Re: [Sursound] ST250 positional test request
Perhaps a B-format version could be shared with the forum as comparisons of different mic. localization would be interesting On Jan 23, 2015, at 3:33 PM, John Leonard j...@johnleonard.uk wrote: Could someone with an ST250 do a positional test for me in both end-fire and front-fire mode? I just need a very simple, but accurate 'front, back, left, right, up. down' test track. I've come across an anomaly in some archive work I'm doing and I want to do some comparisons with someone else's mic. Click and voice, for preference: an interleaved .wav file at 48k is all I need. Thanking somebody in advance! All the best, John Please note new email address direct line phone number email: j...@johnleonard.uk phone +44 (0)20 3286 5942 ___ 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] full-time tenure-track position in Sound Studies/Sound Design at Arizona State University
The School of Arts, Media + Engineering seeks applicants for a full-time tenure-track appointment in Sound Studies/Sound Design at the associate/assistant professor level beginning Fall 2015. http://ame.asu.edu/about/employment_faculty.php http://ame.asu.edu/about/employment_faculty.php Cheers, Garth Paine ga...@activatedspace.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20141121/8b95b29a/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Noise reduction on Ambisonic files
Dear Eero - thanks for this piece of advice On Aug 7, 2014, at 3:41 AM, Eero Aro eero@dlc.fi wrote: Just one more note Garth; When you have denoised the files, check that their length bitwise is the same as it used to be. At least in the large scale you are on the safe side then. Of course the phase may deviate during the file run, but I don't think that won't happen. On another note, there are some very expensive 5.1 noise reduction tools, but they are way out of my reach Cheers, Garth Paine ga...@activatedspace.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140809/208d50a5/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Noise reduction on Ambisonic files
HI Paul Have you tried this on an Ambisonic file? I would be interested to hear your thoughts. Cheers, Garth On Aug 7, 2014, at 5:43 AM, Paul Hodges pwh-surro...@cassland.org wrote: --On 07 August 2014 13:41 +0300 Eero Aro eero@dlc.fi wrote: Many Sursounders may not be aware that there are practically at all multichannel noise reduction systems available. They are all stereo, and can process mono. Adobe Audition can do noise reduction on multi-channel files. 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] Noise reduction on Ambisonic files
HI Eric This has been an interesting discussion already - thanks to everyone for their input. I think the students I employed to tagg the recordings took great pleasure in putting me down for all the extraneous noises they hear! If you got to the Listen site http://listen.ame.asu.edu/sonic_events.php and type in Goose in the TAG box in the search it will bring up an entry that if you click will then play in the bar above the search. This is a much better example. I also use Schoeps M/S pair on another 2 channels of the 788 and find them much much cleaner even with higher recording gain. I have always found the SPS200 and even the older Soundfield mics noisy and find the Core mic unusable in ambient environments - of course in a music concert it is a different story as the program amplitude is generally much higher. Yes indeed I can get over the SF. I am in Phoenix and love the sea so any opportunity ;-) On Aug 6, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Eric Benjamin eb...@pacbell.net wrote: Garth, I wonder why it is that your recordings are so afflicted by noise. The self noise spec for the SPS200 is 12 dBA, which is similar to that of other soundfield microphones from Soundfield. While 12 dBA isn't noise free, it should be pretty quiet. As a reference, the average threshold of detectability for microphone noise is about 6 dBA, assuming a natural recording scenario. That is, assuming that the sounds are replayed at the same level at which they occurred in the recording environment. Of course, it may be that the microphone doesn't meet specifications. I'm a bit confused by the recordings that you placed at http://listen.ame.asu.edu/sonic_events.php The first recording is labeled as no audio. The second recording is labeled as you can hear Garth open his canteen and move some things around. There's certainly a lot more noise in that second recording. About 46 dB more, unweighted. It would be interesting to try to perform some more controlled recordings to find out whether the noise is coming from the mic, or not, and whether it meets specifications. Do you ever get to the SF bay area? Eric Benjamin On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 3:12 PM, Sampo Syreeni de...@iki.fi wrote: On 2014-08-06, Joseph Anderson wrote: I take the noise profile from each individual A-format channel... At the risk of sounding trite, what is noise? I'd argue that it isn't one thing, and that it's pretty difficult to define with mathematical precision. If you're talking about environmental background, then approaches like gating A-format or some other suitable directional representation of sound is a good idea. If you're talking about tape noise instead, that isn't directional at all, at least until you get into directional masking calculations over what you can throw away without getting caught. In that case you'd want to operationalise what you consider noise, then find out an optimal way of extending that idea to B-format, and do the kind of joint processing Eero suggests. The easiest way probably is to go with just W in the sidechain and equal gating for all the channels in the main one. The next step would be to do the same per frequency, and so on. However, in the ambisonic world, you'll then bump into a third source: the mic. Since the Soundfield works on differencing principles, W has a totally different noise profile from XYZ, and typically it only gets worse from there as the order goes up. (Or it doesn't; that depends wholly on the mic geometry.) The point is, I don't think there is a monolithic thing called noise which can be just blindly reduced. There never was even in monophonic recordings, and the free degrees of freedom in your signal chain just multiply when you go through stereo to ambisonic. So, you need to be careful about which source(s) of unwanted hiss, distortion or bogus sources you're talking about, you'll have to develop computationally tractable models of both your utility signal and the noise, and only then can you really start to combine all of the machinery into something which actually works/sounds good. E.g. when you expand/limit A-format, implicitly your noise model is a hiss which is directional to first order and your model of the utility signal is something like a strong, wideband directional signal near it, which makes directional sine-to-noise masking statistics relevant. Break those conditions and bad things will most likely happen. So, try your approach on a two sine test signal, separated in frequency more than a critical band's worth. Pan one of the sines due front, and revolve the other one around at about 1Hz and say -6dB. Then add pink noise at about -10dB to each of the B-format channels independently. I'm rather sure that while your approach will work beautifully for the front signal alone when adjusted right, it'll lead to nasty, anisotropic
Re: [Sursound] Noise reduction on Ambisonic files
Hi Sampo Yes your philosophical meanderings are indeed some of my concerns about image - I am not convinced that in rendering a processed B-Format file that it would decode well in all output formats - Binaural, Stereo, 5.1 etc and I am not a terribly technical DSP person so running experiments to accurately check the phase is beyond me. AS you mention, the W is a separate issue and I have thought as Joseph argues of taking a snapshot of the background noise at a quiet point (although all the recordings are quiet) for each capsule and then applying them in A-Format (tracks separated) before the B-Format conversion. In this case I am doing that only for the SPS200 for which I trust Soundfield provided me with the right decoding in their software, although I do often feel it is a few degrees off to the right, but thats another story. I guess now that others have suggested it works for them I will apply RX to the A-Format tracks and see what happens. It does seem strange that there is not a commercially available system (that I can afford of course - i.e.. not a System 6000 solution) that does this automatically and guarantees the phase. Cheers, Garth On Aug 6, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Sampo Syreeni de...@iki.fi wrote: On 2014-08-06, Joseph Anderson wrote: I take the noise profile from each individual A-format channel... At the risk of sounding trite, what is noise? I'd argue that it isn't one thing, and that it's pretty difficult to define with mathematical precision. If you're talking about environmental background, then approaches like gating A-format or some other suitable directional representation of sound is a good idea. If you're talking about tape noise instead, that isn't directional at all, at least until you get into directional masking calculations over what you can throw away without getting caught. In that case you'd want to operationalise what you consider noise, then find out an optimal way of extending that idea to B-format, and do the kind of joint processing Eero suggests. The easiest way probably is to go with just W in the sidechain and equal gating for all the channels in the main one. The next step would be to do the same per frequency, and so on. However, in the ambisonic world, you'll then bump into a third source: the mic. Since the Soundfield works on differencing principles, W has a totally different noise profile from XYZ, and typically it only gets worse from there as the order goes up. (Or it doesn't; that depends wholly on the mic geometry.) The point is, I don't think there is a monolithic thing called noise which can be just blindly reduced. There never was even in monophonic recordings, and the free degrees of freedom in your signal chain just multiply when you go through stereo to ambisonic. So, you need to be careful about which source(s) of unwanted hiss, distortion or bogus sources you're talking about, you'll have to develop computationally tractable models of both your utility signal and the noise, and only then can you really start to combine all of the machinery into something which actually works/sounds good. E.g. when you expand/limit A-format, implicitly your noise model is a hiss which is directional to first order and your model of the utility signal is something like a strong, wideband directional signal near it, which makes directional sine-to-noise masking statistics relevant. Break those conditions and bad things will most likely happen. So, try your approach on a two sine test signal, separated in frequency more than a critical band's worth. Pan one of the sines due front, and revolve the other one around at about 1Hz and say -6dB. Then add pink noise at about -10dB to each of the B-format channels independently. I'm rather sure that while your approach will work beautifully for the front signal alone when adjusted right, it'll lead to nasty, anisotropic noise pumping with the dynamic signal in place. (Oh, and by the way, which A-format? As long as you're dealing with a perfect mic and linear, time-invariant filtering operation, you don't have to think about that because you can go willy nilly between A and B. But once you start applying this kind of processing, every possible orientation of the mic gives rise to a separate A-format. Which one should it be? The above example presumes one of the capsules is facing towards the reference. It gets much worse if you place the source directly between three adjacent capsules, in angle space.) -- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2 ___ 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] Noise reduction on Ambisonic files
Hi Dave Nice to hear from you and thanks for your input - it seems strange to me, given the known self noise of the most prevalent ambisonic microphones that there is not a solution out there already. Indeed your summations of the process aligns with mine, but I am somewhat nervous about looking to apply this over all 4 channels as there is so little across the 4 channels that I could use as a common measure of phase accuracy after processing, and to be honest I am not looking to write code for this as DSP is not my strong point - but I would see a use for this across the community. I would of course be happy to apply the noise reduction to the B-Format file. The idea for the Listen(n) project is to provide a wind range of listening outcomes from mobile devices with headphones to surround sound setups - so the decoding would need to be simple and be applicable across domestic platforms - so I am imagining that the noise reduction would therefore need to happen pre decoding to the listening format? Would love to find a solution - It has been suggested for instance that I use single instances of Izotopes RX on each of the 4 channels for the A-Format file and load a noise template in each - still I am concerned about any phase variation pre to decoding. Am I being over concerned? Cheers, Garth On Aug 5, 2014, at 4:09 AM, Dave Malham dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote: Hi Garth, An interesting one. certainly got me thinking - trouble is, you don't really want thoughts but measurements. I suspect it depends a lot on what the internal mechanism of the noise reduction system is. Mostly, as far as I can ascertain, there's an analysis filter bank to split the sound into bands which are then subject to some sort of processing, then the bands are re-combined somehow either directly or by resynthesis to produce the output. The most critical thing will usually be the combination of the analysis and resynthesis steps. For instance, a well designed and well implemented FFT/iFFT pair should preserve the phase well. However, since you rarely have access to the internals of these things for analysis, measurement - or just listening with a good pair of ears - is the only way forward. I suspect that processing the B format after conversion from A would be the best - anyone else have any thoughts? Dave PS Of course, you could just always process the speaker feeds, for know, as that would be the least risky but most processing heavy option On 4 August 2014 20:23, Garth Paine ga...@activatedspace.com wrote: Hi everyone I have been doing a lot of ambient Ambisonic A format recordings (sps200 into SD788) and as the environmental levels are so low the self noise of the microphone becomes a bit of an issue on playback - I have RX for stereo noise reduction but have not found a solution for multichannel that would make me relaxed about maintaining the phase for decoding - I want to output B-Format so decoding onto any speaker array rather than just output 5.1 and use a surround noise cleaner. I would appreciate thoughts from the list - I am guessing as the Soundfield mics are know for self noise that others have faced and perhaps solved this issue already? thanks in advance ps. you can hear some of the recordings here http://listen.ame.asu.edu/sonic_events.php Cheers, Garth Paine ga...@activatedspace.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140804/ca2c4e9f/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: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140805/d6cb70e1/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] Noise reduction on Ambisonic files
Hi everyone I have been doing a lot of ambient Ambisonic A format recordings (sps200 into SD788) and as the environmental levels are so low the self noise of the microphone becomes a bit of an issue on playback - I have RX for stereo noise reduction but have not found a solution for multichannel that would make me relaxed about maintaining the phase for decoding - I want to output B-Format so decoding onto any speaker array rather than just output 5.1 and use a surround noise cleaner. I would appreciate thoughts from the list - I am guessing as the Soundfield mics are know for self noise that others have faced and perhaps solved this issue already? thanks in advance ps. you can hear some of the recordings here http://listen.ame.asu.edu/sonic_events.php Cheers, Garth Paine ga...@activatedspace.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140804/ca2c4e9f/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Ambisonic workflow MuLab
Hi everyone I wonder if anyone has looked at using MuLab for Ambisonics - in their patcher environment they have several sends for each audio channels and so it would seem it might be possible to patch together a template that did ambisonics quite easily - however the demo only allows 2 channels per track http://www.mutools.com/mulab-product.html Cheers, Garth Paine ga...@activatedspace.com ___ 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] Bee-Format
That would be great John - thanks Cheers, Garth Paine ga...@activatedspace.com On Aug 28, 2013, at 11:46 AM, John Leonard j...@johnleonard.co.uk wrote: Anyone want to play with a recording of bees in B-Format? (See what I did there?) We had a bit of a bee-invasion on the balcony today and I stuck the ST450 out of the window for fun. Most of the action is front and centre and there's quite a bit of other noise from traffic, builders, noisy neighbours, etc., but the little blighters do buzz around quite a bit. If there's interest, I'll send to a download site. All the best, John ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130829/ccbb5590/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Morrow Sound??
Hi Dave Yes experienced it a couple of years ago in his studio in NYC. Basically Ambisonics - no new technology to my knowledge Cheers, Garth Paine ga...@activatedspace.com On 03/10/2012, at 11:36 PM, Dave Malham dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote: Anyone know/have any experience of http://www.cmorrow.com/true3D.html? Dave -- As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University, so this disclaimer is redundant These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer Dave Malham Ex-Music Research Centre Department of Music The University of York Heslington York YO10 5DD UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Call For Soundfield Recordists
I have a SD788 and Soudfield SPS200 - I am in Phoenix, Arizona - let me know if that is of interest. I do have some recordings of the desert Cheers, Garth Paine ga...@activatedspace.com On 25/09/2012, at 12:40 AM, Elan Rosenman elanpro...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Sursounders. I have a project that calls for soundfield recording from various international locations. If you have a mobile ambisonic recording rig and are available for paid (including expenses) recording projects please email me at elanpro...@gmail.com. Thanks, Elan Rosen -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120925/ad9faea9/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Call For Soundfield Recordists
sorry list - I of course did not mean to do that reply to all :-( Cheers, Garth Paine ga...@activatedspace.com On 25/09/2012, at 10:23 PM, Garth Paine ga...@activatedspace.com wrote: I have a SD788 and Soudfield SPS200 - I am in Phoenix, Arizona - let me know if that is of interest. I do have some recordings of the desert Cheers, Garth Paine ga...@activatedspace.com On 25/09/2012, at 12:40 AM, Elan Rosenman elanpro...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Sursounders. I have a project that calls for soundfield recording from various international locations. If you have a mobile ambisonic recording rig and are available for paid (including expenses) recording projects please email me at elanpro...@gmail.com. Thanks, Elan Rosen -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120925/ad9faea9/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Surround sound baths in California
Funny this comes up now - I was there last week - we hired the place for a day and recorded the bowls, but also made ambisonic recordings of sound shadows in a white noise field - generated by dancers moving through the space - it is for a dance work about Utopia and Alien Abduction for BalletLab in Australia http://www.balletlab.com - the Integratron is the result of a purported alien abduction http://www.integratron.com Cheers, Garth Paine ga...@activatedspace.com On 11/09/2012, at 1:01 PM, Martin Leese martin.le...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: Andrew Castiglione wrote: http://www.bbc.com/travel/blog/20120910-worldwide-weird-surround-sound-baths-in-california During the 60-minute sessions, a musician plays a series of nine quartz crystal singing bowls (played by running a special mallet around the exterior of each bowl), each attuned to the human body’s various chakras or energy centres to promote relaxation and rejuvenation. Well, I'm hooked. 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 ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers
ahh thanks Daniel I had not seen that. Would be cool if the speaker layout GUI could be rotated so one could see the 3D layout more clearly. So I guess as you suggest I could use one instance of Harpex for my main horizontal layout and then another instance with 2 or more shotguns raised in elevation to manage the height, depending on the available speakers Cheers, Garth Paine ga...@activatedspace.com On Jul 10, 2012, at 6:26 AM, Daniel Courville wrote: Le 2012-07-09 09:17, GP a écrit : I did wonder about using Daniel Courville's plugins to do decoding for the height info separate to HARPEX. The HARPEX decoding does sound good ( how can I confirm it is 3rd order over 8 speakers?) and so if I could add height using another approach that would be good. I need to look at how to get height only from Daniel's plugs. The Harpex-B has a shotgun output mode with three presets for 3D: Octahedron, 3D 7.0 and Cube. You can use them or build your own 3D decoder with virtual shotguns (eight maximum) to accommodate an ad hoc installation. - Daniel ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120710/cf5b59de/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers
Hi everyone I have been gathering lots of ambient field recordings in A-Format for a few years using my SPS200 Soundfiled mike and a 788T. I have experimented with playback over an 8 channel circle, and also with 3 circles of 8 at different heights (roof, 3M, 1M), and some other arrangements. I am currently working on 2 dance works where I want to use some of this material and also spatialise other synthesized material. I have 8 Meyer UPJ-1 to use in the space and may be able to get 2 more for height (not certain adn these may not be available at all venues). I would like to achieve better localization than I have found easy to do using lower order playback and wonder if it is possible to undertake higher order playback with only 8 speakers? ALso would it make sense to have the speakers in the circle at different heights - would that allow a hint of the height information (I would tell the plugin where they are), or just distort the render? Thanks in advance for your advice Cheers, Garth Paine ga...@activatedspace.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120709/011fa78f/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers
Thanks for that feedback - I have HARPEX, but did not realise it does third-order horizontal? One drawback with Harpex is it does not do height Cheers Garth http://www.activatedspace.com http://www.syncsonics.com On 09/07/2012, at 9:27 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: On 07/09/2012 01:17 PM, Garth Paine wrote: Hi everyone I have been gathering lots of ambient field recordings in A-Format for a few years using my SPS200 Soundfiled mike and a 788T. I have experimented with playback over an 8 channel circle, and also with 3 circles of 8 at different heights (roof, 3M, 1M), and some other arrangements. I am currently working on 2 dance works where I want to use some of this material and also spatialise other synthesized material. I have 8 Meyer UPJ-1 to use in the space and may be able to get 2 more for height (not certain adn these may not be available at all venues). try height, it will improve envelopment a lot, but don't expect any meaningful height localisation with only two speakers up there. here's my take on with-height surround: http://stackingdwarves.net/public_stuff/linux_audio/lac2012/day3_1000_The_why_and_how_of_with-height_surround_production_in_Ambisonics.ogv I would like to achieve better localization than I have found easy to do using lower order playback and wonder if it is possible to undertake higher order playback with only 8 speakers? yes. an octogon will give you wonderful third-order horizontal, which will provide very good localisation even for largish audiences, and very little phasing. to use your first-order recordings on an octogon, try the HARPEX decoder. there's some content it chokes on, but generally the results are very good. ALso would it make sense to have the speakers in the circle at different heights - would that allow a hint of the height information (I would tell the plugin where they are), or just distort the render? it will just distort the rendering, and compromise the horizontal precision. best, jörn -- Jörn Nettingsmeier Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio) Tonmeister VDT http://stackingdwarves.net ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
