Re: [Sursound] Low cost mobile ambisonic recording possible ?
I wouldn't go into the H2 line or mic inputs - they are very noisy - but Umahankars modified H2 which will take your Tetramic direct to the h2 (by removing the capsules in the H2 and replacing them with a 5pin xlr) is a project I have had on the back burner for a while and should give you an otherwise very portable , very expensive 4 track recorder - Umashankar have you still go that step by step photographic instruction webpage for doing this still up ? If you dont like modifying gadgets I second the Tascam. Either way you wont need the Motu. On 3 October 2012 04:53, Len Moskowitz lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote: Bo-Erik Sandholm bo-erik.sandh...@ericsson.com** wrote: I want to lighten my burden when traveling and maybe do a recording. I want to avoid spending much more money on this. Consider using a Tascam DR-680. It's available in the US for under $700 and has good mic pre-amps with digitally set levels. It is very convenient and reliable for recording with TetraMic. Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com) Core Sound LLC www.core-sound.com Home of TetraMic and PDAudio __**_ 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/20121003/53766737/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Low cost mobile ambisonic recording possible ?
here is the link to the zoom H2 modificationhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/ms_static/sets/72157625446503232/detail/ i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 10:35:11 +0100 From: augustineleu...@gmail.com To: sursound@music.vt.edu Subject: Re: [Sursound] Low cost mobile ambisonic recording possible ? I wouldn't go into the H2 line or mic inputs - they are very noisy - but Umahankars modified H2 which will take your Tetramic direct to the h2 (by removing the capsules in the H2 and replacing them with a 5pin xlr) is a project I have had on the back burner for a while and should give you an otherwise very portable , very expensive 4 track recorder - Umashankar have you still go that step by step photographic instruction webpage for doing this still up ? If you dont like modifying gadgets I second the Tascam. Either way you wont need the Motu. On 3 October 2012 04:53, Len Moskowitz lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote: Bo-Erik Sandholm bo-erik.sandh...@ericsson.com** wrote: I want to lighten my burden when traveling and maybe do a recording. I want to avoid spending much more money on this. Consider using a Tascam DR-680. It's available in the US for under $700 and has good mic pre-amps with digitally set levels. It is very convenient and reliable for recording with TetraMic. Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com) Core Sound LLC www.core-sound.com Home of TetraMic and PDAudio __**_ 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/20121003/53766737/attachment.html ___ 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/20121003/ed18ae70/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Low cost mobile ambisonic recording possible ?
The Price for the Tascam is OK in USA/NY (599 USD + tax) but in Europe - No - around 1200 USD. Do you know of anybody who would want to buy a MOTU Traveler Mk3 for a reasonable price, from my point of view :-) - Bo-Erik -Original Message- From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Augustine Leudar Sent: den 3 oktober 2012 11:35 To: Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] Low cost mobile ambisonic recording possible ? I wouldn't go into the H2 line or mic inputs - they are very noisy - but Umahankars modified H2 which will take your Tetramic direct to the h2 (by removing the capsules in the H2 and replacing them with a 5pin xlr) is a project I have had on the back burner for a while and should give you an otherwise very portable , very expensive 4 track recorder - Umashankar have you still go that step by step photographic instruction webpage for doing this still up ? If you dont like modifying gadgets I second the Tascam. Either way you wont need the Motu. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Low cost mobile ambisonic recording possible ?
Another possibility would be buying an Edirol R44. I am using it with a TetraMic. But I am not sure if the preamps of the Tascam are better? I am a little unhappy with the noise of the Edirol. Am 03.10.2012 um 15:42 schrieb Bo-Erik Sandholm: The Price for the Tascam is OK in USA/NY (599 USD + tax) but in Europe - No - around 1200 USD. Do you know of anybody who would want to buy a MOTU Traveler Mk3 for a reasonable price, from my point of view :-) - Bo-Erik -Original Message- From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Augustine Leudar Sent: den 3 oktober 2012 11:35 To: Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] Low cost mobile ambisonic recording possible ? I wouldn't go into the H2 line or mic inputs - they are very noisy - but Umahankars modified H2 which will take your Tetramic direct to the h2 (by removing the capsules in the H2 and replacing them with a 5pin xlr) is a project I have had on the back burner for a while and should give you an otherwise very portable , very expensive 4 track recorder - Umashankar have you still go that step by step photographic instruction webpage for doing this still up ? If you dont like modifying gadgets I second the Tascam. Either way you wont need the Motu. ___ 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] Hybrid Hi-Fi (HyFi?), IRs, etc.
Greetings to All, I have been reviewing the literature on Auralization in attempts to create viable stimuli for research. Everybody here has been great. I do have another question/comment regarding loudspeaker placement. In nearly all Ambisonic setups, the listener's head lies on a line connecting two or more speakers. This includes the 4-speaker cube arrangement. I've noted that having two speakers immediately to the left and right of the head creates an image that's similar to headphone listening; in other words, it's akin to lateralization versus localization effects. Is there any reason not to use an odd number of speakers arranged in such a way that no two speakers form an imaginary line passing through the listener's head? I am considering building a hybrid system based on Ambisonics and Ambiophonics, and was considering a pentagonal loudspeaker arrangement. The Ambiophonic component would be using dividers (gobos or flats, as they're called) between speakers so as to reduce early reflections in an otherwise standard living room space. From what I've read about Ambiophonics, it's an extension of transaural stereo techniques (e.g. William Gardner's doctoral thesis) with the addition of a partition. It seems that the advantages provided by the partition (or partitions in my case) would apply to Ambisonics. Please bear in mind that I am designing a system for single-listener research, so the obvious disadvantages of dividers (i.e. space hogs) isn't an issue. Has anyone had experience using dividers? I've also been creating research stimuli using avatars (for lipreading), ATT Natural Voice text-to-speech (ATT Labs makes high res voices) software for creating sentences, and IRs recorded with a SoundField mic. Daniel Courville's website and Bruce Wiggins WigWare are fantastic resources for any of us attempting sound design via Ambisonics. I also have a licensed (meaning paid-for) version of Harpex, and this is highly recommended for those who can afford it. One of my favorite post production DAWs is Sony Sound Forge 10. I'm often having to convert numbers of channels (e.g., four B-format channels to 8 processed channels), and this is very easy to do with Sound Forge. I also use digidesign Pro Tools and Steinberg Nuendo, but neither of these is as easy to use as Sound Forge. For the home brew crowd out there, I'll probably upload my plans for a multi-channel preamp based on Burr Brown chips. The impetus for building such a device (versus buying a ready-made surround sound controller/preamp) is that I can use software to control the gain on the Burr Brown chips (a rotary controlled encoder is used for conventional volume control). I'm devising experiments where the signal-to-noise ratio has to vary depending on a subject's response (e.g., two misses in a row means increase the SNR). The software controller does this automatically, and a MIDI track on a DAW can be used to track the changes. Just passing this along for other researchers... Disclaimer: Suggestions, questions, and ideas presented herein are in no way a reflection of my cat, who is far wiser than yours truly. Eric -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121003/b2a838f7/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Hybrid Hi-Fi (HyFi?), IRs, etc.
Greetings to All, I have been reviewing the literature on Auralization in attempts to create viable stimuli for research. Everybody here has been great. I do have another question/comment regarding loudspeaker placement. In nearly all Ambisonic setups, the listener's head lies on a line connecting two or more speakers. This includes the 4-speaker cube arrangement. I've noted that having two speakers immediately to the left and right of the head creates an image that's similar to headphone listening; in other words, it's akin to lateralization versus localization effects. Is there any reason not to use an odd number of speakers arranged in such a way that no two speakers form an imaginary line passing through the listener's head? You mean you want two speakers to form a real line through ... ... ;-) But, seriously, I seem to remember matrices for pentagons (?Richard Furse's site). No reason why you shouldnt sit down and work out equations for non-even numbers. In practice as the minimum speaker requirement (pantophony) for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th-order is 4, 6, 8, 10, I don't think non-even has been used much ... I am considering building a hybrid system based on Ambisonics and Ambiophonics, and was considering a pentagonal loudspeaker arrangement. The Ambiophonic component would be using dividers (gobos or flats, as they're called) between speakers so as to reduce early reflections in an otherwise standard living room space. From what I've read about Ambiophonics, it's an extension of transaural stereo techniques (e.g. William Gardner's doctoral thesis) with the addition of a partition. It seems that the advantages provided by the partition (or partitions in my case) would apply to Ambisonics. Please bear in mind that I am designing a system for single-listener research, so the obvious disadvantages of dividers (i.e. space hogs) isn't an issue. Has anyone had experience using dividers? I've also been creating research stimuli using avatars (for lipreading), ATT Natural Voice text-to-speech (ATT Labs makes high res voices) software for creating sentences, and IRs recorded with a SoundField mic. Daniel Courville's website and Bruce Wiggins WigWare are fantastic resources for any of us attempting sound design via Ambisonics. I also have a licensed (meaning paid-for) version of Harpex, and this is highly recommended for those who can afford it. One of my favorite post production DAWs is Sony Sound Forge 10. I'm often having to convert numbers of channels (e.g., four B-format channels to 8 processed channels), and this is very easy to do with Sound Forge. I also use digidesign Pro Tools and Steinberg Nuendo, but neither of these is as easy to use as Sound Forge. For the home brew crowd out there, I'll probably upload my plans for a multi-channel preamp based on Burr Brown chips. The impetus for building such a device (versus buying a ready-made surround sound controller/preamp) is that I can use software to control the gain on the Burr Brown chips (a rotary controlled encoder is used for conventional volume control). I'm devising experiments where the signal-to-noise ratio has to vary depending on a subject's response (e.g., two misses in a row means increase the SNR). The software controller does this automatically, and a MIDI track on a DAW can be used to track the changes. Just passing this along for other researchers... Disclaimer: Suggestions, questions, and ideas presented herein are in no way a reflection of my cat, who is far wiser than yours truly. Eric -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121003/b2a838f7/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] Hybrid Hi-Fi (HyFi?), IRs, etc.
I'll use this as a shameless excuse to reference my paper Using a Non-Standard Audio Toolkit to Produce Standard Spatial Audio Mixes found online (scribd.com is one place). It uses Reaper (can handle up to 64 channels of audio per bus) and WigWare and is for first timers or those who want ambisonics with little fuss. I'm all for standard plug-ins using VST or AU (other than WigWare, there's Harpex) frameworks that allow for musicians and engineers to use ambisonics easily, quickly and have their work distributed via a 'standard' setup procedure. I teach, and avocate, this form of ambisonic usage - and that's why I wrote up the brief document above. Similarly, I've also published on the use of ambisonic array shapes, that compliments the work of Wiggins and Moore on their ITU 775 conforming decoders, with the ideal array properties for those wishing to transmit or produce using ambisonics using the reaper method. Michael's right, AFAIK, that there hasn't been much modern use of beyond 5 speaker arrangements. I can't think of examples where an odd number of speakers has been used with ambisonic that wasn't to the ITU 775 standard shape. Perhaps someone on here can correct me? Andrew J. Horsburgh, Researcher andrew.horsbu...@uws.ac.uk From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Chapman [s...@mchapman.com] Sent: 03 October 2012 20:24 To: Eric Carmichel; Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] Hybrid Hi-Fi (HyFi?), IRs, etc. Greetings to All, I have been reviewing the literature on Auralization in attempts to create viable stimuli for research. Everybody here has been great. I do have another question/comment regarding loudspeaker placement. In nearly all Ambisonic setups, the listener's head lies on a line connecting two or more speakers. This includes the 4-speaker cube arrangement. I've noted that having two speakers immediately to the left and right of the head creates an image that's similar to headphone listening; in other words, it's akin to lateralization versus localization effects. Is there any reason not to use an odd number of speakers arranged in such a way that no two speakers form an imaginary line passing through the listener's head? You mean you want two speakers to form a real line through ... ... ;-) But, seriously, I seem to remember matrices for pentagons (?Richard Furse's site). No reason why you shouldnt sit down and work out equations for non-even numbers. In practice as the minimum speaker requirement (pantophony) for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th-order is 4, 6, 8, 10, I don't think non-even has been used much ... I am considering building a hybrid system based on Ambisonics and Ambiophonics, and was considering a pentagonal loudspeaker arrangement. The Ambiophonic component would be using dividers (gobos or flats, as they're called) between speakers so as to reduce early reflections in an otherwise standard living room space. From what I've read about Ambiophonics, it's an extension of transaural stereo techniques (e.g. William Gardner's doctoral thesis) with the addition of a partition. It seems that the advantages provided by the partition (or partitions in my case) would apply to Ambisonics. Please bear in mind that I am designing a system for single-listener research, so the obvious disadvantages of dividers (i.e. space hogs) isn't an issue. Has anyone had experience using dividers? I've also been creating research stimuli using avatars (for lipreading), ATT Natural Voice text-to-speech (ATT Labs makes high res voices) software for creating sentences, and IRs recorded with a SoundField mic. Daniel Courville's website and Bruce Wiggins WigWare are fantastic resources for any of us attempting sound design via Ambisonics. I also have a licensed (meaning paid-for) version of Harpex, and this is highly recommended for those who can afford it. One of my favorite post production DAWs is Sony Sound Forge 10. I'm often having to convert numbers of channels (e.g., four B-format channels to 8 processed channels), and this is very easy to do with Sound Forge. I also use digidesign Pro Tools and Steinberg Nuendo, but neither of these is as easy to use as Sound Forge. Please consider the environment and think before you print *** University of the West of Scotland aims to have a transformational influence on the economic, social and cultural development of the West of Scotland and beyond by providing relevant, high quality, inclusive higher education and innovative and useful research. Visit www.uws.ac.uk for more details University of the West of Scotland is a registered Scottish charity. Charity number SC002520. ***
[Sursound] Hybrid Hi-Fi (HyFi?), IRs, etc.
preamp based on Burr Brown chips. The impetus for building such a device (versus buying a ready-made surround sound controller/preamp) is that I can use software to control the gain on the Burr Brown chips (a rotary controlled encoder is used for conventional volume control). I'm devising experiments where the signal-to-noise ratio has to vary depending on a subject's response (e.g., two misses in a row means increase the SNR). The software controller does this automatically, and a MIDI track on a DAW can be used to track the changes. Just passing this along for other researchers... Disclaimer: Suggestions, questions, and ideas presented herein are in no way a reflection of my cat, who is far wiser than yours truly. Eric -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121003/b2a838f7/attachment.html ___ 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/20121003/1d0f6417/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Hybrid Hi-Fi (HyFi?), IRs, etc.
On 2012-10-03, Eric Carmichel wrote: In nearly all Ambisonic setups, the listener's head lies on a line connecting two or more speakers. The classical regular pantophonic decoders make no such assumption, and work just fine. For your purposes, of the five Platonic solids unfortunately the only one not having the property is the tetrahedron, which we already know doesn't work for ambisonic purposes. More irregular spacing do work just fine, it's just that they're not that easy to analyze (you usually don't get a neat Gaussian quadrature formula of the kind which helped Gerzon in his development of the SoundField mic) and they will rarely yield results as near to the optimum suggested by the number of speakers and a fixed, uniform array diameter. The Ambiophonic component would be using dividers (gobos or flats, as they're called) between speakers so as to reduce early reflections in an otherwise standard living room space. That makes no difference as long as the flats really are absorbant enough. They rarely are, though, so my expectation would be that they do more harm than good. Especially since any reflections off them would very closely spaced with the direct sound, leading to combing and whatnot. That doesn't happen as discretely with farther off, more irregular absorbers and diffusers. A forward ambiodipole is a different thing altogether. It's so close to the flaps that the effect doesn't matter. (Any possible frequency domain ripples are so high in frequency and any temporal domain effects conversely so close to each other that we don't perceive them.) At the most general level, I'd say it makes sense to introduce a spatial anisotropy into the field with a stationary listener who has two ears, and thus a perceptual anisotropy himself. That's what the frontal (and perhaps backwards, up, whathaveyou) flap does within ambiophonics. At the same time it does *not* make much sense to introduce further anisotropies along other axes. From what I've read about Ambiophonics, it's an extension of transaural stereo techniques (e.g. William Gardner's doctoral thesis) with the addition of a partition. Correct, though it's a far more refined and scalable version of it. It seems that the advantages provided by the partition (or partitions in my case) would apply to Ambisonics. http://www.ambiophonics.org/files/AES24Banff_1.html The two systems can work in tandem, but I don't think they can be melded into one. At least not without head tracking, which is a rare commodity. Ambisonic is a psychoacoustically assisted field reproduction technique, while ambiophonics is fundamentally founded on binaural/transaural ones. They don't exactly go by the same rules. -- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front +358-50-5756111, 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
Re: [Sursound] Hybrid Hi-Fi (HyFi?), IRs, etc.
On 2012-10-03, Eric Carmichel wrote: At least I got as far as 2*pi radians / 5 = 105 degrees. To add, you can find the classical first order decoding equations for regular polygonal layouts in either the BLaH series of papers, or Gerzon's originals. They're all present in the Motherlode, with the first BLaH one residing at http://decoy.iki.fi/dsound/ambisonic/motherlode/source/blah-decoder.pdf . I'm certain others on list remember the filenames of the rest of them. Seriously, the math for speaker feeds from B-formatted material isn't at all daunting, though I can't say the same for A- to B-format conversions. The processes are full duals, with the exception of spatial aliasing artifacts. The remaining five (should I go this route) will have equal spacing among them. If you can, you most definitely should because that's as optimal as it gets. That one extra speaker then has to be a) completely separate, or b) it will lead to a decoding equation which you most probably won't be able to solve without resorting to numerical optimization. Some of the VST plug-ins provide B-format-to-5.1 surround conversion, and a 5.1 layout (minus the 0.1) could work for me, too. There you should look into G-format, which is an optimized 5.0 decode of B-format, also remaining revertible to the original three channel pantophonic reduction of full B. -- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front +358-50-5756111, 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
