Re: [Sursound] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order ambisonics to 3rd order ambisonics.

[umashankar manthravadi]

I worked in an ethnomusicology archive in India for over forty years, and 
retired in 2015. In that period I have overseen the transition for spool based 
analog archive to an all digital archive. The spools that we recorded, and the 
spools we received recorded, are still preserved, though there are now 24 bit 
digital copies.



One rule I have always observed: make the best copy you can, but do not apply 
any ‘improvements’ (noise reduction comes to mind). If the recordings came as 
MP3s. we preserve them as MP3s, alongside a Wave file. If the recording is 44.1 
k sampling rate, we do not upgrade to 48 kHz, nor do we convert 16 bit files to 
24 bit.



In the last few years, I have deposited first order Ambisonic recordings in the 
archive, both as A format and B format. You need the B format because it is 
always possible something in the conversion chain will get lost – the 
filtermatrix, the processing software. I will soon be depositing eight channel 
recordings done with Brahma-8. They will be encoded to 2nd order B format, and 
SPS, and the originals will also be preserved. Hopefully, there will be 12 
channel MEMs based all digital recordings. The same rules apply.



These rules are the result of many years of discussion with archivists around 
the world.



umashankar



Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10




From: Sursound  on behalf of Stefan Schreiber 

Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 7:28:25 PM
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order ambisonics to 3rd 
order ambisonics.





Citando Dave Hunt :

>> From: Politis Archontis 
>> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order
>> ambisonics to 3rd order ambisonics.
>> Date: 22 February 2019 18:15:00 GMT
>> To: Surround Sound discussion group 
>>
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> These upmixing methods extract a lot of information from the FOA
>> recording that is then re-used to essentially “synthesize" the HOA
>> signals, with a spatial resolution that would not be possible with
>> the FOA recordings. They are “active” in that sense, and
>> signal-dependent, compared to the “passive" classical ambisonic
>> decoding. Their success depends of course on how effective is their
>> underlying model and how robustly they are implemented.
>>
>> In that sense there isn’t necessarily a large benefit in parametric
>> upmixing from FOA to 3rd-order, compared to parametric decoding for
>> playback, since these methods can also upmix directly from FOA to,
>> say, 40 speakers or headphones, with their maximum sharpness.
>> However, the HOA upmixing could be useful for people that are
>> working with a HOA processing pipeline, and they want to integrate
>> FOA or lower-order material seamlessly.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Archontis Politis
>
>


> Very few people have access to microphones beyond FOA, so that in a
> live recording a number of close microphones could be mixed in third
> order, with a FOA microphone as a "room" mic.


I don't understand these permanent "objections".

The Octomic and the Zylia ZM-1 microphones are available and well priced.
Why not just doing some investment (for a longer time), and just buy
one of these?

COMPASS seems to be able to upsample 2nd and 3rd order to higher, so
you seem to have always some
advantage.
(To be confirmed after COMPASS gets available, of course.)

 From persons claiming to be professional recordists I would actually
expect to use up-to-date equipment.
(The mentioned microphones don't cost more or much more than some
professional cameras - just to compare.
I expect that a real photographer... you know what I mean.)

Best,

Stefan Schreiber


>
> For location recording, the FOA mic options are more robust, with
> better weather protection, and more practical than any higher order
> option.
>
> In a "synthesised" third order sound field, FOA recordings could be
> used as more "ambient" stems.
>
> The up-mix is a re-coder, FOA to third order. What would follow it
> is a third order mixer and a decoder to loudspeaker feeds. Other
> third order sounds could  be mixed into the decoder. More than one
> FOA signal could be mixed into the re-coder. Whether it is better
> that each FOA signal has its own re-coder is debatable.
>
> If the re-coder includes its own identical decoder, which cannot be
> bypassed, the two (or more) sets of third order decoder loudspeaker
> outputs could be mixed together. The availability of an identical
> decoder, and a suitable mixer might be problematic.
>
>
> Ciao,
>
> Dave Hunt
>


___
Sursound mailing list
S

Re: [Sursound] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order ambisonics to 3rd order ambisonics.

[Stefan Schreiber]

Citando Dave Hunt :


From: Politis Archontis 
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order  
ambisonics to 3rd order ambisonics.

Date: 22 February 2019 18:15:00 GMT
To: Surround Sound discussion group 


Hi David,

These upmixing methods extract a lot of information from the FOA  
recording that is then re-used to essentially “synthesize" the HOA  
signals, with a spatial resolution that would not be possible with  
the FOA recordings. They are “active” in that sense, and  
signal-dependent, compared to the “passive" classical ambisonic  
decoding. Their success depends of course on how effective is their  
underlying model and how robustly they are implemented.


In that sense there isn’t necessarily a large benefit in parametric  
upmixing from FOA to 3rd-order, compared to parametric decoding for  
playback, since these methods can also upmix directly from FOA to,  
say, 40 speakers or headphones, with their maximum sharpness.  
However, the HOA upmixing could be useful for people that are  
working with a HOA processing pipeline, and they want to integrate  
FOA or lower-order material seamlessly.


Regards,
Archontis Politis






Very few people have access to microphones beyond FOA, so that in a  
live recording a number of close microphones could be mixed in third  
order, with a FOA microphone as a "room" mic.



I don't understand these permanent "objections".

The Octomic and the Zylia ZM-1 microphones are available and well priced.
Why not just doing some investment (for a longer time), and just buy  
one of these?


COMPASS seems to be able to upsample 2nd and 3rd order to higher, so  
you seem to have always some

advantage.
(To be confirmed after COMPASS gets available, of course.)

From persons claiming to be professional recordists I would actually  
expect to use up-to-date equipment.
(The mentioned microphones don't cost more or much more than some  
professional cameras - just to compare.

I expect that a real photographer... you know what I mean.)

Best,

Stefan Schreiber




For location recording, the FOA mic options are more robust, with  
better weather protection, and more practical than any higher order  
option.


In a "synthesised" third order sound field, FOA recordings could be  
used as more "ambient" stems.


The up-mix is a re-coder, FOA to third order. What would follow it  
is a third order mixer and a decoder to loudspeaker feeds. Other  
third order sounds could  be mixed into the decoder. More than one  
FOA signal could be mixed into the re-coder. Whether it is better  
that each FOA signal has its own re-coder is debatable.


If the re-coder includes its own identical decoder, which cannot be  
bypassed, the two (or more) sets of third order decoder loudspeaker  
outputs could be mixed together. The availability of an identical  
decoder, and a suitable mixer might be problematic.



Ciao,

Dave Hunt




___
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.

[Dave Hunt]

> From: Politis Archontis 
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order ambisonics to 3rd 
> order ambisonics.
> Date: 22 February 2019 18:15:00 GMT
> To: Surround Sound discussion group 
> 
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> These upmixing methods extract a lot of information from the FOA recording 
> that is then re-used to essentially “synthesize" the HOA signals, with a 
> spatial resolution that would not be possible with the FOA recordings. They 
> are “active” in that sense, and signal-dependent, compared to the “passive" 
> classical ambisonic decoding. Their success depends of course on how 
> effective is their underlying model and how robustly they are implemented.
> 
> In that sense there isn’t necessarily a large benefit in parametric upmixing 
> from FOA to 3rd-order, compared to parametric decoding for playback, since 
> these methods can also upmix directly from FOA to, say, 40 speakers or 
> headphones, with their maximum sharpness. However, the HOA upmixing could be 
> useful for people that are working with a HOA processing pipeline, and they 
> want to integrate FOA or lower-order material seamlessly.
> 
> Regards,
> Archontis Politis


Very few people have access to microphones beyond FOA, so that in a live 
recording a number of close microphones could be mixed in third order, with a 
FOA microphone as a "room" mic.

For location recording, the FOA mic options are more robust, with better 
weather protection, and more practical than any higher order option.

In a "synthesised" third order sound field, FOA recordings could be used as 
more "ambient" stems.

The up-mix is a re-coder, FOA to third order. What would follow it is a third 
order mixer and a decoder to loudspeaker feeds. Other third order sounds could  
be mixed into the decoder. More than one FOA signal could be mixed into the 
re-coder. Whether it is better that each FOA signal has its own re-coder is 
debatable.

If the re-coder includes its own identical decoder, which cannot be bypassed, 
the two (or more) sets of third order decoder loudspeaker outputs could be 
mixed together. The availability of an identical decoder, and a suitable mixer 
might be problematic.


Ciao,

Dave Hunt





> From: David Pickett 
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order ambisonics to 3rd 
> order ambisonics.
> Date: 22 February 2019 17:45:28 GMT
> To: Surround Sound discussion group 
> 
> 
> 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&B-format 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
> 
> From: Politis Archontis 
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order ambisonics to 3rd 
> order ambisonics.
> Date: 22 February 2019 18:15:00 GMT
> To: Surround Sound discussion group 
> 
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> These upmixing methods extract a lot of information from the FOA recording 
> that is then re-used to essentially “synthesize" the HOA signals, with a 
> spatial resolution that would not be possible with the FOA recordings. They 
> are “active” in that sense, and signal-dependent, compared to the “passive" 
> classical ambisonic decoding. Their success depends of course on how 
> effective is their underlying model and how robustly they are implemented.
> 
> In that sense there isn’t necessarily a large benefit in parametric upmixing 
> from FOA to 3rd-order, compared to parametric decoding for playback, since 
> these methods can also upmix directly from FOA to, say, 40 speakers or 
> headphones, with their maximum sharpness. However, the HOA upmixing could be 
> useful for people that are working with a HOA processing pipeline, and they 
> want to integrate FOA or lower-order material seamlessly.
> 
> Regards,
> Archontis Politis




___
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.

[Paul Hodges]

--On 24 February 2019 10:16 + Emanuele Costantini
 wrote:

> Personally I think upsampling is a great option, mainly for storage
> and archiving,

It makes bigger files without adding independent information, and
freezes the level of technology used - thus storage and archiving are
completely inappropriate uses.  Store the original, and then process as
required using the most up-to-date methods available at the time.

Paul

-- 
Paul Hodges

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

Re: [Sursound] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order ambisonics to 3rd order ambisonics.

[Emanuele Costantini]

Hello,

did anyone do a comparison between HarpexB,  O3A Harpex Upsampler and 
SPARTA COMPASS to see which produce a better and more precise output? Or 
is it just a matter of personal taste and any engineer can choose 
preferred one?


Personally I think upsampling is a great option, mainly for storage and 
archiving, and since most of the Ambisonics recordings are made with a 
FOA mic.


Thanks.

Emanuele

On 22/02/2019 18:15, Politis Archontis wrote:

Hi David,

These upmixing methods extract a lot of information from the FOA recording that is then 
re-used to essentially “synthesize" the HOA signals, with a spatial resolution that 
would not be possible with the FOA recordings. They are “active” in that sense, and 
signal-dependent, compared to the “passive" classical ambisonic decoding. Their 
success depends of course on how effective is their underlying model and how robustly 
they are implemented.

In that sense there isn’t necessarily a large benefit in parametric upmixing 
from FOA to 3rd-order, compared to parametric decoding for playback, since 
these methods can also upmix directly from FOA to, say, 40 speakers or 
headphones, with their maximum sharpness. However, the HOA upmixing could be 
useful for people that are working with a HOA processing pipeline, and they 
want to integrate FOA or lower-order material seamlessly.

Regards,
Archontis Politis



On 22 Feb 2019, at 19:45, David Pickett  wrote:

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&B-format 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.

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

[Wilx Wilson]

Hi All ,

Thanks for all the help Archontis, Axel, Steve and David. This topic just
got more exciting for me. Yes I am aware of Harpex, Blue ripple and Compass
that's on the market, but I guess I need to study and be more aware of what
I am reading for my secondary research.

Many Thanks,
Wilson

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, 12:21 Steven Boardman, 
wrote:

> Not directly.
> But one can create a lot of beams (without the rear lobe), to up mix with…
> One needs a few instances depending on the order you want to up mix to,
> but I have had good results from it.
> It is uses some form of adaptive parametric/directional analysis.
>
> Best
>
> Steve
>
> > On 22 Feb 2019, at 12:12, Politis Archontis 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Steven,
> >
> > As far as I remember the Rode plugin does not offer this functionality
> (upmixing FOA to HOA).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Archontis Politis
> >
> >
> > On 22 Feb 2019, at 14:04, Steven Boardman  > wrote:
> >
> >
> > And lets not forget ‘Soundfield’ by Rode.
> > This also uses some form of parametric direction detection. Either on
> B-format directly, but also on the Rode’s A-format.
> >
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > Oh my mistake then, I thought the HARPEX vst was doing direct rendering
> only, and its HOA upmixing functionality was done only by the Blue Ripple
> Sound upmixer (which is using HARPEX).
> > Three it is then :-).
> >
> > Best,
> > Archontis
> >
> > On 22 Feb 2019, at 11:05, Axel Drioli  axeldri...@gmail.com>  axeldri...@gmail.com >> wrote:
> >
> > To add on top of the previous email, there are three then ( I didn t know
> > about COMPASS), because Harpex can be a vst itself, which sounds
> > magnificently good.
> >
> > Regards
> > Axel
> > -- next part --
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20190222/062f6801/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: <
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20190222/86fa3126/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.
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order ambisonics to 3rd order ambisonics.

[richard ford]

Interesting question David.


  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&B-format 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.
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order ambisonics to 3rd order ambisonics.

[Politis Archontis]

Hi David,

These upmixing methods extract a lot of information from the FOA recording that 
is then re-used to essentially “synthesize" the HOA signals, with a spatial 
resolution that would not be possible with the FOA recordings. They are 
“active” in that sense, and signal-dependent, compared to the “passive" 
classical ambisonic decoding. Their success depends of course on how effective 
is their underlying model and how robustly they are implemented.

In that sense there isn’t necessarily a large benefit in parametric upmixing 
from FOA to 3rd-order, compared to parametric decoding for playback, since 
these methods can also upmix directly from FOA to, say, 40 speakers or 
headphones, with their maximum sharpness. However, the HOA upmixing could be 
useful for people that are working with a HOA processing pipeline, and they 
want to integrate FOA or lower-order material seamlessly.

Regards,
Archontis Politis


> On 22 Feb 2019, at 19:45, David Pickett  wrote:
> 
> 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&B-format 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.

___
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.

[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&B-format 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] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order ambisonics to 3rd order ambisonics.

[Steven Boardman]

Not directly.
But one can create a lot of beams (without the rear lobe), to up mix with…
One needs a few instances depending on the order you want to up mix to, but I 
have had good results from it. 
It is uses some form of adaptive parametric/directional analysis.

Best

Steve

> On 22 Feb 2019, at 12:12, Politis Archontis  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Steven,
> 
> As far as I remember the Rode plugin does not offer this functionality 
> (upmixing FOA to HOA).
> 
> Regards,
> Archontis Politis
> 
> 
> On 22 Feb 2019, at 14:04, Steven Boardman 
> mailto:boardroomout...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> And lets not forget ‘Soundfield’ by Rode.
> This also uses some form of parametric direction detection. Either on 
> B-format directly, but also on the Rode’s A-format.
> 
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> Oh my mistake then, I thought the HARPEX vst was doing direct rendering only, 
> and its HOA upmixing functionality was done only by the Blue Ripple Sound 
> upmixer (which is using HARPEX).
> Three it is then :-).
> 
> Best,
> Archontis
> 
> On 22 Feb 2019, at 11:05, Axel Drioli 
> mailto:axeldri...@gmail.com> 
>  >> wrote:
> 
> To add on top of the previous email, there are three then ( I didn t know
> about COMPASS), because Harpex can be a vst itself, which sounds
> magnificently good.
> 
> Regards
> Axel
> -- 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.
> 
> -- 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] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order ambisonics to 3rd order ambisonics.

[Politis Archontis]

Hi Steven,

As far as I remember the Rode plugin does not offer this functionality 
(upmixing FOA to HOA).

Regards,
Archontis Politis


On 22 Feb 2019, at 14:04, Steven Boardman 
mailto:boardroomout...@gmail.com>> wrote:


And lets not forget ‘Soundfield’ by Rode.
This also uses some form of parametric direction detection. Either on B-format 
directly, but also on the Rode’s A-format.


Steve


Oh my mistake then, I thought the HARPEX vst was doing direct rendering only, 
and its HOA upmixing functionality was done only by the Blue Ripple Sound 
upmixer (which is using HARPEX).
Three it is then :-).

Best,
Archontis

On 22 Feb 2019, at 11:05, Axel Drioli 
mailto:axeldri...@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:

To add on top of the previous email, there are three then ( I didn t know
about COMPASS), because Harpex can be a vst itself, which sounds
magnificently good.

Regards
Axel
-- 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.

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order ambisonics to 3rd order ambisonics.

[Steven Boardman]

And lets not forget ‘Soundfield’ by Rode.
This also uses some form of parametric direction detection. Either on B-format 
directly, but also on the Rode’s A-format.


Steve


Oh my mistake then, I thought the HARPEX vst was doing direct rendering only, 
and its HOA upmixing functionality was done only by the Blue Ripple Sound 
upmixer (which is using HARPEX).
Three it is then :-).

Best,
Archontis

On 22 Feb 2019, at 11:05, Axel Drioli mailto:axeldri...@gmail.com>>> wrote:

To add on top of the previous email, there are three then ( I didn t know
about COMPASS), because Harpex can be a vst itself, which sounds
magnificently good.

Regards
Axel
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order ambisonics to 3rd order ambisonics.

[Politis Archontis]

Oh my mistake then, I thought the HARPEX vst was doing direct rendering only, 
and its HOA upmixing functionality was done only by the Blue Ripple Sound 
upmixer (which is using HARPEX).
Three it is then :-).

Best,
Archontis

On 22 Feb 2019, at 11:05, Axel Drioli 
mailto:axeldri...@gmail.com>> wrote:

To add on top of the previous email, there are three then ( I didn t know
about COMPASS), because Harpex can be a vst itself, which sounds
magnificently good.

Regards
Axel

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 07:52, Politis Archontis 
mailto:archontis.poli...@aalto.fi>>
wrote:

Hi Wilson,

First of all you have to understand the upmixing algorithms themselves
before starting implementing them. Some methods that can do that are
Directional Audio Coding (DirAC), which you can read all about in the
“Parametric Time-frequency Domain Spatial Audio” book of last year, and
numerous articles from AES journal and conferences. Then there is the
HARPEX method by Svein Berge for FOA signals, you can find the articles
online. Another option is the recent COMPASS method which can also upmix
second-order or 3rd-order if needed. Finally, an alternative is the sparse
recovery approach by Wabnitz, Jin and Epain, published mostly in IEEE
conferences.

There are two plugins I know of offering this functionality at the moment,
one by Blue Ripple Sound that uses HARPEX, and one based on COMPASS by us,
which is to be released this month. In general if you have no previous
experience with the various parts of these methods, time-frequency
transforms, parameter estimation, adaptive filtering, maybe decorrelation,
and others.. expect to spend many months testing things till you manage to
get good audio quality.

Best regards,

Archontis Politis

On 22 Feb 2019, at 03:37, Wilx Wilson 
mailto:wilxson@gmail.com>mailto:wilxson@gmail.com>>> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

Not 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&B-format to 3rd
Order Ambisonics B-format.

I am really curious to know on how they are implemented mathematically.
Because I am developing a prototype plugin for my research project.

Have a good day!

Much Obliged,
Wilson Lim
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20190222/c16a21c1/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: <
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20190222/782f0c2f/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.

--
*Axel Drioli*
*axeldrioli.com *

*For immersive recordings visit 
ImmersiveFieldRecording.com
*
*For Spatial Audio production visit 
SpatialAudioLabs.com
>*

*Tel-Facetime: +44 7460 223640*
*Skype: axel.drioli*
*E-mail: a...@spatialaudiolabs.com 
mailto:a...@spatialaudiolabs.com>>*




*Mostly LDN. UK.*
-- 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.

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order ambisonics to 3rd order ambisonics.

[Axel Drioli]

To add on top of the previous email, there are three then ( I didn t know
about COMPASS), because Harpex can be a vst itself, which sounds
magnificently good.

Regards
Axel

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 07:52, Politis Archontis 
wrote:

> Hi Wilson,
>
> First of all you have to understand the upmixing algorithms themselves
> before starting implementing them. Some methods that can do that are
> Directional Audio Coding (DirAC), which you can read all about in the
> “Parametric Time-frequency Domain Spatial Audio” book of last year, and
> numerous articles from AES journal and conferences. Then there is the
> HARPEX method by Svein Berge for FOA signals, you can find the articles
> online. Another option is the recent COMPASS method which can also upmix
> second-order or 3rd-order if needed. Finally, an alternative is the sparse
> recovery approach by Wabnitz, Jin and Epain, published mostly in IEEE
> conferences.
>
> There are two plugins I know of offering this functionality at the moment,
> one by Blue Ripple Sound that uses HARPEX, and one based on COMPASS by us,
> which is to be released this month. In general if you have no previous
> experience with the various parts of these methods, time-frequency
> transforms, parameter estimation, adaptive filtering, maybe decorrelation,
> and others.. expect to spend many months testing things till you manage to
> get good audio quality.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Archontis Politis
>
> On 22 Feb 2019, at 03:37, Wilx Wilson  wilxson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Not 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&B-format to 3rd
> Order Ambisonics B-format.
>
> I am really curious to know on how they are implemented mathematically.
> Because I am developing a prototype plugin for my research project.
>
> Have a good day!
>
> Much Obliged,
> Wilson Lim
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20190222/c16a21c1/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: <
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20190222/782f0c2f/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.
>
-- 
*Axel Drioli*
*axeldrioli.com *

*For immersive recordings visit ImmersiveFieldRecording.com
*
*For Spatial Audio production visit SpatialAudioLabs.com
*

*Tel-Facetime: +44 7460 223640*
*Skype: axel.drioli*
*E-mail: a...@spatialaudiolabs.com *




*Mostly LDN. UK.*
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Enquiry on upmixing from 1st order ambisonics to 3rd order ambisonics.

[Politis Archontis]

Hi Wilson,

First of all you have to understand the upmixing algorithms themselves before 
starting implementing them. Some methods that can do that are Directional Audio 
Coding (DirAC), which you can read all about in the “Parametric Time-frequency 
Domain Spatial Audio” book of last year, and numerous articles from AES journal 
and conferences. Then there is the HARPEX method by Svein Berge for FOA 
signals, you can find the articles online. Another option is the recent COMPASS 
method which can also upmix second-order or 3rd-order if needed. Finally, an 
alternative is the sparse recovery approach by Wabnitz, Jin and Epain, 
published mostly in IEEE conferences.

There are two plugins I know of offering this functionality at the moment, one 
by Blue Ripple Sound that uses HARPEX, and one based on COMPASS by us, which is 
to be released this month. In general if you have no previous experience with 
the various parts of these methods, time-frequency transforms, parameter 
estimation, adaptive filtering, maybe decorrelation, and others.. expect to 
spend many months testing things till you manage to get good audio quality.

Best regards,

Archontis Politis

On 22 Feb 2019, at 03:37, Wilx Wilson 
mailto:wilxson@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

Not 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&B-format to 3rd
Order Ambisonics B-format.

I am really curious to know on how they are implemented mathematically.
Because I am developing a prototype plugin for my research project.

Have a good day!

Much Obliged,
Wilson Lim
-- 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.

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

[Wilx Wilson]

Hi Everyone,

Not 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&B-format to 3rd
Order Ambisonics B-format.

I am really curious to know on how they are implemented mathematically.
Because I am developing a prototype plugin for my research project.

Have a good day!

Much Obliged,
Wilson Lim
-- 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.