Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
For small areas, or central listeners, I do think there is a good argument for not over egging the pudding with too many speakers for low order material. But I am not at all convinced, based on experience, that this is true when dealing off centre listeners in a large area such as a concert since it doesn't take account of differential distance based losses amongst other things. Experimentation is definitely needed Dave On 10 July 2013 21:30, Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.org wrote: 1 + 6 + 8 + 6 + 1 works very well for full 3rd order (with the rings of 6 at elevation +/-45). That is assuming you have 3rd order material to play. For lower order you should definitely use less speakers. -- -- 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' ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Thank you for all suggestions! I am also aware of t-design [1] for even distribution. Does somebody have practical experience with those, except for virtual loudspeaker arrangements? Fons' 1+6+8+6+1 seems to be a good and easy to mount start. Do you see a problem in increasing the number of speakers for the middle ring, for 4th/5th order 2d playback? (1+6+9+6+1 or 1+6+11+6+1) Or is this middle ring afterwards incompatible with the 3rd order periphonic setup? I do have third and fourth order material as well. I want to use this place to test my Ambisonics (ambix) Plug-ins which currently go up to 5th order. But of course I'd also like to listen/work with first order recordings. Anyway, as Dave pointed out there might be a lot to try out and just listen. But it's always good to have some opinions before starting to mount speakers. Matthias [1] http://www2.research.att.com/~njas/sphdesigns/ On 7/11/13 10:11 AM, Dave Malham wrote: For small areas, or central listeners, I do think there is a good argument for not over egging the pudding with too many speakers for low order material. But I am not at all convinced, based on experience, that this is true when dealing off centre listeners in a large area such as a concert since it doesn't take account of differential distance based losses amongst other things. Experimentation is definitely needed Dave On 10 July 2013 21:30, Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.org wrote: 1 + 6 + 8 + 6 + 1 works very well for full 3rd order (with the rings of 6 at elevation +/-45). That is assuming you have 3rd order material to play. For lower order you should definitely use less speakers. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
I must confess that I don't know much about what you are discussing about, but I think I read in one of the posts (that I already have deleted) that there is no need to place a lot of speakers directly above, as our localization is at it's worst in that direction. However, I have always thought that you need _more_ speakers (with smaller angles) in those directions where the hearing localization of phantom images is not very good. You don't need as many speakers in those directions where the localization of phantom images is good. In front of the listener on the horizontal plane two speakers at an angle of 60 degrees is good for most people. Elsewhere you need more. This of course applies to when the listener's head is not moving. Just ask Thomas Chen. Eero ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Hi Eero, Al revers amigo. I dont know how it works with ambisonics and soundfield reconstruction but basically generally speaking your ears cant tell the difference if a speaker directly overhead is half a metre this way or the other - in effect your ears have lower resolution straight above so extra speakers are just wasted as you cant hear the difference anyway- conversley where your ears have good localisation you need more speakers as your ears are less easily fooled . This resulted in several speakers in the sonic lab at the sonic arts research centre being removed overhead as listening tests showed they were making little difference to the listener experience. Unless I was taught wrong - In which case Im all ears (pun not intended) On 11 July 2013 10:34, Eero Aro eero@dlc.fi wrote: I must confess that I don't know much about what you are discussing about, but I think I read in one of the posts (that I already have deleted) that there is no need to place a lot of speakers directly above, as our localization is at it's worst in that direction. However, I have always thought that you need _more_ speakers (with smaller angles) in those directions where the hearing localization of phantom images is not very good. You don't need as many speakers in those directions where the localization of phantom images is good. In front of the listener on the horizontal plane two speakers at an angle of 60 degrees is good for most people. Elsewhere you need more. This of course applies to when the listener's head is not moving. Just ask Thomas Chen. Eero __**_ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursoundhttps://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- 07580951119 augustine.leudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130711/c0d83a94/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Hi Augustine, Whilst it is generally said that that our angular acuity is better on the horizontal plane, this way of expressing things is, frankly, a snare and a delusion since it only applies when the head is upright. Unless your listeners are restrained using something like the infamous Green-Lee neck brace they will be able to move and change the orientation of their heads so the direction of maximum acuity can be essentially anywhere. So, if it is remotely possible, the rig should be as homogeneous as possible in all directions. The other thing to beware of is the difficulty of retaining equi-loudness in all panned directions with uneven speaker rigs. Dave On 11 July 2013 10:15, Augustine Leudar augustineleu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Eero, Al revers amigo. I dont know how it works with ambisonics and soundfield reconstruction but basically generally speaking your ears cant tell the difference if a speaker directly overhead is half a metre this way or the other - in effect your ears have lower resolution straight above so extra speakers are just wasted as you cant hear the difference anyway- conversley where your ears have good localisation you need more speakers as your ears are less easily fooled . This resulted in several speakers in the sonic lab at the sonic arts research centre being removed overhead as listening tests showed they were making little difference to the listener experience. Unless I was taught wrong - In which case Im all ears (pun not intended) On 11 July 2013 10:34, Eero Aro eero@dlc.fi wrote: I must confess that I don't know much about what you are discussing about, but I think I read in one of the posts (that I already have deleted) that there is no need to place a lot of speakers directly above, as our localization is at it's worst in that direction. However, I have always thought that you need _more_ speakers (with smaller angles) in those directions where the hearing localization of phantom images is not very good. You don't need as many speakers in those directions where the localization of phantom images is good. In front of the listener on the horizontal plane two speakers at an angle of 60 degrees is good for most people. Elsewhere you need more. This of course applies to when the listener's head is not moving. Just ask Thomas Chen. Eero __**_ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursoundhttps://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- 07580951119 augustine.leudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130711/c0d83a94/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- -- 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' ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Hi Eero, Al revers amigo. I dont know how it works with ambisonics and soundfield reconstruction but basically generally speaking your ears cant tell the difference if a speaker directly overhead is half a metre this way or the other - in effect your ears have lower resolution straight above so extra speakers are just wasted as you cant hear the difference anyway- conversley where your ears have good localisation you need more speakers as your ears are less easily fooled . This resulted in several speakers in the sonic lab at the sonic arts research centre being removed overhead as listening tests showed they were making little difference to the listener experience. Unless I was taught wrong - In which case Im all ears (pun not intended) On 11 July 2013 10:34, Eero Aro eero@dlc.fi wrote: I must confess that I don't know much about what you are discussing about, but I think I read in one of the posts (that I already have deleted) that there is no need to place a lot of speakers directly above, as our localization is at it's worst in that direction. However, I have always thought that you need _more_ speakers (with smaller angles) in those directions where the hearing localization of phantom images is not very good. [ ... ] Discounting the argument that nobody's localisation is good when they realise that a 60Kg speaker is suspended over their head on a weak bracket . . . I posit the following : DWMM has a soundstage of, what ? +/- ( 45 A 135 )(degrees) E : -5 to -15 E: +10 to +25 Better estimates and/or actual figures welcome ;-) But my point is that you need better rendering of elevation because the (primary sources of) sound are so close together in elevation (E). The sound stage (angle/azimuth (A)) is relatively broad. So, logically, first order horizontal and third order vertical (I jest ... !). Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Hi Dave, Interesting - but we cannot comfortably tilt our heads on the side of our neck so that the horizontal plane becomes exactly equivelant vertical plane so even with these head movements I localisation directly above would be less accurate other directions (I assume - I would like to see some listening test results anyone ?). Either way we both agree putting more loudspeakers in a area we can localise worse there would not help. Ill raise this topic at the next meeting I have with the spatial audio group perhaps and see if I can get a more accurate picture of why the directly over head speakers were reduced. Sonic lab layout is here : http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/sarc/AboutUs/TheSARCBuildingandFacilities/TheSonicLab/SonicLabSpecs/Image,219299,en.gif as I say I think they had more directly overhead previously - though now I wonder if I got that wrong as there seems to be quite a few overhead still. On 11 July 2013 12:40, Dave Malham dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote: Hi Augustine, Whilst it is generally said that that our angular acuity is better on the horizontal plane, this way of expressing things is, frankly, a snare and a delusion since it only applies when the head is upright. Unless your listeners are restrained using something like the infamous Green-Lee neck brace they will be able to move and change the orientation of their heads so the direction of maximum acuity can be essentially anywhere. So, if it is remotely possible, the rig should be as homogeneous as possible in all directions. The other thing to beware of is the difficulty of retaining equi-loudness in all panned directions with uneven speaker rigs. Dave On 11 July 2013 10:15, Augustine Leudar augustineleu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Eero, Al revers amigo. I dont know how it works with ambisonics and soundfield reconstruction but basically generally speaking your ears cant tell the difference if a speaker directly overhead is half a metre this way or the other - in effect your ears have lower resolution straight above so extra speakers are just wasted as you cant hear the difference anyway- conversley where your ears have good localisation you need more speakers as your ears are less easily fooled . This resulted in several speakers in the sonic lab at the sonic arts research centre being removed overhead as listening tests showed they were making little difference to the listener experience. Unless I was taught wrong - In which case Im all ears (pun not intended) On 11 July 2013 10:34, Eero Aro eero@dlc.fi wrote: I must confess that I don't know much about what you are discussing about, but I think I read in one of the posts (that I already have deleted) that there is no need to place a lot of speakers directly above, as our localization is at it's worst in that direction. However, I have always thought that you need _more_ speakers (with smaller angles) in those directions where the hearing localization of phantom images is not very good. You don't need as many speakers in those directions where the localization of phantom images is good. In front of the listener on the horizontal plane two speakers at an angle of 60 degrees is good for most people. Elsewhere you need more. This of course applies to when the listener's head is not moving. Just ask Thomas Chen. Eero __**_ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- 07580951119 augustine.leudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130711/c0d83a94/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- -- 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' ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- 07580951119 augustine.leudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130711/5b494ef9/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Augustine Leudar wrote: Im all ears (pun not intended) Hehe, me too. :-) Practical things and theory possibly don't meet here. Anyway, I am confused. Possibly I should have started a topic with a different name and not stir this thread. Having built several installations and demos myself I know it is always risky to place objects above the audience and you need to take care of the safety. Also, the less you have objects up there, the smaller are the risks. However, I was taught that a phantom image is more stable when the angle between the two speakers gets smaller, whatever the direction of the speaker pair. The feeling of space reduces. When the angle gets wider, the localization of a phantom image gets less stable and the feeling of space gets better, until it all splits apart. The stability of the phantom image depends also some on how it was achieved, panning a mono source or some microphone technique or some certain decoding method, or something else. Although I have been fooling the ear in my work in radio drama, it bothers me, if the right way to reproduce sound is to try to fool the hearing where you can (as hearing cannot distinguish the difference anyway), or should you try to reproduce it as well you can. Eero ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Decades ago, I was working on a project to find the best way to equidistribute a large number of points on a sphere. We were looking for random unit vectors. (This had to do with choosing random orientations for a pot containing a seed to see if the seed would sprout and grow without benefit of gravity, the random orientation being the best on earth simulation of no gravity at all. If you are wondering, almost all kinds of seeds sprout intitially but only some kinds of plants to grow. The others get all confused about which way is up, and die. But some apparently are seeking not up but warmth and they will grow if provided with one direction being more towards warmth than others, a warmth gradient as it were, the gravitational gradient being not used. This all had to do with the space program of course though equally of course the space program did not get to the point-not yet and probably not ever--that gardening or farming in space was being attempted in any serious way, if at all). What we came up with is that the locations of the centers of an icosahedron's faces--or equivalently at the vertices of a dodecahedron --is a good way. If you need more points, then there is no canonical choice(and no one is going to discover any more Platonic solids--there aren't any more!). But you can do reasonably well by just equidistributing in some sense within the faces of an icosahedron but varying the distribution a bit in each face. Actually, once you get beyond the 20 speakers this gives you (centers of the icosahedron faces), it probably does not matter too much how you do it in detail. Not for the plants anyway and probably not for Ambisonics. It would be tempting NOT to vary the in-face distributions just for computational convenience! Robert On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Martin Leese wrote: Michael Chapman wrote: Martin Leese wrote: In general, for Ambisonics, you should distribute the speakers as evenly as possible. Aim for the faces of a platonic solid; visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid Problem is ... despite many claims to be on the verge of discovering new ones;-) ...that Plato did not have many solids . . . I _thought_ the consenus on this list (no howls of derision, please) was edging towards three rings ... though without looking back, whether that was 6-8-6 or something else ...? Just a two pennies' worth, I did not make myself sufficiently clear. Aiming for a Platonic solid is just a goal, not a destination. I was trying to suggest that achieving an even distribution is important, and was not trying to dictate strict adherence to a fixed rule. Note that with only three rings, you are limited to second-order height. This may or may not be a problem. 24 speakers is almost 5 squared, so fourth-order full-sphere could be attempted. 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] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Robert Greene wrote : ... If you need more points, then there is no canonical choice(and no one is going to discover any more Platonic solids--there aren't any more!). ... Sorry to start that one ... it was basically a joke (I say basically as like perpetual motion machines I had the impression that this was a field that had (too many) claims;-) (Where too many = 1.) Martin Gardner had a proof (of no more) that was very elegant, very short and in normal prose ... its only negative feature is that it was (for me, at least) highly unmemorable ... Happy etiolating, Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
If anyone cares, the proof is not too hard. Clearly one cannot have faces that have more sides than five, because there no room angularly: three regular hexagons at a point already fill up 360 degrees and seven or more fill up more than 360, which is impossible(note that the solid has to be convex at the vertices because every finite extent solid has one convex vertex --shrink a big sphere down until it touches first time--and a regular solid has by definition all vertices congruent. So they are all convex). Euler showed that no of faces-no of edges+ no of vertices has to be 2(for any dissection of the sphere into polygonal figures, regular or not). So one just looks at the possiblities for numbers of faces, number of faces meeting at each vertex, and number of edges in each face, and mess about with arithmetic to see that the only possiblities are the cube , octahedron, tetrahedron, dodecahedron, and icosahedron. (eg tetrahedron has 4 faces which are triangles, each edge belongs to two faces--in all cases!so there are 4 x3/2 = 6 edges. Each edge has 2 vertices and since three faces meet at each vertex, the number of vertices has to be 6x2 / 3= 4 . And indeed 4-6 +4 = 2 as requires). One cute part of all this is to see that the dodecahedron exists! It exists combinatorially--that is the numbers work in the above, but it is not so clear that it exists in reality, that such a figure can be realized. I leave that to you to think about.(Suggestion: Think about the fact that when you fit three pentagons together at a vertex , the result is rigid--no flexing is possible). The icosahedron exits if the dodecahedron does (and it does!) since it can be obtained by using the centers of the faces of the dodecahedron as vertices. All the others have an obvious existence. Robert On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Michael Chapman wrote: Robert Greene wrote : ... If you need more points, then there is no canonical choice(and no one is going to discover any more Platonic solids--there aren't any more!). ... Sorry to start that one ... it was basically a joke (I say basically as like perpetual motion machines I had the impression that this was a field that had (too many) claims;-) (Where too many = 1.) Martin Gardner had a proof (of no more) that was very elegant, very short and in normal prose ... its only negative feature is that it was (for me, at least) highly unmemorable ... Happy etiolating, Michael ___ 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] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
You can check evenness oft he sampling of the sphere by checking the condition number of the spherical harmonics matrix. So create the SH matrix with some educated guess layout, define the corresponding SH order and see what happened to cond(Y). From there you can start designing. If there are areas where no speakers are possible, just place some anyway. E.g. for a hemispherical array, mirror down the layout to the lower hemisphere. How to design a decoder than is another problem. But Zotter's AllRound decoder [1] seems to be promising. Best Fabio [1] Franz Zotter, Matthias Frank, All-Round Ambisonic Panning and Decoding, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, October, 2012 -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Sursound [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] Im Auftrag von Matthias Kronlachner Gesendet: Dienstag, 09. Juli 2013 15:29 An: Surround Sound discussion group Betreff: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory Dear All, I am currently working on a 24-loudspeaker installation in an old observatory of Vilnius University. Maybe someone has suggestions on how to distribute those 24 loudspeakers. To get an image of the place, have a look at the photos [1] The radius of the dome is 2.3m. The dome is sitting on an octagonal base with circumradius 3.8m and 2m height. The installation is intended to be used for experimentation and small concerts of electroacoustic music, preferably with Ambisonics. There is a very nice high chair which allows one person to sit more or less in the center of the imaginary sphere. Therefore this seat allows loudspeaker placement in the lower hemisphere. But the installation should also work for people sitting or standing on the floor. I was thinking about having one north pole speaker, one ring in the dome itself, one ring below the dome (bellow equator) and one ring on the floor. Does somebody have any suggestions for such an installation? Also concerning Ambisonics-decoder friendly distribution? (i know, this is a topic that can fill libraries...) Any comments and tips are greatly appreciated! Thanks, Matthias [1] http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/observatory/dome.JPG http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/observatory/sweet-spot.JPG http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/observatory/panorama.JPG http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/observatory/from-balcony.JPG -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130709/4d6 fe0a2/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] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Michael Chapman wrote: Martin Leese wrote: In general, for Ambisonics, you should distribute the speakers as evenly as possible. Aim for the faces of a platonic solid; visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid Problem is ... despite many claims to be on the verge of discovering new ones;-) ...that Plato did not have many solids . . . I _thought_ the consenus on this list (no howls of derision, please) was edging towards three rings ... though without looking back, whether that was 6-8-6 or something else ...? Just a two pennies' worth, I did not make myself sufficiently clear. Aiming for a Platonic solid is just a goal, not a destination. I was trying to suggest that achieving an even distribution is important, and was not trying to dictate strict adherence to a fixed rule. Note that with only three rings, you are limited to second-order height. This may or may not be a problem. 24 speakers is almost 5 squared, so fourth-order full-sphere could be attempted. 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
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:58:04PM -0600, Martin Leese wrote: Note that with only three rings, you are limited to second-order height. This may or may not be a problem. 24 speakers is almost 5 squared, so fourth-order full-sphere could be attempted. 1 + 6 + 8 + 6 + 1 works very well for full 3rd order (with the rings of 6 at elevation +/-45). That is assuming you have 3rd order material to play. For lower order you should definitely use less speakers. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Looks great - all I would say is you dont need too many speakers directly above the head as our localisation is poor there anyway. On 9 July 2013 15:28, Matthias Kronlachner m.kronlach...@student.tugraz.atwrote: Dear All, I am currently working on a 24-loudspeaker installation in an old observatory of Vilnius University. Maybe someone has suggestions on how to distribute those 24 loudspeakers. To get an image of the place, have a look at the photos [1] The radius of the dome is 2.3m. The dome is sitting on an octagonal base with circumradius 3.8m and 2m height. The installation is intended to be used for experimentation and small concerts of electroacoustic music, preferably with Ambisonics. There is a very nice high chair which allows one person to sit more or less in the center of the imaginary sphere. Therefore this seat allows loudspeaker placement in the lower hemisphere. But the installation should also work for people sitting or standing on the floor. I was thinking about having one north pole speaker, one ring in the dome itself, one ring below the dome (bellow equator) and one ring on the floor. Does somebody have any suggestions for such an installation? Also concerning Ambisonics-decoder friendly distribution? (i know, this is a topic that can fill libraries...) Any comments and tips are greatly appreciated! Thanks, Matthias [1] http://www.**matthiaskronlachner.com/**observatory/dome.JPGhttp://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/observatory/dome.JPG http://www.**matthiaskronlachner.com/**observatory/sweet-spot.JPGhttp://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/observatory/sweet-spot.JPG http://www.**matthiaskronlachner.com/**observatory/panorama.JPGhttp://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/observatory/panorama.JPG http://www.**matthiaskronlachner.com/**observatory/from-balcony.JPGhttp://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/observatory/from-balcony.JPG -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/private/sursound/** attachments/20130709/4d6fe0a2/**attachment.htmlhttps://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130709/4d6fe0a2/attachment.html __**_ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursoundhttps://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- 07580951119 augustine.leudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130709/1220fb06/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Matthias Kronlachner wrote: Dear All, I am currently working on a 24-loudspeaker installation in an old observatory of Vilnius University. Maybe someone has suggestions on how to distribute those 24 loudspeakers. ... In general, for Ambisonics, you should distribute the speakers as evenly as possible. Aim for the faces of a platonic solid; visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid Problem is ... despite many claims to be on the verge of discovering new ones;-) ...that Plato did not have many solids . . . I _thought_ the consenus on this list (no howls of derision, please) was edging towards three rings ... though without looking back, whether that was 6-8-6 or something else ...? Just a two pennies' worth, Michael Ambisonics works for listeners outside the sphere of speakers as well as inside. However, it does not work for listeners *on* the surface of the sphere (unless you are using third-order or higher). So, distribute the speakers evenly and, if possible, use higher-order. 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
