Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)
At 22:52 29-05-19, you wrote: Distribution to speakers using UDP multicast of a multichannel stream could possibly make the only time difference between channels be eventual receiver buffering. Just speculation... Bo-Erik But the question is whether it would be a fixed value and predictable, and thus correctable. 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] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)
Distribution to speakers using UDP multicast of a multichannel stream could possibly make the only time difference between channels be eventual receiver buffering. Just speculation... Bo-Erik Den ons 29 maj 2019 22:32Paul Hodges skrev: > --On 29 May 2019 19:53 + "mgraves mstvp.com" > wrote: > > > But for a signal sent by such a link, latency hardly matters if the > > signal is to be mixed later with other microphones (perhaps the > > ambisonic mic) that are fed directly, as the tracks can easily be > > aligned in the DAW! > > This discussion started with loudspeakers, though. My concern with > wi-fi latency when multiple links are required to multiple speakers > would be that the latency will not be consistent between channels. > Although buffering will keep the data flow going, there is no way to > ensure that the buffering in each data stream is near-enough the same > as required for phase accuracy. > > 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. > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20190529/9cb58a90/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] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)
--On 29 May 2019 19:53 + "mgraves mstvp.com" wrote: > But for a signal sent by such a link, latency hardly matters if the > signal is to be mixed later with other microphones (perhaps the > ambisonic mic) that are fed directly, as the tracks can easily be > aligned in the DAW! This discussion started with loudspeakers, though. My concern with wi-fi latency when multiple links are required to multiple speakers would be that the latency will not be consistent between channels. Although buffering will keep the data flow going, there is no way to ensure that the buffering in each data stream is near-enough the same as required for phase accuracy. 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] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)
Yes, my concern is for live/real-time situations. No post-prod. Michael Graves mgra...@mstvp.com http://www.mgraves.org o(713) 861-4005 c(713) 201-1262 sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com skype mjgraves -Original Message- From: Sursound On Behalf Of David Pickett Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 2:22 PM To: Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.) At 17:41 29-05-19, you wrote: >Most of what I think of as the "local signal processing" is quite >speedy. Packetization delay is never less than 20 ms. Transmission >delay dependent upon the network and distance. Poorly designed network >elements lead to buffer bloat, which increases latency dramatically. But for a signal sent by such a link, latency hardly matters if the signal is to be mixed later with other microphones (perhaps the ambisonic mic) that are fed directly, as the tracks can easily be aligned in the DAW! 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. ___ 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] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)
At 17:41 29-05-19, you wrote: Most of what I think of as the "local signal processing" is quite speedy. Packetization delay is never less than 20 ms. Transmission delay dependent upon the network and distance. Poorly designed network elements lead to buffer bloat, which increases latency dramatically. But for a signal sent by such a link, latency hardly matters if the signal is to be mixed later with other microphones (perhaps the ambisonic mic) that are fed directly, as the tracks can easily be aligned in the DAW! 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] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)
Dante/AVB have a latency under 5 ms, transporting many channels, even @96 kHz. It can be done. Just not wireless. The major problem with wireless lays in the re-authentication that occurs after a preset period. That takes up to several hundred millisecs. Not a problem for a download, or viewing a webpage. Big problem for low-latency streaming. Running without any encryption makes it less, but then you also need a good S/R on the wireless side to stop it from having other problems, like switching channels, or speed. Apple's solution for AirPlay is having a big buffer in their devices. I believe the old Airport Express has 1 to 4 MB allocated for streaming buffer, resulting in seconds of latency. Not a problem for playback. BT is even far worse, and the range is too limited. I've tried most of the possibilities, with Apple devices, Raspberry Pi and ESP8266. It works. It's just not reliable. I've used it for a little while, for recording in forests, where there's no neighbouring wifi to be found. I've reverted back to VHF wireless mics. Less of a hassle. Just my 2 eurocents. Wim Op wo 29 mei 2019 om 17:41 schreef mgraves mstvp.com : > Agreed. Most of what I think of as the "local signal processing" is quite > speedy. Packetization delay is never less than 20 ms. Transmission delay > dependent upon the network and distance. Poorly designed network elements > lead to buffer bloat, which increases latency dramatically. > > The very latest DECT chipsets are able to deliver a 12.5 kHz audio path > from a microphone. Not sure how that's done. DECT is quite opaque. It > remains the most common approach to a real-time wireless link built > specifically for streaming audio. > > Michael Graves > mgra...@mstvp.com > http://www.mgraves.org > o(713) 861-4005 > c(713) 201-1262 > sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com > skype mjgraves > > -Original Message- > From: Sursound On Behalf Of Chris Woolf > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 10:29 AM > To: sursound@music.vt.edu > Subject: Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar > marketing B.S.) > > > On 28/05/2019 19:47, Marc Lavallée wrote: > > Le 28/05/2019 à 13:48, mgraves mstvp.com a écrit : > > > > > > The latency is not only caused by the packetization; the transmission > > chain looks like: > > > > (microphone -> ADC -> encoding -> BT transmission) -> (BT reception -> > > decoding) -> (SIP + encoding -> IP transmission) -> (IP reception -> > > SIP + decoding) -> (DAC -> loudspeaker) > > > True enough, but the ADC, encoding, decoding and DAC elements can be > reduced to <3ms (as happens with some of the best recent digital radio > mics), which does indeed indicate that the intermediate stages are the ones > that really do the harm. > > A while back I had to make a short range speech reinforcer for a friend > with a damaged larynx. It had to use an analogue pathway because no > (affordable at the time) digital path had anything like low enough latency > to permit normal, unstilted conversation. A target figure ~has~ to be <10ms > to avoid disturbing speech, and for most people/environments must be <<5ms. > I find it laughable that "low latency" frequently seems to mean 30-50ms. > > Chris Woolf > > > > --- > 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. > ___ > 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/20190529/54bacb40/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] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)
Agreed. Most of what I think of as the "local signal processing" is quite speedy. Packetization delay is never less than 20 ms. Transmission delay dependent upon the network and distance. Poorly designed network elements lead to buffer bloat, which increases latency dramatically. The very latest DECT chipsets are able to deliver a 12.5 kHz audio path from a microphone. Not sure how that's done. DECT is quite opaque. It remains the most common approach to a real-time wireless link built specifically for streaming audio. Michael Graves mgra...@mstvp.com http://www.mgraves.org o(713) 861-4005 c(713) 201-1262 sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com skype mjgraves -Original Message- From: Sursound On Behalf Of Chris Woolf Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 10:29 AM To: sursound@music.vt.edu Subject: Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.) On 28/05/2019 19:47, Marc Lavallée wrote: > Le 28/05/2019 à 13:48, mgraves mstvp.com a écrit : > > > The latency is not only caused by the packetization; the transmission > chain looks like: > > (microphone -> ADC -> encoding -> BT transmission) -> (BT reception -> > decoding) -> (SIP + encoding -> IP transmission) -> (IP reception -> > SIP + decoding) -> (DAC -> loudspeaker) > True enough, but the ADC, encoding, decoding and DAC elements can be reduced to <3ms (as happens with some of the best recent digital radio mics), which does indeed indicate that the intermediate stages are the ones that really do the harm. A while back I had to make a short range speech reinforcer for a friend with a damaged larynx. It had to use an analogue pathway because no (affordable at the time) digital path had anything like low enough latency to permit normal, unstilted conversation. A target figure ~has~ to be <10ms to avoid disturbing speech, and for most people/environments must be <<5ms. I find it laughable that "low latency" frequently seems to mean 30-50ms. Chris Woolf --- 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. ___ 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] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)
On 28/05/2019 19:47, Marc Lavallée wrote: Le 28/05/2019 à 13:48, mgraves mstvp.com a écrit : The latency is not only caused by the packetization; the transmission chain looks like: (microphone -> ADC -> encoding -> BT transmission) -> (BT reception -> decoding) -> (SIP + encoding -> IP transmission) -> (IP reception -> SIP + decoding) -> (DAC -> loudspeaker) True enough, but the ADC, encoding, decoding and DAC elements can be reduced to <3ms (as happens with some of the best recent digital radio mics), which does indeed indicate that the intermediate stages are the ones that really do the harm. A while back I had to make a short range speech reinforcer for a friend with a damaged larynx. It had to use an analogue pathway because no (affordable at the time) digital path had anything like low enough latency to permit normal, unstilted conversation. A target figure ~has~ to be <10ms to avoid disturbing speech, and for most people/environments must be <<5ms. I find it laughable that "low latency" frequently seems to mean 30-50ms. Chris Woolf --- 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] An Atmos binaural album
Oops! I meant Henry Brant (not Harry Brant)... Le 29/05/2019 à 11:11, Marc Lavallée a écrit : As an example, Dolby Atmos technology was used to master and render a recording of Ice Field by Harry Brant, a spatial orchestral composition: https://www.sfsymphony.org/brant Unfortunately I can't download or stream the full album (rendered in binaural stereo) because it doesn't seem to be available in Canada (which would be silly because Harry Brant was born in Montréal). The short excerpts are not very convincing because binaural stereo is not a universal format; it probably sound wonderful to the audio engineer who mastered it. Soundbars and binaural stereo are presented as legitimate methods to experience "spatial audio", but they serve more as marketing tools. It's too bad that such wonderful music is not being released with an open format that would allow listeners to render it properly (now or later). Marc Le 27/05/2019 à 19:43, Augustine Leudar a écrit : Hi Douglas - I dont think he was referring to Atmos soundbars just Atmos in general . Atmos will of course work nicely being a 9.1 (or is it 11.1 ?) bed with objects operating within that over an unlimited number of speakers (or is it 128 max) - as such its true surround (in that the speakers od actually surround the litener); . However its not particularily innovative in that it combines stuff thats been around for years - (ambisonics can decode to different speaker arrays from one file for example and I assume the objects move around using amplitude panning). Then youve got things like DBAP which have the potential to create far more convincing 3D audio scenes that ATMOS and thats been around a lot longer. But no here we just refer to soundbars in general I think. I find it very unlikely though that an "ATMOS" soundbar would give the impression of a sound being behind the listener than a basical quad setup where there actually are two speakers behind the listener. I agree placebo definately plays a role in a lot of spatial audio. On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 22:00, Douglas Murray wrote: On May 27, 2019, at 12:09 PM, mgraves mstvp.com wrote: See also Dolby Atmos. Yet another triumph of marketing over reality. Dolby is especially good in that arena. Michael Graves Michael, Are you referring to the Dolby Atmos sound bars and ceiling bouncing speakers? If so I agree. But as a film sound designer, I don’t believe I am succumbing to marketing hype when I say that Dolby Atmos in a cinema setting, with its full range surrounds and speakers in what were gaps near the screen, is a real improvement over other earlier surround formats for cinema. Clearly Dolby is trying to generate profits from the mass home market rather than only from the small cinema world. It’s probable that any sound bar, whether “Atmos” or not, will be an upgrade for whomever buys it, so happy customers, even if the hype is not lived up to. Maybe it’s the placebo effect that makes these things work? Doug Murray ___ 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] An Atmos binaural album (was: Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)
As an example, Dolby Atmos technology was used to master and render a recording of Ice Field by Harry Brant, a spatial orchestral composition: https://www.sfsymphony.org/brant Unfortunately I can't download or stream the full album (rendered in binaural stereo) because it doesn't seem to be available in Canada (which would be silly because Harry Brant was born in Montréal). The short excerpts are not very convincing because binaural stereo is not a universal format; it probably sound wonderful to the audio engineer who mastered it. Soundbars and binaural stereo are presented as legitimate methods to experience "spatial audio", but they serve more as marketing tools. It's too bad that such wonderful music is not being released with an open format that would allow listeners to render it properly (now or later). Marc Le 27/05/2019 à 19:43, Augustine Leudar a écrit : Hi Douglas - I dont think he was referring to Atmos soundbars just Atmos in general . Atmos will of course work nicely being a 9.1 (or is it 11.1 ?) bed with objects operating within that over an unlimited number of speakers (or is it 128 max) - as such its true surround (in that the speakers od actually surround the litener); . However its not particularily innovative in that it combines stuff thats been around for years - (ambisonics can decode to different speaker arrays from one file for example and I assume the objects move around using amplitude panning). Then youve got things like DBAP which have the potential to create far more convincing 3D audio scenes that ATMOS and thats been around a lot longer. But no here we just refer to soundbars in general I think. I find it very unlikely though that an "ATMOS" soundbar would give the impression of a sound being behind the listener than a basical quad setup where there actually are two speakers behind the listener. I agree placebo definately plays a role in a lot of spatial audio. On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 22:00, Douglas Murray wrote: On May 27, 2019, at 12:09 PM, mgraves mstvp.com wrote: See also Dolby Atmos. Yet another triumph of marketing over reality. Dolby is especially good in that arena. Michael Graves Michael, Are you referring to the Dolby Atmos sound bars and ceiling bouncing speakers? If so I agree. But as a film sound designer, I don’t believe I am succumbing to marketing hype when I say that Dolby Atmos in a cinema setting, with its full range surrounds and speakers in what were gaps near the screen, is a real improvement over other earlier surround formats for cinema. Clearly Dolby is trying to generate profits from the mass home market rather than only from the small cinema world. It’s probable that any sound bar, whether “Atmos” or not, will be an upgrade for whomever buys it, so happy customers, even if the hype is not lived up to. Maybe it’s the placebo effect that makes these things work? Doug Murray ___ 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.
