not 
interchangeable: they differ by the sequence in which the four 
channels are arranged..."


Could someone be so kind as to tell me what the exact sequence and 
level differences are, so that I can convert first and second order 
B-format files between the two standards? (I am working with separate 
B-format wavfiles -- not multichannel wavfiles -- and as far as I can 
find there are no plugins for this situation.)


Many thanks in advance!

David


___
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.