from:"David Pickett"

Re: [Sursound] Tetracal - calibrating A->B conversion for RÃ¸de NT-SF1 mic?

2019-06-05 Thread David Pickett

Here is what I got. This one comes from Norway. I 
have had others recently from France.


D


Delivered-To: d...@fugato.com
Received: from river.yodns.com
by river.yodns.com with LMTP id ONGdKweB91xA9wIAk8KXXg
for ; Wed, 05 Jun 2019 01:44:55 -0700
Return-path: 
Envelope-to: d...@fugato.com
Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 01:44:55 -0700
Received: from mx1.yodns.com ([209.73.133.132]:54468)
by river.yodns.com with esmtps 
(TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256)

(Exim 4.91)
(envelope-from )
id 1hYRXT-000oYt-LV
for d...@fugato.com; Wed, 05 Jun 2019 01:44:55 -0700
Received: from [128.173.232.139] (helo=mail.music.vt.edu)
by mx1.yodns.com with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1)
(envelope-from )
id 1hYRZf-000F8B-Rx
for d...@fugato.com; Wed, 05 Jun 2019 01:47:14 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.music.vt.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA749D3D4C5;
Wed,  5 Jun 2019 04:46:55 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mydomain = music.vt.edu
Received: from mail.music.vt.edu ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (server.music.vt.edu 
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)

with ESMTP id PfSQmhUlXvjd; Wed,  5 Jun 2019 04:46:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from server.music.vt.edu (localhost [IPv6:::1])
by mail.music.vt.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0729D3D4AA;
Wed,  5 Jun 2019 04:46:52 -0400 (EDT)
X-Original-To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Delivered-To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by mail.music.vt.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C332E9D3D483
 for ; Wed,  5 Jun 2019 04:46:50 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mydomain = music.vt.edu
Received: from mail.music.vt.edu ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (server.music.vt.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id A-BoVCnAKLQC for ;
 Wed,  5 Jun 2019 04:46:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from blaine.gmane.org (unknown [195.159.176.226])
 by mail.music.vt.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8894E9D3D47C
 for ; Wed,  5 Jun 2019 04:46:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.89)
 (envelope-from ) id 1hYRZA-I9-L0
 for sursound@music.vt.edu; Wed, 05 Jun 2019 10:46:40 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
From: anders.vin...@bek.no
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 10:46:32 +0200
Message-ID: <87woi0l8rb@bek.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6pv36RAF+4qpC84V3/Ndd0g33vU=
Subject: [Sursound] Tetracal - calibrating A->B conversion for
  RÃ¸de  NT-SF1 mic?
X-BeenThere: sursound@music.vt.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Surround Sound discussion group 
List-Unsubscribe: ,
 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: ,
 
Reply-To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Errors-To: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu
Sender: "Sursound" 
X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you 
should still use an Antivirus (209.73.133.132)

X-Exiscan-SA-Score: -2.4 (--) (209.73.133.132)
X-Exiscan-SA-Report: SpamAssassin 3.3.2, running on 209.73.133.132
 -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED  RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 [128.173.232.139 listed in list.dnswl.org]
 -0.9 BAYES_00   BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 [score: 0.]
  0.0 SPF_NONE   SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record
  0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE  SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list
 manager
  0.8 RDNS_NONE  Delivered to 
internal network by a host with no rDNS

  0.0 RCVD_NOT_IN_IPREPDNS   Sender not listed at
 http://www.chaosreigns.com/iprep/
  1.0 KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY Sending domain does not have any
 anti-forgery methods

here]

!ÖÞ{^ë-yÛhrØ^µëkiÆ¥²íÁªÞ¶¶ê_[^®Æ§v¢Çè®ëprïz»"¢z¶¬ 
Úúè¤xuãSH]fÌ«ÞêÞ!Æ§µø§u7§©h"¶azaz·hÂyhiÛ¶J$)âÎ+Z)îÅ«+"µ«ÚVë(ì!z·*'yélyÚ'zØb³Ø^º0xÔÒV¥æÉ*Ê&¥ªâ²ìþ·¬º[l¶!j·ç«±©Ýz»º»(ºwfj)b 
b²Ô®®Ê.Ù®²'/µçnÛi³ÿæj)fºÈ¾×»ùYùb²Ø§~ìº»(ºwnË±Êâmè^çÖr§¶è¦Ø¨Ëâ{«r¯zÆ§vÊ( 



___
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] PhD funding opportunity : Digital reconstruction of the organ and the Chapelle de la Sorbonne (deadline 23-June-2019)

2019-06-04 Thread David Pickett

This is the only list that I subscribe to that 
gives this wierd encoding, and it is not consistent.


Could the list owner/moderator please look into what is going one.

Many thanks!

David

At 13:44 04-06-19, you wrote:

Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64David its normal for me too.
See below.

Steve

> On 4 Jun 2019, at 08:52, Brian FG Katz  wrote:
>
> (apologies for cross posting)
> (please distribute to potential candidates with urgency)
vRfRâurgent funding opportunity for a PhD on 
the Digital reconstruction of the organ and the Chapelle de la Sorbonne.

>
> Thesis topic: The PhD project consists of the 
virtual reconstruction of the organ and the 
acoustics of the chapel, based on available 
documentation. The goal is a numerical 
simulation of the acoustic functioning of the 
pipes of the organ, the radiation of these 
pipes in the buffet, and the acoustic radiation 
of the buffet into the church. While most of 
the modeling components of these elements are 
known and described by acoustic theories, the 
modeling and simulation of the whole represents 
a major scientific challenge: over a thousand 
pipes (1365 to be precise) represent an 
ensemble of non-linear acoustic oscillators 
that radiate in a subspace (the buffet), itself 
coupled to the acoustic volume of the chapel.

>
> Deadline for candidate 23-June-2019.
>
> For additional information, please follow the link below:
>http://www.lam.jussieu.fr/Stages/index.php?page=These_ISCD-CM
Ô'&n FG Katz
> --
> Brian FG Katz, Ph.D, HDR
> Research Director, CNRS
ÜÝ\H]\Y\ÈHXÛÝ\Ý\]YHH]\Ú\]YHÀorbonne 
Université, CNRS, UMR 7190, Institut Jean Le Rond â'Alembert

> bureau 510, 5ème, allé des tours 55-65
> 4, Place Jussieu
> 75005 Paris
> web_perso: http://www.dalembert.upmc.fr/home/katz
> web_lab: http://www.dalembert.upmc.fr/
ÙXÙÜÝ\ËÝÝÝË[[X\upmc.fr/lam
> youtube_group: https://www.youtube.com/c/LAMSorbonneUniversite/videos
> facebook_group: @lam.dalembert.upmc 
https://www.facebook.com/lam.dalembert.upmc/

>
>
>
> ___
 Sursound mailing list
Ý\ÛÝ[]\ÚXËYBGG3¢òðmail.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] PhD funding opportunity : Digital reconstruction of the organ and the Chapelle de la Sorbonne (deadline 23-June-2019)

2019-06-04 Thread David Pickett


Am I the only one who receives gobble-de-gook like this?

David

At 09:52 04-06-19, you wrote:

(please distribute to potential candidates with urgency)

YèZ½æ§º¸×îØ§i¢»n+r~Ú>èØ^("µ©kyÊ'²ÚîrØ¨íê+©ÚÛax(Z¥éey×¥i*+nçy8^²+-¢N:k¢7µÊ'²+-²íëâ®Û·¢{-®ç-è~Ø^¢¸©Ý¶r¬¶',¡ûayÈZ¥é[jÇ¢v¯j)ZnW¡Ë¦z{Z¶*'N 
¡©b±©îêâq©lk¥jØ¨íæ¢ë-ÇîËb¢x§íêb¥ë(~Ø^¢¸Ø^§bjØ¨íë¦*^²)íæî}÷jwmæ¢ë-ÊÚv&è~Ø^nçßzØ§¶ayÈnÈV)^-¡ûazjzX§Ê&¦ÞÛ(~Ø^±ç¥zg§¶Æ«zIèÂv§u×¬r¸yÖòiÊ.²Ø¶¨®'¬¶¦¡×¥xÛ"éZ¶*'¡ûa{hêÞ¦·¬z{ljf£¢»éíør¥éàzÞ«a¢ëÚb¥ë5ß®m¡·©ç"±êÞ¦·¬z{Zéìzfåzç¢ybæ«iÊ.²Ø¢Ç"V¢»-«kiØµè§jË²zØ^nçßzØ±é_r©çm¢Ø^iÊ.²Ø¾nê¶ª^7vX§yú+q©ÝÖ{mÉºw¶Ó_E¢¶v+b¢v¥wè®féæ¬yú%-ébFÞ!¶Úÿ0©£ºË"zçëý+Zë?w^Æi¥¨N¬x#®&§b·0k©Å¦ÌøC4QzÇÈC·¶Â5®©x»êâzÀ¢ë-«2ë"ªç¢¶èw+Þ®ÈÐ#QICï_t"{-Û%æ§-ähÛ@ 
^·«µ»«y«¹×Nsæ¥G^²Ú.®Îyë§&ë,ë»çM9=ªâ³¥êì¢m§ÿðÃZéz»n¦g¯øhïäjÜðy¹Znm§ÿðÃZéz»n¦g¯ün

èºm¶ÿÃjW¦mêíº~¿åjl¨ºÛz
èºm¶?ÿ0Ê¹·¢oÜü°JÛ¢yÞRx¯z»"µïï×¨±öyº(
èºZÖ¥zfÞ®Û©Èm¶?ÿ0}§n$r¿©jW¦mêíºý+«²§vf¢)à+-Jêì¢éÝë"rû^vèm¶?þf¢k¬ËíyÛ¿¨¥©ÿ+-wèþË«²§véì¹»®&Þ
êÞyØiÇ(º{h®mì¾'°j·!÷¬jwl¢


___
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] Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.

2019-06-01 Thread David Pickett

I am sure it is not Bo-Erik's fault, but I am 
still getting "highly encoded" words and odd 
passages in the middle of messages, see below!


David

At 20:22 01-06-19, you wrote:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 
base64https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hyunchae_Chun/publication/259889506_A_3-Gbs_single-LED_OFDM-based_wireless_VLC_link_using_a_gallium_nitride_m_LED/links/577cd2f708ae355e74f2b06d/A-3-Gb-s-single-LED-OFDM-based-wireless-VLC-link-using-a-gallium-nitride-m-LED.pdf


3 Gb/s on common led...
I Don't get the huKQH\ÈHÛÛZ[ÈÝ[\Ühigh 
bandwidth local light based network.


Bo-Erik


Den lör 1 juni 2019 19:11David Pickett  skrev:

> EhB]NNHKL
LNK[ÝHÜÝNä0ontent-Transfer-Encoding: base64Optical digital
> [Ú@dth using LED as a transmitter is without problem 1+
@bit/s.
> >
Y\[\ÚYÛÈ]HY\][Z]
> >B
> [0íH[HNHLÎQ]YXÚÙ]\@fugato.comÚÜ]à£âøÐÄÄèÄÐ´´Ää°
¡É¥Ì]¼olf wrote:
2á¸ (°æÒ(J$µ¼9(Ì9¥9¥Ì8µ¥ÕÕ¼9¼¸dÞ ¢HY[ impressed by how
0æVðæðæø¡(¸¡(8¡(òç0æ@H[Û][ÛÞ\Ý[\Èusing IR headphones have worked
> >[XÝXÙKX¡(°æòáXYÚ[H]H]H[[È[d elevation
> 2ç0æðçVðçx¡(8 «ÛÛYH\È\ÜÝYK¸eÌ0 ]Û 
ÜÙ]\È\ÈÜYXÚ. THough probably better than


MÒ[ÚY]\È\ÝX[HÛÛ\\ÜÙYâ]\ÚXÈÛHÝ\[  H\Àed to have some expensive
> TXYÛ\ÈXYHHÙ[Z\Ù\[FWwere terrible. 
That was, however, at least 25 years ago. Does

[[ÛHÛÝÈÙYÚ]X[]HT[ÙYXYÛes without compression?
> HÛÝ[[[H\H\ÙYul when I am editing audio, as I always
> > \[ÈÝer my headphone cable.
åÜZ(¢¸l9|9|9|9|9|9|9p×××À
°À\ÛÝ[XZ[X¡(°â0çx &ÔÛÝ[]\ÚXËYB°ã¸ 
.@ËÛXZX .W0æ0âÈ8¡(RðæÖÖ(9¶7Fæfò÷7W'6÷VæBÒVàsubscribe here,

> > Y]XØÛÝ[ÜÜ[ÛËY]È\Ú@ves and so on.
> 8 .RÒ8¡(8 «KKK@--
> 
[S]XÚY[Ø\ÈØÜXYåU$à£âã#âttps://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20190601/9811751a/attachment.html

> ××À
> >Sursound mailing list
Ý\ÛÝ[]\ÚXËYBGG3¢òöÖ¦×W62çgBæV@u/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> >- unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
À__
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
Y]XØÀount or options, view archives and so on.
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

Re: [Sursound] Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.

2019-06-01 Thread David Pickett


Eh?

D :)

At 19:01 01-06-19, you wrote:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64Optical digital 
bandwidth using LED as a transmitter is without problem 1+

Mbit/s.

Different designs have differet limits.

B

Den lör 1 juni 2019 13:49David Pickett  skrev:

> At 11:14 01-06-19, Chris Woolf wrote:
Ú[H[K[Ù\ÚYÚ\ÈH[Z]][ÛH]HY[ impressed by how
> Ù[ÛÛ\[ÙH[Û][ÛÞ\Ý[\Èusing IR headphones have worked
[XÝXÙK[Ø[@magine that a little planning and elevation
ÛÝ[Ý\come this issue.
Y\Ë]ÛÜÙ]\È\ÈÜYXÚ. THough probably better than
> 400-4kHz bandwidth it is usually compressed.
]\ÚXÈÛHÝ\[H\Àed to have some expensive 
IR headphones made by Sennheiser and

> they were terrible. That was, however, at least 25 years ago. Does
> anyone know of high quality IR linked headphones without compression?
> I would find them very useful when I am editing audio, as I always
> tripping over my headphone cable.
>
]Y××À
Ý\ÛÝ[XZ[[È\Ý7prso...@music.vt.edu
ÎËÛXZ[]\ÚXËYKÛXZ[X[Ûistinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
KH^\t --
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] Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.

2019-06-01 Thread David Pickett


At 11:14 01-06-19, Chris Woolf wrote:

While line-of-sight is a limitation I have been impressed by how 
well conference translation systems using IR headphones have worked 
in practice, and can imagine that a little planning and elevation 
could overcome this issue.


Yes, but dont forget, this is speech. THough probably better than 
400-4kHz bandwidth it is usually compressed.


Music on the other hand.

I used to have some expensive IR headphones made by Sennheiser and 
they were terrible. That was, however, at least 25 years ago. Does 
anyone know of high quality IR linked headphones without compression? 
I would find them very useful when I am editing audio, as I always 
tripping over my headphone cable.


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.)

2019-05-31 Thread David Pickett


At 12:44 31-05-19, Chris Woolf wrote:
I don't know Opus but having read up its spec (on Wikipedia) it is 
lossy and so can only be used as a delivery format. I had to smile 
at 30ms latency being reported as adequate for musicians to feel "in-time"


Yes, indeed! As an experienced organist I can say with confidence 
that a console 30ft away from the pipes takes a lot of getting used 
to at first.


 - not for the ones I've ever worked with. Likewise the suggestion 
that 45-100ms is acceptable for lipsync is laughable - that's up to 
5 TV frames adrift. Maybe audiences have become inured to low 
quality standards. Latency for "live interaction" at each end of a 
phone line, and face-to-face a few feet apart in a room require 
very different standards - Opus's suggestion of 150ms for VOIP 
might just be acceptable for the first, but it would destroy the 
second application.


A lot of people seem not to mind lack of lip sync, likewise violins 
whose bows appear to change after the start of the note. I cannot 
watch such things without intense irritation.


I don't doubt that it is a clever and well-designed codec, and that 
it is extremely useful, but one must keep in mind what it ~actually~ 
is rather than what it sounds like. Opus doesn't deliver full 
bandwidth audio, any more than other digitally compressed systems 
do. It delivers something that convinces most ears that it is a full 
bandwidth, full dynamic range signal, but it must always be 
remembered what is missing. If you used such a system to deliver 
sound to speakers (assuming there is a technique for maintaining 
multichannel phase coherence) it should work perfectly well. If you 
used it for passing the output channels of a microphone I doubt you 
would not remain happy for long.


A pity that such is par for the course in this day and age.

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.)

2019-05-29 Thread David Pickett


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.)

2019-05-29 Thread David Pickett


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] Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.

2019-05-28 Thread David Pickett


At 16:48 28-05-19, you wrote:

We have good, full-bandwidth solutions for wireless microphones. 
Also for wireless performance monitors. Nothing that combines these functions.


Yes, I know about such things, but standard wireless mics dont use 
the AKG C12 capsules that I build into my mics, dont come with fig8 
polar diagrams, and take up a lot of space at the receiving end...


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] Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.

2019-05-28 Thread David Pickett


At 14:19 28-05-19, you wrote:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64Last year I hacked a "low latency" 
(~100ms) stereo RTP streaming

software between OSX and a Raspberry Pi. A possible solution would be,
as Bo Erik suggested, to stream 4-channel on a musticast wifi network,
then decode it on 4 RPIs (or similar boards), making sure they are in
sync (using PTP). This is on my long list of things to try, but I would
need  a specific project to kick-start this exploration. I'm in the
process of setting up a 4-channel system in my home office (using two
2.1 DIY "multimedia" system), so it's a good start. We could wait for
the industry to provide something usable, but it would be proprietary,
"professional", and expensive (because of the super-specific gold-plated
hardware, patents, shareholders, marketing, logos, slick web sites,
religious beliefs, etc). Also (who knows) maybe it's already possible to
do it using the jack2 software suite.


A commercial solution, were it available, would no doubt be even more 
expensive if it did not have audio compression built in.


I tell myself that it should not be too difficult to make decent 
hi-res transmit and receive modules. I could use these for links from 
spot mikes in concerts where these have to pass the audience to get 
to the recorder, and also between my monitor output and the four 
speakers I use. Getting rid of cables from the ground would be 
terrific in both situations; but I am not prepared to accept any 
degradation of the signal, particularly not any modification of the 
dynamic range.


I also would love to have a pair of headphones that are as good as my 
Sennheiser HD600 that manage to dispense with a cable that I trip 
over with monotonous regularity. (Though I must say that these 
headphone, which I have had for about 40 years, and which hit the 
floor many times a day, are remarkably robust.)


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] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order ambisonics to 3rd order ambisonics.

2019-02-22 Thread David Pickett


At 02:37 22-02-19, Wilson Lim wrote:


ot sure if I have missed a discussion about upmixing with ambisonics on
Sursound.

Just wondering if anyone is willing to share some information on how to
implement upmixing algorithms from 1st Order Ambisonics A to 3rd
Order Ambisonics B-format.


I am curious to know what advantage there is to playing back 1st 
order upmixed to 3rd order. Doesnt it still sound like 1st order, 
since there no information is actually added? Or are the images 
expectated to be more stable on account of more loudspeakers being 
involved, on the analogy of stereo played back through three loudpeakers?


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] Anyone ever tried to bypass youtube/facebook360 player Ambisonics decoder?

2019-02-18 Thread David Pickett

Why not make up a signal from six totally 
different mono wavefiles and see where they land after decoding?


David

At 17:33 18-02-19, you wrote:

Content-Transfer-Encoding: base646 channel format on YT:

https://github.com/google/spatial-media/blob/master/docs/spatial-audio-rfc.md

So channel ordering (normally) is W, Y, Z, X, L, R.

It is possible to change the channel layout, which might be a
problematic feature...

For example, a channel layout of 4, 5, 0, 1, 2, 3 indicates that the
layout of the stored audio is /L/, /R/, /W/, /Y/, /Z/, /X/.

Best,

Stefan

Citando Marc Lavallée :


Sean,
[ÝHØ[\ÙHH[Ý]XKYØÜ\> 
(https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/) to download only the appropriate

audio stream. Here's how I was able to use it. First I inspected the

]Z[XHÜX]Î£à >
[Ý]XKYQÎËÝÝÝË[Ý]XKÛÛKÝØ]ÚÝXÕR@S-ATmQ"
FVçFfVB2f÷&ÖG2&÷fFærdô7G eams: 327 (aac), 338 (opus)

and 339 (vorbis).
  So to get the aac stream (with an audio 
container, using the "-x" option):
÷WGVÖFÂÖb3#r×&GG3 
//www.youtube.com/watchXÕRTËPUTH£à£âFRÀting 
stream has 6 channels, so 2 of them are silent. No

idea about the channel ordering. If prefered, the opus and vorbis

ÝX[\È]H
Ú[[È
Ý
K£â It should also be possible to create 
a "stream and decode" pipeline

\Ú[È\ÈÛÛ[X[
Ú]H[ÈHÜ[Àn, without the "-x" option):
÷WGVÖFÂÖb3#rÐo -

"https://www.youtube.com/watchXÕRTËPUTH
> some_command_line_decoder
FR'6öÖUö6öÖÖæEöÀine_decoder" is a script or software that can
decode the stream from STDIN (so a proper Unix OS is required).

H[Ý]XKYØÜ\Ø[[ÛÈH\ÙYÚ]Hmpv video player

(https://mpv.io/); see the ytdl-format and ytdl-raw options.


HÜH\È[ËÛÛÙ luck!



X\£à£â#Ó"Ó:S£3æÒâÀ Sean Devonport a écrit :



Hey everyone,
à ø(>  I'm hoping someone may be able to 
provide some information to me on this

7V&¦V7Bà ø(>

âvçBFð bypass youtube/facebook360 Ambisonics decoding and stream
âFÇFò×Ö&6öæ2FV6öFW"fVVFær×VÇFÀe loudspeakers.
£à(ø  Does anyone have any bright ideas to 
get the raw encoded Ambisonic format

7G from these videos£à(ø
ÛHÛHHØ[[k of is to create a video player that decodes the 360


 video, but then leaves the audio encoded and streams that out from the

 browser.

£à(ø  Any help/ideas would be greatly appreciated!

à ø(>  All the best,
××Â>
Ý\ÛÝ[XZ[[È\Ý£â7W'6÷VæD×W62çgBæVGPhttps://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: 


___
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] Call for Proposals: AES 2019 Conference on Headphone Technology

2019-02-03 Thread David Pickett


I reproduce the full message as it appeared in my email client...

At 00:58 04-02-19,   wrote:



æ«Jêì¢éÝz»ërÝD×««b¢v¥
ßz·§qê'æ¦'y7z%¢°Y[z¥vÀº¬·nçÛÝ´×Ø§I©Å©ÜÇ(Ûiÿü0Á§¬¢¸?rßz·§që?ÛM}þvhë?"Ü"X¶«±ÈØ¬¶Ç^½éh¥êìjwi§-Ø¨êìÂè§¾oyØ§¶¨¯+^râq©]zÈ 
ªi'¶*'¢·¯j[¶*'¡ø^iÚa¢wyÈg¢Z 
Ë«)yÈé©«"²íç¦z¸"âzWl¡ó(n)^J©@¹Ø¨"wb¾'njX³jØ¨,Ëb½ââ²×§xÐ.v*¢°.g§µçQy©b·$áÌ"VÞjx§µêÝÇ"¦X§j¼¢»¦zw(º¶ 
x®è~é]Ç.²È¨Æ®,¶¡y§iÞæ«xÖ§u«^+Þ¯(§vë-®'¬Yè§¾+^¶¬¹¹¢²È¨ßºYij«±×¦¢{-«b¢{0¢¹,l¢»azfÆ¥+.×¦º¹ËiëÖìæ¢·zÖ¢çbËk¹Ëb¢{!¶Úÿ0ië(®Ü¢wÞéÜzÏöÓ_æ¦'zÏÂ'7vX§yú+~ée¥ª^®Ë+,ì1ªÜ]´×ÐqêmyÚZ¥êÚºØh®Éè¶'âyÖò1¬¶Óm5ô7vX§yú+Âä²)¢·^ì¶¶é®h±©l1¬·×m5ôz^w
+Èh¥©Ýué¨ËkjØ¨Éè¶'âyÖò&éÞßM´×ÐÞiÙbçèø§jYë®*m±©ÝyªåÊ· 
ËkjØ¨¥Ë^vÓ_VzZ(ú+ÁªÝ¶z)àÊ¢&§¶§r+¢)Àº¬´ù^jÇ¢{azÈj×¢WºÉ'£Ê¡j÷*®zËb¢{×ÞzWëyëhv+-®&îµëaÉè¶'âq«b¢{hÊ«rey¨.zÌ!¢f²j[(mè§µêÞ²×{aÇ¯z{AzËkz«vÂ^jsÄèuÖ§t+éöÓ_a¦©z»zÊ+w±¶«´ 
ÇLÂÚ¶Ög§·¬±Êîm·Qá¶ÚlÿùY®²'/µçnþf¢f§þâ½«^þË«²§wöµ§!éí³ý´×Ý6ÓøÛ9ÛÿjÛZrØmPb8â8âT®®Ê.ÙX§X¬µ+«²§vk¬ËíyÛ¡¶ÚlÿùY®²'/µçnþf¢f§þX¬¶)ß£û.®Ê.Û§²æìr¸z«yçbµ§¢éí¢º)¶*'²øÁªÜ+Þ±©Ý²'



___
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] Publishing music in ambisonics

2019-01-12 Thread David Pickett


At 20:33 12-01-19, Marc wrote:

What seems to be still missing (but I could be wrong), is a 
"standard" standalone ambisonics audio player. If such a player 
could play and decode ambisonics audio streams (hosted on a audio 
streaming web site), then it'd be an excellent start. Something 
similar to what audio streaming is for stereo, and that we take for 
granted. What went wrong with surround sound in general is still a 
mystery to me... But there's hope.


If I understand you correctly, the idea is to stream WXY (to keep it 
simple) and have this decoded in the browser, rather than 4.0 
directly. This seems to me to be akin to using M files rather than 
L It involves a further layer of complication at the client end, 
and I am not sure of the advantage, other than it reduces data 
bandwith by 25%; but bandwidth is surely not a problem these days.


But I am always ready to be corrected!

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] Publishing music in ambisonics

2019-01-11 Thread David Pickett

This sounds like a very complicated way of going about things, 
particularly when one can get four signals from one laptop. You would 
need a four channel external D/A box -- possibly a Behrigner ADA8200, 
or similar to do so.

Ambisonics, even in one plane, assumes that the channels are at least 
the same in frequency response and phase. Even with larger speakers 
in boxes this is not an easy thing to achieve, though a reasonable 
match between speakers might be achieved if they are all of the same 
type that they sell for desktops. I bought a pair at the check out in 
Micro Center for about 8 bucks. No bass, but the cut off is probably 
the same in each channel!

David

At 18:29 11-01-19, you wrote:

--On 11 January 2019 14:58 +0100 Oddity Medium 
wrote:

> Lets say you have two laptops and two phones, so you have four (mono)
> speakers you can place around the house in a square or rectangle.
>
> So to get quadraphonic sound we need an app that coordinates four
> files playing across these four devices.

I cannot imagine that it will be practical to get synchronisation
anywhere near what would be required for adequate results.

As an illustration, by chance earlier this week I found myself playing
a file from the same source (on my network, but via wi-fi) through two
devices (an iPhone and an Android tablet), and the audio was about
250ms out of sync - presumably because of the differing buffering built
in to these devices and their programs.

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] Publishing music in ambisonics

2019-01-10 Thread David Pickett


At 21:47 10-01-19, Paul wrote:


I replace a stereo file with a four-channel file (why waste bandwidth
on empty channels?).


I agree. But it seems that the only way I have of making aac mp4 
files is to make them 5.1.



  My files are decoded to a square ("quad") speaker
layout, and play just fine in any browser on a system with correctly
set up multichannel audio.


Which browsers have you tested, Paul? How does one set up a browser 
to recognise 4.0?


With 5.1 Firefox and Chrome need no setting up for 5.1, and I assume 
that non-technological people wanting to listen to the files would prefer that.


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] Publishing music in ambisonics

2019-01-10 Thread David Pickett


Aswath,

I do not know whether one can upload multichannel sound files to 
Soundcloud, Bandcamp, etc; but I have successfully mounted some 
experimental 4.0 mp4 files on my website.


They are not B-format, but are in 5.1 format 5.1: FL, FR, C, LFE, RL, 
RR, where the C and B channels are silent.


www.fugato.com/pickett

David


At 16:57 10-01-19, you wrote:

Good day to you all,

I would like to know as to how to publish the audio that you make in 
ambisonics on the web.


If i have a stereo file, its easy to upload to Soundcloud, Bandcamp 
etc. But am not really sure if there is any online player or player 
to embed in a website that can play B format WAV files.


I guess for videos its only Youtube 360 or facebook. I mean, can i 
have surround sound audio in a video and upload it on any of the 
video sites like vimeo, dailymotion, youtube etc. when i mean 
surround, I mean using ambisonics!!


Please advice.

Thank you

Aswath Prabhu


___
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] Soundfield by Rode plugin

2018-12-18 Thread David Pickett

At 12:15 17-12-18, Politis Archontis wrote:

>Another very sensible approach was presented by Cristoff Faller and
>Illusonics in the same conference, in a simpler adaptive filter is
>used to align the microphone signals to the phase of one of the
>capsules, making them again in essence coincident.

I am interested to know how this approach gets around the problem 
that with any pair of capsules, the difference in phase is a function 
of the angle of incidence and how it distinguishes between identical 
frequency components that are actually generated by different acoustic sources.

It seems to me that some assumptions must be involved, e.g.:

-- that the microphone array is stationary during the time of the 
capture window and subsequent computation.

-- that the filtered frequency components used for the computation 
contain only signals from a unique direction.

The first of these assumptions has been mentioned here by reference 
to the generation of spurious signals when the mic is in motion. The 
implication would be that the time taken to acquire and compute the 
data is too long to satisfy the condition.

The second is demonstrably untrue when we are talking about tonal 
music in a reverberant acoustic. How does the system distinguish 
between a 1kHz partial from a source or reflecting surface on one 
side of the array and one from a different source or reflecting 
surface arriving from another direction? (A moment's thought shows 
that a C major chord, distributed among various performers would have 
a large number of Cs, Es, G, etc coming from all around.)

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] Soundfield by Rode plugin

2018-12-17 Thread David Pickett

At 10:39 17-12-18, Dave Hunt wrote:

>"The SoundField by RØDE plug-in uses a new time-frequency adaptive
>approach for A to B-format conversion. This complex mathematical
>process means the phase between the A-format channels are aligned
>prior to application of the conversion matrix  essentially correcting
>for the non-coincidence of the capsules prior to any further processing."

A "time-frequency adaptive approach"

What?

Unless it works spectacularly well, I would 
suspect the application of snake oil.

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] Comparison Sennheiser Ambeo mic vs. Rode NT-SF1?

2018-12-14 Thread David Pickett

B / DPA have been using electrets for more than 30 years.  O 
course, these are perhaps not the same as one can buy for peanuts at Alibaba!


David

At 23:12 13-12-18, Ralf R Radermacher wrote:


Am 13.12.18 um 22:44 schrieb Len Moskowitz:


They're both similar in that they are both first-order microphones


Yes, but the Sennheiser has electret capsules while the Rode is a 
'real' condenser mic. I do agree that electrets have come a long way 
in recent years. Still, I'd like to know how they compare beyond 
their noise level.


___
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] ReÂ : Zoom H3-VR anyone?

2018-11-20 Thread David Pickett


At 23:27 20-11-18, Ralf R Radermacher wrote:

I'm wondering if maybe the internal conversion applies some kind of 
mic calibration data but of course we'll never know.


... unless someone does the experiment of comparing the internal 
conversion with and external conversion!


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] OctoMic VR 8k Video, New Files on OctoMic Recording Download Page

2018-11-07 Thread David Pickett

Bruce's posting reminded me to upgrade VLC to 3.0.4.

It says here https://www.videolan.org/vlc/releases/3.0.0.html : "VLC 
supports 360 video and 3D audio, up to Ambisonics 3rd order"

In the basic installation, there is an "Ambisonics renderer and 
binauralizer" plugin listed under "Tools/Plugins and extensions". I 
dont know whether it needs some action to install it, but in any 
case, I am not interested in Binaural.

In April 2014 (how time flies!), when I was putting some test 4.0 
multichannel .mp4 files on my website, I feel sure that I had them 
play back locally through VLC, but I could be mistaken, and I cant 
recall how I might have done it.

David

At 17:29 07-11-18, Paul Hodges wrote:
>--On 07 November 2018 16:15 + Bruce Wiggins
> wrote:
>
>> VLC should work.  They're are ambisonic to 5.0 and 7.0 decoders now
>> included..
>
>Since when? They are not in VLC v3.0.4 which claims to be current, nor
>does the VLC wiki contain the word Ambisonic.
>
>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] OctoMic VR 8k Video, New Files on OctoMic Recording Download Page

2018-11-06 Thread David Pickett


This is cool!

Please can anyone tell me how I can get VLC to 
feed 4.0 or 5.1 or whatever ambisonic sound 
format is available from this video -- ideally 
directly to my RME UFX (through the "speakers" 
option in the Windows applet)? Alternatively, B 
format. All I can get at present is stereo.


If VLC is the problem (although I can play my 
surround audio files with it), what DOES work?


Thanks,

David



At 18:08 06-11-18, Len Moskowitz wrote:


Phillip Westbrook posted on Facebook:

 "A recent production done in Venice Italy with 
the OctoMic! The second order version of course 
sounds better, but I'm really enjoying how easy the OctoMic is to use."



Â Â  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG_uKfmBAtk


[YouTube videos currently offer only first-audio ambisonic audio.]


___
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] Multi-user head tracked binaural ambisonics query

2018-11-05 Thread David Pickett


Is all the detrius below really necessary?

I mean, please could members be so kind as to 
trim the quote material to a minimum, in the interests of others.


Rant mode off!

:)

David

At 21:04 05-11-18, Simon Connor wrote:
>
>Thanks Drew
>
>On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 at 11:16, Drew Kirkland  wrote:
>
>> Contact ryan.phillip.sc...@gmail.com
>
>> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, 14:39 Giso Grimm,  wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> > On 01.11.18 11:04, Simon Connor wrote:
>> > > Hi Sursounders
>> > >
>> > > I'm wondering if I could pick some brains if possible
>> > >
>>> > > Iâm interested in the potential of using head tracked
>binaural HOA in a
>> > > gallery setting, but that would support multiple users at the same time
>> > > (say up to 6 people) so that each could have their own respondent audio
>> > > experience.
>> > >
>> > > Could anyone recommend any Reaper friendly software and cost effective
>> > head
>> > > trackers that would allow for multi-user head tracking?
>> > >
>> > > I know that Waves NX offers this but only for FOA and I've been less
>> > > impressed by the sound of the binaural decoding as yet. I've been very
>> > > impressed by Audio Easeâs 360 pan suite with their suggested
>> headtracking
>> > > device but currently this doesnât offer multi-user functionality.
>> > >
>> > > Any suggestions would be very welcome!
>> >
>> >
>> > not necessarily Reaper-friendly, but I used five MPU6050 with a ESP8266
>> > controller, to control the binaural rendering of five headphone pairs on
>> > a central PC (no network-distributed audio). The motion tracking
>> > hardware I used has probably more drift problems that the Graz solution,
>> > which I compensated for in the rendering software (TASCAR,
>> > https://github.com/gisogrimm/tascar).
>> >
>> > The setup worked well on stage for hours (100 Hz motion tracking frame
>> > rate, 4.5ms audio delay). It provided a minimal externalization benefit
>> > compared to static in-ear monitoring, but was definitely useful in some
>> > situations when the sources where acoustically similar, and spatial
>> > separation was the only cue.
>> >
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Giso
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks in advance
>> > > Simon
>> > > -- next part --
>> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> > > URL: <
>> >
>>
>https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2018110
>1/172db4c7/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.
>> >
>> --
>
>
>
>
>
>> Drew Kirkland
>> 1 campbleton cottage
>> Hunterston Estate
>> KA23 9QF
>> 07876 238 608
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>>
>https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2018110
>3/ec0014aa/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.
>
>-- next part --
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
>05/5d8e855a/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] Zoom H3-VR

2018-09-16 Thread David Pickett

At 11:56 16-09-18, Drew Kirkland wrote:

>I think maybe that's a bit harsh, I know what you mean but due to a lax
>attitude in audio we now have a dynamic free industry, apart from a couple
>of major players the whole industry is relying on compression and
>electronics rather than design and good engineering.

Actually, it's largely the minor players who are keeping the flame 
alive: e.g. Pentatone, Tacet, 2L, etc, etc.

>This is the legacy of mp3 and poor quality teaching within the 
industry as a whole.

Unfortunately, most of the teaching bears no relationship to "the 
industry" and is done by people who have no inside experience of 
professional audio at the highest levels.

>It is something that has gradually become endemic, most engineers
>under 40 have had limited access to true anolog source and playback
>equipment and very few in my experience have an lp collection where
>dynamics are an integral part of the recording.

There is no excuse for this. The equipment is available on Ebay, etc, 
and LPs pressed in the 60s and 70s are available for peanuts. Almost 
every week I visit one of the several second hand record shops where 
I live and for 1-3 EUR per disc walk out with excellently recorded 
LPs in pristine condition, the sound of which rivals (and sometimes 
exceeds) the quality of CDs and hi-res files when played on my 
Thorens TD124 and Sumiko cartridge. This gear did not cost an arm and 
a leg to assemble. If you want to spend more, read Stereophile magazine!

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] Zoom H3-VR

2018-09-16 Thread David Pickett


At 11:31 16-09-18, Ralf R Radermacher wrote:


Am 16.09.18 um 03:07 schrieb Marc LavallÃ©e:

Imagine the Zoom H3, ready to use, but with 
complete specs and schematics, a calibration 
file and a documented calibration procedure, 
for $100 more. Ir would be a commercial success.


Methinks their marketing department know quite 
well what they're doing. I could come up with a 
dozen things they could have done better or 
differently with their other portable recorders. 
Still, they're selling like hot cakes. There's 
something like a sweet spot for pricing if 
you're targeting the non-pro consumer market.


I for one can't wait to spend 350 USD on the H3 
but I'd think twice at 450. Seriously, how many 
people care about numerical specs, apart from a handful of freaks on this list?


More to the point, how many people (including 
those here) can actually play back Ambisonics at home -- minimally as 4.0?


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] Rode - A/B Format trademark?

2018-09-16 Thread David Pickett


But arent Rode in Australia, anyway?

DAavid

At 02:32 16-09-18, Garry Margolis wrote:
>
>Iâm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that under USA law, anyone
>can claim a trademark, but this particular claim wouldnât be
>defensible because of its prior general usage.
>
>Garry
> --
>Garry Margolis
>gar...@panix.com
>
>On Sep 15, 2018, at 10:42 AM, Paul Hodges  wrote:
>>
>> --On 15 September 2018 18:25 +0100 Phi Shu  wrote:
>>
>>> Surely not something that can be granted considering the terms have
>>> been widely used for decades?
>>
>> Trademark rules are far from obvious.  Microsoft trademarked the word
>> "bookshelf" at one point.
>>
>> But I can't see what they think they gain by doing it anyway...
>>
>> 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.

___
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] Zoom H3-VR

2018-09-16 Thread David Pickett


At 03:07 16-09-18, Marc LavallÃ©e wrote:


Le 15/09/2018 Ã  14:17, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano a Ã©critÂ :

[*] find and buy all components, 3d print all 
parts, make or order PCBs, assemble printed 
circuit boards (you need pretty good soldering 
skills), connect everything together (again, 
good manual dexterity), find a space for doing 
the calibration measurements, make _good_ 
calibration measurements (not trivial, needs 
skill, good speaker and reference microphone), 
run the calibration software and check results 
for sanity, etc, etc... Not what you would call 
"cheap", but the end result is pretty good.


Imagine the Zoom H3, ready to use, but with 
complete specs and schematics, a calibration 
file and a documented calibration procedure, for 
$100 more. Ir would be a commercial success.


In my view it is a question of taking the 
purchaser seriously and treating him/her with 
respect. If you buy loudspeakers, a pair of 
headphones, amplifiers, A/D-D/A convertors, an 
analog turntable, a pickup cartridge -- or 
anything for home audio that is intended to be of 
high quality -- you can read full specifications before you buy.


I see no reason why these should not be a part of 
the product offering in the case of a surround 
microphone. It is not a question of giving away trade secrets.


And I dont think their addition would justify an additional cost of /$100

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] Zoom H3-VR

2018-09-15 Thread David Pickett


At 12:19 15-09-18, Eero Aro wrote:

David Pickett wrote:

This is a welcome price, but unfortunately, for that kind of money 
you dont get any numerical specifications, graphs, or guarantee of 
capsule matching, repeatability or variance between examples, all 
of which determine its potential value as a professional tool.


For about thirty years I have been waiting for an Ambisonic microphone
for a non-professional user. I welcome Zoom's new product with pleasure!

I have been using my employer's Soundfield Mk IV and V and the ST250.
All of them have been noisy and expensive buggers not suited for my pocket
money to buy one for my personal use.  All other, later Ambisonic mic models
have also been and are too expensive for me to buy. That's why the Zoom H3 is
welcome and it will surely find buyers. There is a market gap for a reasonably
priced Ambisonic microphone.

I do understand that the H3 will not be technically and audio quality wise
at as high level as products that cost ten on more times more, but the biggest
problem with all Ambisonic gear during the years has been that there hasn't
been equipment for the ordinary home user. Only some decoders, such as
the Minims were targeted for the home, and even them were a bit complicated
for Joe D to set up.


I totally agree about the fundamental inadequacies of the Soundfield 
mics that Eero lists. But I dont see why there cannot today be better 
products that dont cost the earth. Technical quality should not be 
assumed to be suspect on grounds of price alone. Quality control is 
measurable and can be done automatically in this day and age. By 
using electret capsules and digital measurement techniques, modern 
microphones can be mass produced more cheaply than the designs of 50 
years ago. That being the case, I do not understand why today we get 
no published specifications of FR, polar diagram, FR, with +/- n dB tolerances.


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] Zoom H3-VR

2018-09-15 Thread David Pickett

At 10:10 14-09-18, Drew Kirkland wrote:
>
>https://www.harmonycentral.com/news/the-h3-vr-handy-recorder---vr-audi
>o-youve-arrived
>
>On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 09:05 SÃ¸ren Bendixen,  wrote:
>
>> Someone on Facebook mention around 350 USD

This is a welcome price, but unfortunately, for 
that kind of money you dont get any numerical 
specifications, graphs, or guarantee of capsule 
matching, repeatability or variance between 
examples, all of which determine its potential value as a professional tool.

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] A mic array I don't recognise

2018-08-28 Thread David Pickett

At 22:17 20-08-18, Paul Hodges wrote:

>Can anyone tell me about this microphone array?
>
>

Yes.

Fact: It's expensive (8 Schoeps colette cardioid 
capsules and amplifiers = /$ 12,000)

Opinion: In comparison with an Octomic, it's a waste of time and money.

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] Ricoh TA-1?

2018-08-14 Thread David Pickett


I get

403: Access Forbidden.
Your location (AT) has been blacklisted.

I presume that is because they dont want to 
conform to GDPR and prefer to deny access!


David

At 00:51 15-08-18, Marc LavallÃ©e wrote:

A FOA microphone is sold as an accessory for the Ricoh Theta V 360 camera:

https://us.ricoh-imaging.com/index.php/accessories/theta-22/ta-1

Is anyone tried it (yet)? Is it a gadget?

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] A-format to B-format Conversion and Calibration Files

2018-06-06 Thread David Pickett

Pardon my ignorance, but may I ask, for information, about these 
calibration files in the form of IIRs? How do these relate to the 
A-format wavfiles of a first order microphone? Or are they used as a 
means of converting the raw capsule signals into A-format by some 
kind of concatenation, or other algorithm?  What is the relationship 
between IIR files and the .WAV format referred to in the last line below?


Perhaps, because of my ignorance, I am asking the wrong questions and 
maybe all this is written up somewhere; in which case, I should be 
glad to know where I can read about it.


Many thanks!

David

At 01:01 06-06-18, Gerard Lardner wrote:
What A-format to B-format VST encoders exist that can encode 
recordings from an ambisonic microphone for which I have calibration 
files in the form of IIRs? I can use the stand-alone version of 
VVMic; it works well. But is there a reliable VST equivalent that 
will use the same calibration files?


I know about VVEncode; but I am having some problems with it. I 
think these may be down to my PC rather than to VVEncode, which is 
why I would like to try an alternative.


The mic in question is a Brahma, but it was re-calibrated in VVMic format.

A second question: Is there any way to convert calibration files 
from IIR format (as used by VVMic) into .WAV format (as used by 
X-Volver or Brahmavolver) and vice versa?


___
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] Big Pre-amps?

2018-06-05 Thread David Pickett


At 15:41 05-06-18, JÃ¶rn Nettingsmeier wrote:


On 06/04/2018 05:59 PM, Len Moskowitz wrote:
A customer is consider using a few OctoMics 
simultaneously, recording to computer.


Each OctoMic requires 8 channels of pre-amps.

They'll need up to 72 channels.

Ideally, the pre-amps should have digitally-set and gangable trims.


Have heard good things about the Horus, too, but 
never used it. A nice alternative (possibly a 
bit mor affordable) would be three DirectOut 
Andiamo MC feeding a dual MADI system, or two and a Mictasy.


Btw, nice usage of the word "few" there. Classy. 
A quick calculation tells me you mean "seven or 
so". That's the number of SM58s I use on a good 
day, and I'm very much intrigued if slightly 
scared thinking of your usecase :-D


Well put -- except that 72/8 = 9!

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] Does "gravure universelle" (universal engraving) mean Ambisonic?

2018-05-30 Thread David Pickett

It means "stereo compatible" (i.e. stereo recording, playable with a 
compatible cartridge that has compliance in the vertical direction.)


https://www.analog-forum.de/wbboard/index.php?thread/8348-gravure-universelle-stereo-auch-mono-spielbar/

David

At 18:13 30-05-18, Martin Leese wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>There is an used LP on offer on eBay which
>is described as Ambisonic, but which is not
>included in the UHJ Discography.  The LP is
>on the Erato label, STU 70221.  The cover
>says the LP is "gravure universelle", which
>Google translate says means "universal
>engraving".  Is this LP Ambisonic?
>
>The LP is on offer here:
>https://www.ebay.ca/i/153041669368
>
>The UHJ Discography is available here:
>http://www.surrounddiscography.com/
>
>Many thanks,
>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 - 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] [allowed] Re: Strange 'buzz' in Ambisonic recording

2018-05-12 Thread David Pickett


Gerard,

could you put up the B-format also?

Thanks

David


At 03:43 12-05-18, Gerard Lardner wrote:
OK, I've put a short section (30 seconds) in 
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sa6mvgfxuo2cxao/AACrbYW96VbxwIB2ZFDJS17ua?dl=0


The A-format is in two 2-channel files; the file names should be 
self-explanatory. The stereo file exhibits the buzzing sound right 
from the start of the music.


Gerard Lardner


On 11/05/2018 15:13, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 01:03:57AM +0100, Gerard Lardner wrote:


Actually really only when the organ is playing; the brass is usually with
the organ, but not always. The buzz is present when the organ is playing
loudly.

Could you make available a small part (20 seconds or so) of the original
A-format file and the encoded B-format one for the part where you hear
the 'buzz' ??


-- 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] Strange 'buzz' in Ambisonic recording

2018-05-08 Thread David Pickett


>> On 7 May 2018, at 17:30, Gerard Lardner  wrote:

>> I recorded a concert on Saturday (John Rutter's /Gloria /and Karl
>Jenkins' /The Peacemakers/) using an Ambisonic mic and some others.
>I'm encoding the A-format to B-format using VVEncode in Reaper, and
>panning in the extra mics using Wigware Ambipan. The result is then
>decoded to surround sound or to stereo using VVDecode; all in the same
>Reaper set-up. I've used this approach before, usually successfully.
>>
>> I find that, when the organ and brass are playing at full volume (I
>mean in the orchestra, not just in playback), there is a 'buzzing'
>sound in the playback. It sounds harsh, pitched at about 50 Hz.

Some more information would be useful.

-- Which ambisonic mic were you using?

-- Does the buzz really only appear when the organ and brass are playing?

-- Is the buzz heard both in loud AND soft passages?

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] Steinberg and Multichannel files

2018-04-16 Thread David Pickett

At 10:18 16-04-18, Jon Honeyball wrote:
>
>On 14 Apr 2018, at 16:42, David Pickett
><d...@fugato.com<mailto:d...@fugato.com>> 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
>
>It doesnât help when some equipment fails to play back more than one
>file in sequence. The latest deeply cute Sound Devices will only play
>one file, and not continue on to the  next one. So your playback time
>is limited to some 15 minutes (at best 
resolution) and it only records polywav.

>
>Talk about gun/foot/shoot
>
>(confirmed with SSD tech support staff at NAB last week in vegas)
>

Indeed. The latest Oppo box has the same problem. 
But perhaps people only listen to 4 minute singles these days.

I quite understand that the demands made by one 
file per track recordings on writing to storage 
in real time are currently too great to handle, 
whereas boxes like the Alesis HD24 and RME UFX 
will store between 24 and 60 hi res tracks using 
multitrack files and proprietary storage formats; 
but on the other hand, why not either write 
soft/firm-ware that will link these together, or 
separate them into single files, for playback?

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] Steinberg and Multichannel files

2018-04-14 Thread 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
>itâs 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

2018-04-14 Thread 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

2018-04-14 Thread 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

2018-04-14 Thread 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 <d...@fugato.com> 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.

[Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion

2018-04-14 Thread 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.

Re: [Sursound] UNCHECKED Zoom H2N - thoughts?

2018-04-09 Thread David Pickett

At 22:36 09-04-18, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>PS thats with the onboard capsules though - the AD converter is a mini jack
>in and terrible quality.

Why is this? It is counter-intuitive. I mean, the actual input level 
and impedance may be non-standard and need some accommodation, but 
having taken care of that, why should the quality be worse than using 
the microphione mounted on the side?

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] HOW TO CHANGE LIST SETTINGS

2018-04-06 Thread David Pickett

Posting this again with a relevant Subject Heading.  Others (except 
for Martin!) please take care to change the title if your post is 
about something other than it says! :)

_

HOW TO CHANGE LIST SETTINGS

Visit: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

To change your subscription options, scroll to
the bottom where it says "Unsubscribe or edit
options".  After entering your password, on
the next screen complete "Your name
(optional):" and hit "Change My Address And
Name".  Simple really :-)

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

Re: [Sursound] Call: Europe's Second Student 3D Audio Production Competition, Nov 2018, TMT, Cologne

2018-04-03 Thread David Pickett


At 13:20 03-04-18, David Pickett wrote:
It doesnt say so; but I hope that a recording with only the WXY(Z) 
components would be acceptable, as there are an excellent student 
recording in that format would certainly deserve a prize!


Correction:

I hope that a recording with only the WXY(Z) components would be 
acceptable, as an excellent student recording in that format would 
certainly deserve a prize!


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] Call: Europe's Second Student 3D Audio Production Competition, Nov 2018, TMT, Cologne

2018-04-03 Thread David Pickett

I looked at the website listed below, regarding
student submissions, where it says:

(1) contemporary / computer music,
(2) audio drama / documentary / soundscapes
(3) music recording / studio production.

The required format to deliver is a 5th order
Ambisonic track as multi-channel file

5th order??? Come on!

How many people are making music, drama or
documentary recordings at that resolution without faking it?

It doesnt say so; but I hope that a recording
with only the WXY(Z) components would be
acceptable, as there are an excellent student
recording in that format would certainly deserve a prize!

David

At 09:49 03-04-18, Franz Zotter wrote:

Dear colleagues & friends,

We are happy to announce that the 30th
Tonmeistertagung will host Europeâs Second
Student 3D Audio Production Competition in
Ambisonics, Nov. 14th to 17th, 2018, Cologne, Germany.

Call: Students working with spatial music,
spatial recording, and who are interested in
spatialized sound are invited to participate by
submitting short works (4min) to the second
Student 3D Audio Production Competition. The submission portal

https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=s3dapc2018
is open for submissions until the end of June 2018.
There are three submission categories:

(1) contemporary / computer music
(2) audio drama / documentary / soundscapes
(3) music recording / studio production.

The format requirements for preparing a
submission and tools to check are given here
https://iaem.at/ambisonics/s3dapc/call-for-europes-second-student-3d-audio-production-competition/
and of course you can get in touch if there are questions:

An international jury will assess the
submissions concerning the creative and
technical quality, providing feedback to all the
participants of the competition. Based on the
resulting ranking, the finalists will be
selected for presentation at TMT30. The
finalists will be notified and requested to
attend the finals at TMT30 in order to receive
their award, the juryâs comments, and say a
few words about their submissions.

The Tonmeistertagung is the large Convention of
the Tonmeister Society of Germany. The
finalistsâ work will be presented during the
finals and awards played back with a
hemispherical loudspeaker setup with over 20
loudspeakers. (https://tonmeistertagung.com/)

Best regards,

Franz Zotter
Matthias Frank
Daniel Rudrich
JÃ¶rn Nettingsmeier
Stefani Renner
___
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] Core Sound Announces OctoMic - First 2nd-order Ambisonics Microphone

2018-03-27 Thread David Pickett


Len,

In addition to the Zoom 8-track recorder that is mentioned on your 
website, I would recommend the similarly priced Roland R-88, which 
has the significant advantage that the controls are easier to adjust 
for those of us with large hands!


David

At 15:59 27-03-18, Len Moskowitz wrote:

core-sound.com/OctoMic/1.php


Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
Core Sound LLC
www.core-sound.com
Home of TetraMic and OctoMic


___
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] Massless speakers

2018-03-26 Thread David Pickett

At 09:25 26-03-18, Politis Archontis wrote:

>I also remember during a lecture in ISVR, UK, the lecturer mentioning
>these old plasma tweeters, saying they did not get very far cause they
>were ionizing the air producing hazardous levels of ozone :-D .

Rubbish! A friend of mine had a pair and they worked well and nobody 
I know suffered from ozone exposure.

The problems were a) they were patented, b) they were very expensive 
and c) they wouldnt work below 10kHz unless loaded by an enormous horn!

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] Massless speakers

2018-03-25 Thread David Pickett

Are these not the same as the Ionophone speakers, 
sold as Ionofane tweeters in the 1960s? They were flat from 10kHz to oo!


David

At 12:41 25-03-18, Bearcat ÅÃ¡ndor wrote:
>
>Accapella Audio Arts has been making horns with plasma tweeters for a while
>now. They are some of the largest, and most expensive speakers made.
>Awesome in thier rediculousness, i'd be afraid that someone would get drunk
>at my home and mistake them for a sink or a urinal.
>
>http://www.acapella.de/en/
>
>On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 1:23 AM, Augustine Leudar > wrote:
>
>> Ive been wondering for a while whether it was possible to use
>> electromagnetic waves interferance patterns to generate sound in 3D space
>> - the conclusions my physisit friends had was yes - possible - but not
>> without killing anyone that heard it .Plamsa is a bit different of course
>> to an EM wave
>
>> On 25 March 2018 at 07:45, Gary Gallagher  wrote:
>
>> > Never heard of this. Using laser plasma as driver for a speaker. Here as
>> > weapon - but it would be interesting to hear/see a  refined version of
>> > this. I'm curious about the spinning disk set up at the end of the video
>> > there appears to be some sort of modulation in the sound.
>> >
>> > US MILITARY DEVELOPING LASER PLASMA SPEAKERS
>> > 
>  
> laser-plasma-speakers/>

>> >
>> > Gary
>> > -- next part --
>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> > URL: 
>  
> attachments/20180325/2167d7e3/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.
>> >
>
>
>
>> --
>> Dr. Augustine Leudar
>> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
>> Company Number : NI635217
>> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
>> Belfast BT88LL
>> www.magikdoor.net
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: 
> 
attachments/20180325/df4cbd39/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.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Bearcat M. ÅÃ¡ndor
>Feline Soul Systems LLC
>Voice: 872.CAT.SOUL (872.228.7685)
>Fax: 406.235.7070
>-- next part --
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
>25/e64fcf3d/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] MEMS speakers

2018-01-21 Thread David Pickett

I should have thought that these devices are so small that one ought 
to be able to anything with enough of them in strategically designed 
and positioned arrays.


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] Firefox v.57.0.4 and surround files in HTML5

2018-01-20 Thread David Pickett

At 21:29 20-01-18, Paul Hodges wrote:
>--On 20 January 2018 20:35 +0100 David Pickett <d...@fugato.com> wrote:
>
>> I hadnt seen any anouncement of this, but I have just discovered that
>> Firefox (Windows version) plays my surround files in surround.
>> Previously, for these and for the BBC experiments I have had to use
>> Chrome. If someone with four speakers would like to confirm that this
>> is true and I am not halucinating, I should be grateful.
>
>As I remarked recently on this list, this is routine for any up-to-date
>browser, in Windows, at least

I dont recall seeing that. Do you know when Firefox became compliant?

> (and who risks using a browser that's not
>fully updated these days?).

The frequency of the updates tempts me sorely!

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] Firefox v.57.0.4 and surround files in HTML5

2018-01-20 Thread David Pickett

I hadnt seen any anouncement of this, but I have just discovered that 
Firefox (Windows version) plays my surround files in surround. 
Previously, for these and for the BBC experiments I have had to use 
Chrome. If someone with four speakers would like to confirm that this 
is true and I am not halucinating, I should be grateful.


MP4 surround test files (some made with my pantophonic mic) in 
embedded HTML5 players are at


http://www.fugato.com/pickett/surround-tests.shtml

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] Most Common Speaker Configurations for HOA Monitoring/Listening?

2017-12-22 Thread David Pickett


At 14:27 22-12-17, Len Moskowitz wrote:


We're configuring the speaker decoder for OctoMic


OctoMic is a new one on me. Are any details available of what it does?

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] Simple Software to Play a 6-channel WAV File (Windows)?

2017-10-25 Thread David Pickett


But I have been thinking about it -- fatal!

If you start off from WXY, which is what I use, and make these into 
4.0, you have merely done a linear transform (a sophisticated LR-->SD 
relationship). As this is totally lossless, any added phase anomalies 
either before or after the transform, while they may not give the 
same effect, could be significant. All I can say is that I have not 
heard any significant degradation of my recordings when coding them 
into high rate MP4 and playing them over the internet before 
subsequent decoding.


I am not trying to be awkward, just trying to make sense of this!

David

At 13:12 25-10-17, Dave Malham wrote:
>I should have said "storing pre-decoded signals in a compressed format has
>less potential to be problematic" since phase errors likely to upset
>pre-decoded material would probably also cause problems with stereo which
>hopefully would have been picked up and dealt with during testing. I should
>say here that that's just what I feel likely to be the case, I can't say
>that I've actually tested it.
>
>  Dave
>
>On 25 October 2017 at 11:30, David Pickett <d...@fugato.com> wrote:
>
>> At 09:55 25-10-17, Dave Malham wrote:
>>
>> >   Just a word of warning, take care using compressed formats like mp4 for
>> >storing B format. If the compression used is lossy, this can screw up the
>> >decoding since phase errors can result in the sum and difference equations
>> >involved producing wrong results. Of course, storing pre-decoded signals
>> in
>> >a compressed format doesn't suffer from this.
>>
>> Dave,
>>
>> I always add add shelf filtering and then decode from B format to 4.0
>> before encoding to MP4. I dont see why there should not also be phase
>> problems with encoding 4.0 signals in MP4 (why do you say not?); but I have
>> never noticed any.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
>--
>
>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/201710>25/25ceb978/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] Simple Software to Play a 6-channel WAV File (Windows)?

2017-10-25 Thread David Pickett

At 09:55 25-10-17, Dave Malham wrote:

>   Just a word of warning, take care using compressed formats like mp4 for
>storing B format. If the compression used is lossy, this can screw up the
>decoding since phase errors can result in the sum and difference equations
>involved producing wrong results. Of course, storing pre-decoded signals in
>a compressed format doesn't suffer from this.

Dave,

I always add add shelf filtering and then decode from B format to 4.0 
before encoding to MP4. I dont see why there should not also be phase 
problems with encoding 4.0 signals in MP4 (why do you say not?); but 
I have never noticed any.

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] Cellphone tetrahedral

2017-08-19 Thread David Pickett


At 13:52 19-08-17, mick ritchie wrote:

>adjusting W by 1.414 - can that be done in reaper or protools?

Yes. It just means changing the level of W by 3dB.

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] Cellphone tetrahedral

2017-08-18 Thread David Pickett

It seems that ping pong is the "musical event" of choice. There's 
nothing like being historically aware (cf 1957 stereo demo LPs)!

David

At 09:36 18-08-17, Steven Boardman wrote:
>http://yun.twirlingvr.com/index.php/home/Lite/lite-en
>
>They were also going to bring out a stand alone integrated recording
>solution.
>Will download the b-format files and listen in the studio later..
>Looks precarious, and prone to falling out/over/off.  Especially as most
>usb ports are on the bottom and not that tight.
>
>Steve
>-- next part --
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
>18/1a9c54e3/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] Sound Based Composition(surround)

2017-08-18 Thread David Pickett

At 20:06 17-08-17, Phi Shu wrote:

>Just curious, why do you want to do a PhD at all? are you planning on being
>an academic?

It is a relatively recent requirement of academics that they hold a 
PhD before being allowed into the profession. In my own case, I 
elected to do a PhD in order to be able to answer the questions I had 
about the subject material in a disciplined and rigorous manner. I 
realised from the start that, were I not to have employed the 
framework of a PhD, I should never have achieved anything. That said, 
the structure of my work and the thesis owed little to any previous 
models. Acquiring a PhD in a slightly different field from that in 
which I was engaged as an academic had absolutely no effect on my 
career development.

It never ceases to amaze me how many PhD candidates have NO idea what 
they want to research before they register for the degree. Given that 
the thesis is at the heart of it all (and in my case was the only 
requirement for award of the degree), this is amazing. These are the 
candidates who want a PhD solely because they want to enter the 
academy and, since they often seem to have no independent ideas in 
their heads, I wonder whether they should be allowed in.

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] DX17

2017-07-21 Thread David Pickett

I have not been, but it looks interesting.

I am surprised that political correctness hasnt forced a change of 
name for this museum yet! Does the UK still officially wage "imperial 
wars" -- or are they on hold until we have Brexited?

:)

David

At 10:02 21/07/2017, Dave Malham wrote:
>Has anyone been to DX17 at Duxford (
>http://www.iwm.org.uk/exhibitions/iwm-duxford/dx17-centenary-sound-sculpture)?
>If so, is it worth making the trip from up here in York?
>
> Dave
>
>--
>
>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:
>21/1bb780ca/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] Multichannel players for permanent installations

2017-06-30 Thread David Pickett


At 14:23 30/06/2017, Dave Malham wrote:

>then it moved to Vienna, which is quite cold (!) at times

Last week it was 34 C here!

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] Multichannel players for permanent installations

2017-06-27 Thread David Pickett


At 19:12 27/06/2017, JÃ¶rn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 06/27/2017 02:53 PM, David Pickett wrote: > 
At 13:52 27/06/2017, Augustine Leudar 
wrote: >  >Hi, >  >I know I've asked this before 
but maybe there's some new developments. > 
HAs >  >anyone any suggestions for anything up 
to a permanent 22 channel >  >installation 
(could be two devices started at the same time 
and set to >  >loop) . The best suggestion Ive 
had I think is one of those old hard 
disk >  >recorders for use with mixing desks ? 
Any other suggestions ? Ive been > 
the >  >computer with multchannel soundcard 
route and it is not an experience Id >  >like to 
repeat. Must be bomb/cleaner/child/adult 
proof, > > A second hand Alesis HD24, if you are 
on a low budget.  They are > bomb-proof. Iff you 
can get the appropriate disks, which seem to be 
fetching collector's prices these days :-D


I am still using mine (as a backup, connected 
with ADAT I/O) with the old parallel disks, but 
members of the Yahoo HD24 group have successfully 
converted machines to run with modern SATA 
disks.  Unlike the USB stick, nobody is likely to nick the HD!


As to not having a guarantee, the system is so 
simple that once it works it seems to go for 
ever.  However, as a consequence of this, I see 
that prices are holding steady on Ebay at c. 500 quid.


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] Multichannel players for permanent installations

2017-06-27 Thread David Pickett

At 13:52 27/06/2017, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>Hi,
>I know I've asked this before but maybe there's some new developments. HAs
>anyone any suggestions for anything up to a permanent 22 channel
>installation (could be two devices started at the same time and set to
>loop) . The best suggestion Ive had I think is one of those old hard disk
>recorders for use with mixing desks ? Any other suggestions ? Ive been the
>computer with multchannel soundcard route and it is not an experience Id
>like to repeat. Must be bomb/cleaner/child/adult proof,

A second hand Alesis HD24, if you are on a low budget.  They are bomb-proof.

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] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

2017-06-26 Thread David Pickett


At 21:57 26/06/2017, David Pickett wrote:

This whole business of low noise microphones and preamps is in my 
experience a non-issue in the vast majority of cases.


That said, I was upset to discover that MOTU publish no details on 
their website of the 4Pre that can be construed as truly technical.


A Sound on Sound review of the larger box says:

"MOTU don't publish any specifications for the 8Pre's analogue 
circuitry, such as frequency response or signal-to-noise ratio. While 
it might be nice to know these things, it could be argued that exact 
figures are almost meaningless to the typical user the 8Pre is aimed 
at. In any case, modern digital electronics design almost always 
ensures that signal-to-noise ratio and bandwidth are no longer the 
key concerns for the performance of an audio interface."


...

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] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

2017-06-26 Thread David Pickett

This whole business of low noise microphones and preamps is in my 
experience a non-issue in the vast majority of cases. Very few 
environments are quiet enough to be softer than the noise level of 
most microphones. This is true in most cases of recording nature 
sounds and very few recording studios get down below NC 20.  Concert 
halls are even noisier, and we rarely make recordings in anechoic 
chambers, however isolated they may be.


Sampo is right about the ease with which a high quality mic amp can 
be put together, taking reasonable (and obvious) precaution with 
screening, rf suppression and PSU smoothing. I made a simple 
two-channel amp with two THAT1510 ICs in a small box for use with 
ribbon microphones. It can be powered for hours from two PP3 
batteries, and measures and sounds as well as my much more expensive 
RME UFX amplifiers.


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] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

2017-06-26 Thread David Pickett

At 14:44 26/06/2017, Steven Boardman wrote:

>I use the Motu 4pre (with a tablet for on the fly decodes), with a
>Zoom F8 in the field. I also have a RME Fireface in the studio.
>None have problems with the noise floor being louder than that of the mic.
>The noise of the Tetramic is only a problem when the subject is quiet
>or far away. So for most musical applications itâs great. If you are
>trying to capture wildlife at a distance then there are better options

Quite so. As I read the article, I didnt have the 
impression that the sources used were all that 
challenging in terms of loudness. The noise and 
sensitivity spec on the Tetramic is quite satisfactory:

"... Self noise: 19 dBA per capsule. Self noise 
can decrease or increase depending on selected decode

"Maximum SPL per capsule: 135 dB Sensitivity per 
capsule: 7.0 mV/Pa nominal (-43 dB ref: 1V/Pa) ..."

I cannot find comparably detailed specifications 
for the MOTU 4Pre, but the sensitivity demands above are not extreme.

At 14:17 26/06/2017, Sampo Syreeni wrote:

It's been something like a decade since I looked 
into something like Cirrus Logic or Analog 
Devices A/D silicon. Then a perfectly good four 
channel, 16-18 bit equivalent chip cost 
somewhere in the vicinity of $35. A reference 
PCB layout for it came free as well. Thus, the 
idea that you'd now have to expend anything 
beyond some 100's in hardware in order to get a 
fully functional, top of the line preamp for 
your top of the line ambisonic mic, seems pretty much preposterous.

Indeed so.  I cant quote prices for the A/D 
stage, but the one-off price of a THAT1512 analog 
input amplifier costs only EUR 6.82 at 
Mouser.com, and requires only a few additional components.

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] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

2017-06-26 Thread David Pickett

At 10:48 26/06/2017, Enda Bates wrote:

>In our test, the mic preamps were quite modest (the MOTU 8m) although
>still fairly representative of the types of mic pres often used with
>these types of mics, hence the issue. So, as John also mentioned, when
>using the TetraMic with modest mic pres (such as a Motu, or a Zoom
>portable recorder), noise can be more of an issue with this mic
>compared to some others, but using better mic pres (such as the Metric
>Halo) much less so. To me this is something important to be aware of.

There is something not quite right here.  It seems quite crazy to 
have to spend over USD 3000 for a preamp/AD convertor to use with a 
microphone (Tetramic) which is designed to sell for USD 1300 (i.e. 
much cheaper than the Soundfield).  But I am not convinced that such 
an expensive preamp is required.  The Tetramic website says: "We've 
found that a few commercial mic pre/ADCs will do the job. They are 
the MOTU 
Traveler, MOTU 4Pre, 
Metric Halo's ULN-8, Prism 
Sound's 
Orpheus, 
Apogee's Quartet and 
RME Fireface UFX."

I am not a MOTU user, but at USD 449, the MOTU 4Pre presumably has a 
quite adequate noise specification, or the highly competent Tetramic 
engineers would not have mentioned it in the same sentence as the 
more expensive options.

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] Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

2017-06-25 Thread David Pickett


At 01:34 25/06/2017, Sampo Syreeni wrote:

It's then amazingly difficult to get a rig amenable to the job. At 
my rather low price point, it's almost impossible to get any numbers 
on how your tentative loudspeakers behave. Pretty much no speaker 
manufacturer wants to publish even such basic measures as impedance 
curves at contact, driver thermal constants/dynamic compression time 
constants, polar response plots, waterfall plots, crossover 
frequencies, phase plots, and the thing.


In recent years, I have only seen such plots (and not all of them) in 
reviews by Stereophile magazine, after seeing which, and listening to 
in the shop, I bought four B DM603 S3 speakers for about $600 each 
about 10 years ago. I am still very happy with them though, had I the 
money and the space, I would be even happier wih their studio 
monitors! Lower quality speakers that that I wouldnt expect to give 
decent 4.0 results. But what price range are you looking at?


Undoubtedly it's more complicated on the speaker side. But the 
difficulty is manifest on the mic side as well: all of the 
measurables dual to those of a speaker can in fact sometimes affect 
the performance of a mic, and then even there they don't just tell 
you outright what those measurables *are*.


No microphone known to me, at any price, has sufficiently defined or 
credible specifications.  You just have to use your ears, I am afraid!


David




 Then because of the unknowns, you might well end up paying several 
thousands of euros extra, for nothing at all. Even at the high end, 
which people here talk about... :/


___
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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

2017-01-10 Thread David Pickett

At 17:18 07-01-17, Richard Lee wrote:

>> One broadcast I recall was a play based upon Alice in Wonderland entitled
>
>"Alice's Adventures In Wonderland".
>

I must be missing something subtle concerning the change in the title 
(Is it the capital I?)...

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] Freedman Electronics Purchases Soundfield

2016-11-21 Thread David Pickett


At 10:05 21-11-16, Paul Hodges wrote:

>I wonder whether this heralds a lowercost ambisonic microphone.

I cant see that one ocould be produced much more cheaply than Core 
Sound's Tetramic.


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] Speaker numbering

2016-11-19 Thread David Pickett

In order to check that everything is correct, despite one's 
impeccable logic in imagining a virtual transformation matrix between 
how one thinks the signals should be numbered and the reality of the 
specific situation, I recommend that everyone have a test recording 
that identifies each channel.  With this it is relatively easy to 
check and correct, while avoiding total confusion.


David

At 14:21 17-11-16, Peter Lennox wrote:
>I once spent two days trying to understand the mapping of a 32
>(periphonic) speaker rig, as there were 3 different speaker numbering
>'conventions' in use, by 3 different parties: one used
>counterclockwise numbering of 'slices' - middle, top, bottom, another
>used a similar system but clockwise, and another used weird kind of
>helical 'start at the top, downwards in stripes', kind of system. Each
>party thought their system was logical and obvious, so it didn't need
>documenting.
>Trying to understand what was actually wired to what was a comical nightmare.
>
>Dr. Peter Lennox
>Senior Lecturer in Perception
>College of Arts
>University of Derby, UK
>e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk
>t: 01332 593155
>https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of 
Dave Malham

>Sent: 17 November 2016 11:10
>To: Surround Sound discussion group 
>Subject: Re: [Sursound] Speaker numbering
>
>Your second layout is what I always tended to do when I had control of
>the numbering but when working in a venue other than your own you 
often don't.

>Personally, I'm not sure about "standards" for something as variable
>as a multispeaker array since I would ALWAYS want to check that they
>really, really were connected to the standard - I have been caught out
>too many times over the years :-(
>
>Dave
>
>PS Actually, I would usually check my own rig, just in case someone
>had played silly buggers with the leads since last time I used it.
>Like I said, been caught out too many times
>
>
>On 16 November 2016 at 22:12, Augustine Leudar 
>wrote:
>
>> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
>> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array The first way seems
>> to be circular :
>>
>>   1   2
>> 83
>> 74
>>6   5
>>
>> The other way is as follows :
>>
>>1  2
>> 3   4
>> 5   6
>>7  8
>>
>> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was curious
>> as to how other sursounders number their speakers ?
>> -- next part -- An HTML attachment was
>> scrubbed...
>> URL: > 
attachments/20161116/493aaff8/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.
>>
>
>
>
>--
>
>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:
>17/5bf90225/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.
>
>
>The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and
>reserves the right to monitor email traffic.
>If you believe this was sent to you in error, please reply to the
>sender and let them know.
>
>Key University contacts: http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/
>___
>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] Sennheiser Ambeo

2016-09-15 Thread David Pickett

At 18:16 15-09-16, Luke Smiles wrote:
>
>It appears the Sennheiser Ambeo will be on sale from November with a
>street price of EU 1,500 plus tax or US $11,650 plus tax for the mic,
>software, cable and fixing tools.
>
>luke_
>

Is that a typo, or is it really ten times more expensive in the USA?

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] Decode options for WX only

2016-09-14 Thread David Pickett

Since W is an omni and X is a figure of eight, and both are facing 
forwards, there is little that you can do in stereo.

You can try using an MS decode to stereo, but W + X gives a forward 
facing cardioid, and W - X gives a rearward facing cardioid.  If 
these two signals are played as L/R stereo, you will get a good 
stereo image of what is on the sides, the front sound will be on the 
left hand side and teh rear sound on the right.  The stereo will be 
coherent, but probably not what you hoped for.

Sorry! Not very positive!

David

At 10:45 14-09-16, Phi Shu wrote:
>I've been editing some old B-Format field recordings, one of which was made
>in a very humid climate where there were issues with the mic  (ST250); such
>that two channels dropped out completely for some the session.
>
>For those sections what I'm left with is a W & X feed. Running these
>through a decoder obviously does not result in an ambisonic sound image,
>but I am getting a kind of "spatial" effect, the material sounds
>'spatialised' (using an 8 speaker CF ring in 2D) and there does appear to
>be a clear sense of directionality (a dispersed left right or front back
>image).
>
>I'm just wondering what it happening, technically? And what are my options
>in terms of getting some kind of usable spatialisation. I was considering
>doing a hybrid mix whereby the WX is decoded to stereo (if this is
>possible) and then using it as a frontal image, with related B-Format
>material forming an ambisonic backdrop.
>
>Any ideas here would be really helpful.
>-- next part --
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
>14/264ecebc/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] Soundfield on UK eBay

2016-08-22 Thread David Pickett

Actually, it was stuck at £206 for a long time; 
but finally went for £411 in the last few minutes.


David

At 15:20 22-08-16, Dave Malham wrote:
>
>Well, someone got it for Â£206, so it was still a bargain...
>
>
>On 21 August 2016 at 21:20, ROBERT HUKIN  wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>
>> Anyone considering bidding on the mkV Soundfield mic currently on eBay
>> (272344380271), please bear in mind it will require 4 new capsules (or
>> reskinning) - all damaged.
>
>> rob.
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: 
> 
attachments/20160821/27edbac6/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.
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>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:
>22/54c8959b/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] BBC Binaural Sound from the Proms

2016-08-15 Thread David Pickett


For the binaural enthusiasts among us:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2913JxRtQl3ZTvw0wz5C4D1/proms-in-binaural-sound

Does anyone know what the "additional microphone array" is?

When they refer to "a sense of height", do they mean that one is 
supposed to have the impression of being 6 metres up off the ground?


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] External phantom battery source for TetraMic PPAc

2016-07-25 Thread David Pickett

At 11:40 25-07-16, Richard Lee wrote:
>> Most days I would agree with you: but there is always Murphy's Law to
>contend with, and the specific case of this states that a PP3-powered
>recording device will fail only when a unique event is to be recorded.
>
>Ha!  In my limited experience, Murphy is MUCH more likely to strike at
>rechargeable batteries.  8>D
>
>You find, far too late, that you haven't charged them properly or they no
>longer retain charge properly.

Yes; but in my experience this is more predictable than how or when 
Murphy will strike!

>If you use rechargeables, I suggest you have a new alkaline PP3 or two in
>your spares kit with the correct connector.

Talking about connectors -- those to PP3 batteries, like these: 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/5-X-HARD-PLASTIC-PP3-9V-BATTERY-CLIP-SNAP-ON-CONNECTOR-145MM-CABLE-LEAD-SNAPS-/280832811783 
often have very thin wires, and I had one break off a couple of 
months ago, with nearly totally disastrous results.  I replaced the 
assembly with a snap in holder.

___
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] Double MS to B-Format

2016-07-16 Thread David Pickett


At 18:23 16-07-16, Billy Wirasnik wrote:
>A few weeks ago we recorded a roving 100 person ensemble performing Inuksuit
>using Theta's and my Double MS
>system.

I'm very interested to know what YOU mean by "double MS system".

David



 I'm now trying to format the audio in a way that will work with
>Youtube Spatial Audio.
>
>Does anyone have experience taking Double MS recordings and encoding them
>to horizontal B-format?
>
>--
>
>*Billy Wirasnik*
>
>*Director | Slo.Media *
>
>*Sound Designer | BillyWirasnik.com *
>
>845-417-8290
>-- next part --
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
>16/f0b112e1/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] Proms 2016 in Surround

2016-07-15 Thread David Pickett

They do have a list this year: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/taster/projects/proms-surround-sound-2016


David

At 21:11 15-07-16, Marc LavallÃ©e wrote:
>In the FAQ:
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/taster/projects/proms-surround-sound/inside-story
>There's a link to a test player:
>http://rdmedia.bbc.co.uk/proms/surroundtest.html
>
>On Linux, Chrome works as expected (with 4 distinct channels), but
>Firefox still mixes the 4 channels in stereo. So I would suggest to
>verify the channels using the test player before listening to the live
>streams. The Opera browser works because it is based on Chrome. The BBC
>"experimental surround player" (is it the same since 2014?) could warn
>users of non-Chrome based browsers.
>
>--
>Marc
>
>On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 19:38:44 +0100,
>Paul Hodges <pwh-surro...@cassland.org> wrote :
>
>> --On 15 July 2016 20:12 +0200 David Pickett <d...@fugato.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I just realised that the First Night of the Proms is in half an hour
>> > and the BBC is again streaming in Surround.
>> >
>> > Information here:
>> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/taster/projects/proms-surround-sound-2016
>>
>> Unlike in previous years, going to the link presents a working
>> 4-channel feed from my default browser (Opera) with no additional
>> preparation required. As before, their levels for the rear speakers
>> seem to me to be surprisingly low.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>
>___
>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] Proms 2016 in Surround

2016-07-15 Thread David Pickett

I just realised that the First Night of the Proms is ijn half an hour 
and the BBC is again streaming in Surround.


Information here: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/taster/projects/proms-surround-sound-2016


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] YouTube now supports Ambisonics (warning....part advertisement..)

2016-05-08 Thread David Pickett

At 04:05 08-05-16, Aaron Heller wrote:

>Problem solved.  Here's the YouTube version of one of the most downloaded
>file from Ambisonia, AJH_eigtht_positions.amb
>
>   https://youtu.be/eY9DMn8pgGA

Exciting news -- thanks Aaron!

But I must have missed something earlier.  What do I do to play this 
back in 4.0?  Using Chrome, I have no problems with the BBC Proms, or 
my own test page at http://www.fugato.com/pickett/surround-tests.shtml

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] YouTube now supports Ambisonics (warning....part advertisement..)

2016-04-20 Thread David Pickett

At 18:39 20-04-16, Politis Archontis wrote:

>Hi David,
>
>if you are asking if the ACN/SN3D FOA is the same as the B-format,
>yes, first-order is the B-format anyway you look at it.
>The B-format in ACN/SN3D convention is the same as in the traditional
>definition without the W scaling and in the ACN order:
>
>B_ACN_SN3D = [sqrt(2)*W Y Z X].
>

Thanks!  So what client do I need to play such a video on my computer 
and output 4.0 or whatever through my soundcard, please?  Does the 
browser take care of the matrixing?  Can I change the values of the 
parameters?  Is there likely to be shelf filtering available in the 
browser or the player?

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] YouTube now supports Ambisonics (warning....part advertisement..)

2016-04-20 Thread David Pickett

At 17:29 20-04-16, Albert Leusink wrote:

>YouTube is now supporting ACN/SN3D FOA attached to a .mov video container as
>uncompressed PCM audio.

I am sure I should know, but if this is a multitrack thing, what do 
the channels each contain?  B format or what?

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] Sursound Digest, Vol 93, Issue 17

2016-04-19 Thread David Pickett



>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Sursound digest..."

>> WHEN REPLYING EDIT THE SUBJECT LINE
>
>> ALSO EDIT THE MESSAGE BODY

>> You are receiving the digest so when replying, please remember to edit
>> your Subject line to that of the original message you are replying to, so
>> it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Sursound-list digest" the
>> subject should  match the post you are replying to.

>> Also, please EDIT the quoted post so that it is not the entire digest, but
>> just the post you are replying to - this will keep the archive useful and
>> not polluted with extraneous posts.

>> This is the responsibility of digest subscribers. the community and list
>> subscribers care about the integrity of the threads and archives so this is
>> important.

___
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] Are mems a good choice for ambisonic microphones?

2016-04-14 Thread David Pickett

At 14:02 14-04-16, Politis Archontis wrote:

> Very high quality recording/reproduction would still
> require proper capsules in my opinion

What do you regard a minimally "proper capsules"?

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] Anyone know anything about this?

2016-04-08 Thread David Pickett


At 15:13 08-04-16, JÃ¶rn Nettingsmeier wrote:

They might have very pragmatic reasons: if they 
know their equivalent input noise is at 30 dB 
SPL and their capsules barf at 120, then 
restricting the word length to 96 dB is a 
perfectly reasonable decision, given the 
extremely cramped space and the thermal 
challenges inside the sphere. It does not leave 
much room for error though, so they better get their analog gains right.


It is not clear to me what exactly they are aiming to record with this device.

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] OT Stereo stage width - Was: Static stereo source in rotating soundfield, possible?

2016-03-30 Thread David Pickett


At 20:44 30-03-16, Eric Benjamin wrote:

>I have two observations from my own research. The first is that the
>ear signals resulting from equal signals at the loudspeakers is not
>the same as for a real source located between the loudspeakers. The
>second is that, if I measure the ear signals for a real listener for
>the equal loudspeaker signal case, the two ears are different. Why?
>Because the summation of the signals at the ears is so sensitive that
>a condition of balance is never achieved. The loudspeakers don't have
>the same sensitivity, they are not precisely the same distance from
>the ears, and the listener's head itself isn't precisely symmetrical,
>isn't located precisely on the centerline, and isn't pointed precisely
>directly ahead.

What kind of signal were you using when you made these observations, please?

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] OT Stereo stage width

2016-03-30 Thread David Pickett

At 17:10 30-03-16, Peter Lennox wrote:

>Alan Blumlein at the EMI started with  30...35 degrees stereo stage
>with two loudspeakers. Remember, he was thinking about "binaural" not
>stereo sound.

What Blumlein called "binaural" was not what we call "binaural", 
using headphones -- it was his name for two loudspeaker stereo.

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] OT Stereo stage width - Was: Static stereo source in rotating soundfield, possible?

2016-03-30 Thread David Pickett

At 14:27 30-03-16, Peter Lennox wrote:
>
>At the back of my mind, the4re's something nagging me - I'm sure I've
>read of someone advocating 3 speaker stereo (is that similar to
>trifield?) and finding that a wider spacing of LR speakers was
>desirable? - makes sense.

Michael Gerzon, "Three Channels.  The Future of Stereo?", Studio Sound, vol. 32
no. 6, pp. 112, 114, 117, 118, 120, 123 & 125 (1990 June) (An account of
Ambisonic ideas applied to 3-speaker frontal stereo.)

MAG: "Optimal Reproduction Matrices for Multispeaker Stereo"  AES, 
NY, OCt 1991.

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] OT Stereo stage width - Was: Static stereo source in rotating soundfield, possible?

2016-03-30 Thread David Pickett


At 11:54 30-03-16, Eero Aro wrote:

If 90 degrees between the speakers works for you, fine. Most likely 
the commercial
recordings you are listening to, have been monitored with an 60 
degrees angle, as
that has been the "standard" setup in studios for more than 60 
years. It didn't happen
when 5.1 came up. On the contrary, the working group that defined 
the 5.1 setup,
started from a center channel and a good stereo image in front that 
works for most

people.

As Dave Malham says, there must be AES papers where this 60 degrees 
has been taken

from.


As you say: it goes back further than the AES: I would look at old 
copies of Wireless World or Proc IEE/IRE!


We used approx. 60 degrees at Abbey Rd in the late 60s, largely 
dictated by the size of the control rooms.


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] OT Stereo stage width - Was: Static stereo source in rotating soundfield, possible?

2016-03-29 Thread David Pickett

At 20:51 29-03-16, Peter Lennox wrote:
>wasn't the original conception for stereo = 90 degrees, but 'hole in
>the middle' effects led to standardising on the narrower figure?

There seemd to be an echo in here!

Running down the email and deleting as I go, I come to:

>> From: David Pickett <d...@fugato.com>
>> Date: 28 March 2016 19:33:08 BDT
>>
>> The problem with speakers at +/- 45 degrees is that one needs a
>> wide room if one is to sit at a decent distance from them.

Somebody else said that he has encountered people who have 
difficulties with stereo.  I dont and I have personally never found a 
student who did.  I have tried 90 degrees, and I am quite happy with 
it.  I have no problem with hole in the middle with 90 degree 
separation of speakers.

The distance thing depends on how close you want to sit to the 
speakers.  My stereo speakers are 8ft apart.  If I sit at the point 
of an equilateral triangle, I am 7ft back -- 4/tan(30).  If I want to 
be 8ft from each speaker when they are at +/-45 degrees, they have to 
be 11.3 ft apart -- rt(2)x8 -- and I am then 5.6ft back from the line 
joining the two speakers.  I find this necessary in order not to be 
too close to the speakers.  I have managed this in a much larger room 
than I have at present, but adding a minimum of 4ft between each 
speaker and the side wall demands a minimum room width of about 20ft.

The 8ft square speaker positions that I currently use for both 2.0 
and 4.0 means that I sit between the two rear speakers.  For 2.0, the 
angle of the front speakers is thus about 63 degrees -- atan(2).  As 
I have mostly ambience & audience noise on the rear, having the two 
rears to left and right of me works well in 4.0.  Sitting in the 
middle of the square, as I do briefly to evalute quality, means that 
all the speakers are closer to me than I like.

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] OT Stereo stage width - Was: Static stereo source in rotating soundfield, possible?

2016-03-28 Thread David Pickett

The problem with speakers at +/- 45 degrees is that one needs a wide 
room if one is to sit at a decent distance from them.  However, it 
can be impressive.  I have found the effect even better if a centre 
speaker of the same typeis added.  Gerzon gave the ratios necessary 
for matrixing 2 channel stereo into this 3 channel format.  It is not 
simply a question of feeding the centre speaker with a -3dB sum, but 
quite easy to implement.


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] Sennheiser Ambeo

2016-03-19 Thread David Pickett


At 17:14 17-03-16, Jon Honeyball wrote:

>I wonder if they are even aware of soundfield?

It is hardly unlikely that they are NOT aware: the method of holding 
the capsules together looks just like a Soundfield mic!


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] Sennheiser Ambeo

2016-03-19 Thread David Pickett

At 07:49 19-03-16, Courville, Daniel wrote:
>
>>http://www.engadget.com/2016/03/15/sennheiser-3d-audio-demo-ambeo/
>
>And to give an idea of its size:
>https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdmtiYHUUAAPcVG.jpg:large

Comparing with an actual Rycote holder, I can see that on my monitor, 
which is 1920 x 1080, the first of these images comes out actual 
size.  Thus the chrome grille of the capsule has a diametere of 15mm 
and the top of the brass assembly is 40 mm from the black base.

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] Sennheiser Ambeo

2016-03-19 Thread David Pickett

At 19:55 17-03-16, alan.va...@talktalk.net wrote:
>
>Am I correct in thinking that patents expire after 10 years or so,
>after which its a free-for-all?

Ten years is a low figure.  But I believe the original 
Ambisonic/Soundfield patents are no longer valid.

___
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] OSSIC Kickstarter Campaign Begins

2016-03-08 Thread David Pickett



http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyguttman/2016/03/08/from-the-beatles-to-the-future-abbey-road-opens-first-music-tech-incubator-in-europe/3/#725b77bb10e2

says that Abbey Rd are taking them on in their "First Music Tech Incubator":

Ossic 
 Theyve already raised about a million dollars 
on Kickstarter for their 3D headphones. Our 
involvement with them will be less around the 
business because theyre very experienced in 
shipping consumer products  theyre all from 
Logitech. Itll be more about how to best create 
and deliver the 3D content. Well provide 
marketing support and theyll run events here.


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] Acoustic properties of round rooms ?

2016-03-07 Thread David Pickett


At 00:26 08-03-16, Sampo Syreeni wrote:

On 2016-03-07, David Pickett wrote:


Sorry, I should shave before writing.  I meant magnetron, not klystron...


Magnetrons are self-oscillating sources of microwave radiation. Of 
the fringed, multiplied, physical, secondary oscillator kind. 
Klystrons on the other hand are linear electron beam devices which 
are used as high gain, high power amplifiers.


I don't mean to be rude, but how on earth do you mix those tubes 
togerher? To me they seem totally different, both in construction, 
and in their actual use.


Simply because I havent used or seen one since 1966, when I was 
building solid state oscillators to replace them.


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] Acoustic properties of round rooms ?

2016-03-06 Thread David Pickett



Sorry, I should shave before writing.  I meant magnetron, not 
klystron...  There is a lot of stuff if you google circular microwave 
cavities.  I havent looked in detail, but they are, as I expected, 
high Q devices, which is a much better way of putting what I was 
trying to say earlier in a rather fumbly way.


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] Acoustic properties of round rooms ?

2016-03-06 Thread David Pickett

I wrote:

>> I would look to see if any work has been done on the behaviour of
>> comparable frequency transveres radio waves in circular waveguide.

I mean comparable in terms of the ratios of the diameter of the 
waveguide and the wavelength of the signal.  However, since I cant 
see a use for such in a long guide, it may not have been 
done.  Cavities, on the other hand with a limited height...  (Klystrons?)

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] Acoustic properties of round rooms ?

2016-03-06 Thread David Pickett

I thought at first of the membrane analysis, which of course involves 
Bessel functions, and which has been fully analysed in the text 
books.  There is, however, surely a difference between a circular 
membrane contrained at the edges (and even sometimes elsewhere) and 
air, which consists of independent and unattached molecules, though 
their motiion is constrained at the walls -- and this is the only 
thin in common with the molecules in a membrane.  Membrane behaviour 
must be different.  The vibrations of the air that get reflected from 
the walls are not up and down, as in the membrane motion, but in 
horizontal directions.  I continue to expect that there is an 
"infinite" number of modes, all at the same frequencies, due to the 
diameter being the same in all directions on the horizontal plane -- 
assuming we have a perfectly cylindrical room.

I visualize this by starting with the four walls or a square 
room.  There will be two similar horizontal sets of modes at the same 
frequencies.  Now make it octagonal and there are four sets of modes 
at the same frequencies.  Keep doing this and in the limit you arrive 
at a circular wall with an "infinite" number of modes...  Of course, 
there is some friction, but the effect would surely still be to have 
greater response at certain frequencies and not much in between them.

I would look to see if any work has been done on the behaviour of 
comparable frequency transveres radio waves in circular waveguide.

David

At 12:48 06-03-16, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>Im actually working on a sound installation which is involved with acoustic
>archeology in which Im hoping to experiments with resonances , this kind of
>thing :
>
>http://www.otsf.org/archaeoacoustics.html
>
>In this case a huge circular henge (3.5  m high banks)  180 m in diameter.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant%27s_Ring
>
>Obviously with no roof resonance will not be as pronounced but there is
>still likely to be some sort of modal behaviour, especially if there had
>been many people singing/chanting etc . Apparently you cant work out modes
>for circular structures in the normal way by halving wavelength in relation
>to room dimensions etc  A family member of mine is a physicist and
>suggested this might be useful to work out modes for an open circular
>structure :
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrations_of_a_circular_membrane#Animat
>ions_of_several_vibration_modes
>
>
>
>Then the following equation :
>
>Lowest frequency will be from longest wavelength which is 2 X pi X r/2.404
>(where r is radius of your circle) the next frequency has wavelength 2 pi
>r/3.83 = 1.64  x radius. And then 2 pi r/5.135 etc etc
>
>However this gives very long wavelengths - the highest mode is 11.61 there,
>but for me to calculate audible modes I would need numbers in this series
>above 150 or so (to get shorter audible wavelengths.
>Could anyone give numbers in the same series of numbers but above 150 ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 5 March 2016 at 21:31, Martin Leese 
>wrote:
>
>> Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>
>> > Ive had a search online but cant really find much literature about this.
>> > Can anyone tell me anything about the acoustics of circular rooms/spaces
>> ?
>> > How to standing waves behave in circular spaces ?
>>
>> There was a discussion several years ago in
>> one of the rec.audio.* newsgroups on standing
>> waves in *spherical* rooms.  Unfortunately,
>> Google Groups has deleted all the older posts,
>> but this post might be it:
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/"spherical$20room"$20audio/
>> rec.audio.pro/hLCCrmlSFdw/Lq_80PhAZQ0J
>>
>> (In case the link does not work, I went to
>> groups.google.com and searched for:
>> "spherical room" audio
>> with the double quotes.)
>>
>> 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 - unsubscribe here,
>> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>>
>
>
>
>--
>www.augustineleudar.com
>-- next part --
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
>06/ea837eb7/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.

1 2 3 >

1 - 100 of 250 matches

Mail list logo