Re: [Sursound] AmbiSym2011 paper on large-scale Ambisonic systems...
I just had the pleasure to present at AmbiSym2011 in Lexington via Skype, which was weird but fun. In case anyone's interested, the paper and slides are available at http://stackingdwarves.net/public_stuff/linux_audio/ambisonic_symposium_2011/ Jörn Nettingsmeier Jörn, Nice ... ! If I read correctly you did not use DRC (digital correction for the 'room') and, if so, I wondered why : - time pressure - not as enamoured with it as before - . . . ? Regards, Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] Jacktrip (bandwidth)
I can't find any indicative performance (bandwidth) figures for Jacktrip ... so ask for the experience of others. On a standard CAT-5 cable between two adjacent machines I can get four (mono) channels at 48 KHz, but trying to set channels 4 just results in a (very silent) failure to connect. Back of an envelope calculations of audio flux against 100 Mb/s (say 10 MB/s) suggest more should be possible. That said secure copy (scp) of files seems to run at 100Mb/s. Anyone done better ? Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Portable ambisonics setup, or how do you mount speakers on tubes?
I'm designing a mid-size (8 to 12-ch) ambisonics setup, using small active near-field studio monitors such as Fostex PM04, Focal CMS40, BM-5A...(the exact model will depend on the funding I'll get for this project). Mmm, I was involved in sourcing gear for a twelve speaker project. I am hoping my colleague who did the project will join in with her more practical comments. We decided, for better or worse, to put one speaker on the floor. This means (if you want anything vaguely) symmetrical, that you need one speaker at twice the height of the seated human ear. That means a lighting stand that is not the smallest in the catalogue (indeed for horizontal-only arrays its minimum height is just about 'standing ear height'). There are tall mic stands, but the only ones without arms (the joints would never take a speaker's weight) are more expensive than lighting stands. Four or six lighting stands take up some space in a big car;-) The projects seems to be sliding towards horizontal only, but there was/is a plan to make wedges to direct floor and high speakers towards the centre*. Depending how you do this you may need to provide hard hats to the audience. We just made 'bird tables' to put the top speakers on. About 200 mm of broom handle to slot into the lighting stand, and a approx 15-20 mm thick horizontal shelf (the right sized drill and the two glue together with no clamping). I said it was a quick expt'l project, but was over-ruled and the bird-tables were painted black ... must admit it is an enormous aesthetic improvement. OT: All this was to experiment with Jörn Nettingsmeyer's scheme for 'digital room correction' (an unfotunate term, not of JN's making, as the 'room' is not corrected;-(- Must say the results are impressive. If you want sizes/models of stands, the invoices are somewhere on my desk ... do ask. Hope to report on the DRC stuff in a bit, but again, do ask if relevant. Michael * and obviously you need a different set of wedges for each rig radius ... but we have moulds of our speaker bases and think we have made the 'hard hats' historic ... ... ! MC ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Portable ambisonics setup, or how do you mount speakers on tubes?
I did mention 'hard hats' in my original post. But the point bears emphasising more explicitly than my whimsy. Thanks Dave (and Peter). We _do_ use safety 'chains' .. though some non-rattling evolution of the idea. (On which note: lighting stands are already littered with rattling elements compared with mic. stands:) We have also moulded a loud speaker base, and now have a Silastic (elastomer) positive of a speaker base from which we can make troughed wedges . . . but even so would still use safety chains (with or without a hard hat ;-). The problem with sandbagging/weighting the base is --as ever-- portabilty. Three dimensional rigs just aren't fun to transport (or set up with the angle (elevation, that is) measuring and bespoke matrices ...). Michael For extra security for high speakers, we add luggage straps Dr Peter Lennox School of Technology University of Derby, UK tel: 01332 593155 e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk -Original Message- From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Malham Sent: 01 July 2011 09:34 To: Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] Portable ambisonics setup, or how do you mount speakers on tubes? On 30/06/2011 20:42, Michael Chapman wrote: We just made 'bird tables' to put the top speakers on. About 200 mm of broom handle to slot into the lighting stand, and a approx 15-20 mm thick horizontal shelf (the right sized drill and the two glue together with no clamping). I said it was a quick expt'l project, but was over-ruled and the bird-tables were painted black ... must admit it is an enormous aesthetic improvement. Whoaa! Be very careful if you are using a system like this - many years ago I was working with Chris Richards from Cepiar, trying out some decoder stuff here at York. He brought with him a system exactly like this on which we mounted some of my (then brand new) Wharfedale Diamond V's at almost 4 metres height. What Chris forgot to mention was that he _hadn't_ fixed the speakers down in any other way than their weight. I went to move one of the stands and the speaker fell off, grazed my right shoulder and smashed its corner in on the floor. If it had been 50 mm further over, I doubt if I would have been interested in height information - or anything else - any more :-( For what it's worth, I used, on the Wharefedales, Tandy (Radio Shack anywhere other than the UK) Universal wall mounts screwed and glued to the back of the speakers. They have a four hole wall mounting plate. I made up some U bolts with threaded rod the legs of which fit through the holes in the plate. These then slide over stands made (by me) of 25mm square steel tube which have a cross shaped (removable) base. To ensure safety and stability, I have a pile of concrete blocks I keep specifically to weight down the bases - stage weights would be nicer but I've only managed to scrounge a couple of those...the blocks are way cheaper. You can use Speedframe (http://www.richardsonsuk.co.uk/product.aspx?p=47gclid=CJS8zNLd36kCFUEa4Qod-Hc5Xg) to make up this sort of stand, but being a good Yorkshireman, I just got a local company to cut up standard 25mm square tubing, which was much cheaper (though not as nicely finished) as the proper stuff and the only Speedframe bits I bought where the 5 way corner connectors to make up the bases. Dave PS Richard (Lee) - I'm pleased to report that that speaker is still working...I think I showed great restraint in not dumping it in the bin after it tried to kill me like that :-) -- These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer /*/ /* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */ /* Music Research Centre */ /* Department of Musichttp://music.york.ac.uk/; */ /* The University of York Phone 01904 432448*/ /* Heslington Fax 01904 432450*/ /* York YO10 5DD */ /* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */ /*http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/; */ /*/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound _ The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this email was sent to you in error, please notify the sender and delete this email. Please direct any concerns to info...@derby.ac.uk. The policy is available here: http://www.derby.ac.uk/LIS/Email-Policy
Re: [Sursound] Portable ambisonics setup, or how do you mount speakers on tubes?
Frank wrote: About the lightning stands, this Sunday I also found some garden tent (or pergolas) poles that could be used instead of the Manfrottos, they are much cheaper and have a detachable (quite heavy) base. Some fabrication involved anyway, as many said before. I, and I'm sure others, would be keen to see photographs, once you get that far ... if you could post a URL? Thanks, Michael. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Distance perception (really speaker wire discussion!)
Am I missing something? You send electrons and the speaker cone moves out, o.k. It comes back by itself. But surely you want it to move _in_ as well? How do you do that without positrons. (I think that's right, most things in surround sound seem counter-intuitive: So I doubt if it is positrons out / electrons in?) Anyway, I've learnt something: I always thought the little arrows on all my speaker cables meant they were made by workers in prisons (or is the arrow as a prison sign non-ISO / ITU?). Michael On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:52:58PM +0530, umashankar mantravadi wrote: havent you heard of tired electron distortion ? (TID). the electrons in speaker wire get tired moving back and forth and not going anywhere. the solution is to disconnect the speaker every few hours connect a battery one side and short the other, so all the old electrons can be flushed out (i think i read this in the wireless world) umashankar The problem with using a cheap battery for doing this is that those electrons which are really not able to move anymore (for example those having a broken leg, the result of smashing into another one going in the opposite direction) are not flushed out, but merely reduced to debris that will impede the flow of the new electrons. To really clean up your cable you need something more sophisticated and expensive, the more expensive the better. -- FA ___ 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] Ambisonics on the cheap?
On 2011-07-29, Sarang S. Dalal wrote: I've been lurking for only a day, but Sampo's note gives me the courage to go ahead and ask the first question I was hoping this group might help me answer. And good it was. No? ;) My question then is, how to do ambisonic even cheaper. I sort of undertand the theory, and I've had the fortune of knowing a couple of researchers/enthusiasts who could show me their rigs. The problem is, those rigs aren't precisely affordable, even when built up from spare parts. So how do we come up with a complete, affordable, ambisonic rig, with the minimum of four (effective) speakers for first order, at an affordable price? Say, below 200 or even 100 euros? If you are staying 'flat' (four speakers) then a USB sound card (Terratec Aureon 5.1 USB) works --IIRC-- on M$/Mac/Linux. The 'toe in the water' of two pairs of computer speakers http://mchapman.com/amb/hardware convinced me it was worth going further. (Ignore the stuff there about 'ganging' sound cards, its passé!) OK computer speakers aren't much fun under 200Hz (my latest ones say, under 180Hz), But such a system is still impressive ...! Basically you have surround sound at 'transistor radio in the kitchen' quality (not audiophile;-), but that quality seems good enpugh for many people for many situations Michael Including speakers, full digital decoding for the usual layout variation, and all that? If we could somehow do that, and mass reproduce it, the rest should be pretty easy. So how do we do that?!? -- 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 ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
DID YOU KNOW ... LinkedIn ... helps you control your public image How true ;-( Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent
The modern day pharmaceutical industry is perhaps the one exception to the rule that patents are bad to humanity. Why is that? Well, because it's remained the most sacred, shielded, unquestioned, and especially for the longest time. In part because of the huge and quite possibly unfounded shielding it has. Sometimes that actually works. I've been holding my tongue, but seeing as Sampo has added an [OT] tag: Is it not strange that Medicine relies on patent medicines, whilst Surgery relies on published 'open source' procedures . . . ? Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] AES Convention Ambio Demo
If any of you are coming to the AES Convention this October, you are welcome to come�for a demonstration of Ambiophonics and Panambio in nearby New Jersey. Every success for the demo's. There are�seven different Ambiophonic-like systems�you can try out here including component, PC, Apple, Droid, video, and Chinese variants.� Plus new linesource�and point source speakers�optimized for Ambio use. The say distance adds perspective ... and thus I hope this is constructive ... but I find 'Ambio' if not ambiguous then at least potentially confusing, as an abbreviation. Anyway, whatever it/they is/are called, I hope you get plenty of listeners to hear the variants! Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent
Sampo Syreeni wrote: On 2011-09-19, Stefan Schreiber wrote: What she does *not* know is that the oldest, simplest and cheapest NSAID medication works even better. I mean, today, now that I ran out of my prescribed NSAID, I again took a gram's worth of aspirin (acetosalicylic acid). As before, it worked twice as well as the 30x more expensive newer -coxib. That's how patents and the like distort real life, in the medical circuit. ... I am obviously sorry for this incident. If you are right, this is a case of wrong treatment or prescription, not really patent-related. I must disagree. Patents _do_ distort the market. Unpatented medicines have no budget for marketing: for representatives to visit practitioners, for advertising, for stands at conferences, for sponsorship, for (which could bring is back to elegant arguments about ambisonics;-) The best example is perhaps the 'anthrax scare'. 'Everyone knows'(TM) that plain ordinary penicillin is effective at treating anthrax (well that's what the textbooks used to say), but one patented product had a licence: governments spent fortunes stockpiling the latter, whilst the former must cost only a few cents a gram Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent
Richard Dobson wrote: On 20/09/2011 22:24, Fons Adriaensen wrote: Interesting choice of words. You say agree, I would say recognise. Do they put it to a vote? My thoughts (which you appear to equate with things) are my own, and if I choose to share them with anyone else that is my choice, and their privilege. The alternative is living isolated, or having to physically protect and defend your 'property' all the time, which sort of defeats the purpose. What purpose is that? Who decides what the purpose is? Unless one rejects inheritance taxes, wealth taxes, etc., etc. one is left with the fact that one has accepted a situation where one has 'a balance'. Perhaps the worst imaginable situation ... except all the others ... but there it is. Akin to all property belongs to the monarch and one holds it under licence, but nowadays society not the monarch. Those taxes pay for the police who I hope -if vainly- may catch your burglars and return your property. I nearly said, also, unless one believes patents should be eternal. But that would be false. A patent is a trade off. You can keep your invention secret (and unprotected) or publish/patent it and receive limited protection. (As for anthrax, IIRC at the time the hype was that 'Cipro' was the only licensed product. And that fitted with Sampo's experiences. Bacterial resistance is a totally different argument: Anyway I read an article recently that it is politically incorrect to go into the alleged causus belli for an ilegal war of aggression, when it was in fact a 'home goal'. My argument was about licensing not weaponising.) This may all be OT, but if: -ambisonics had developed twenty years later -if there had been no patents on it would the World have been different? Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent
Sorry, ... but: No. It would be useful if people replied to the points posted, and not to what they wished people (seeming, regarded as opponents;-( had said. Michael On 22/09/2011 15:32, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:31:40PM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote: On 22/09/2011 00:52, Fons Adriaensen wrote: .. The only point I wanted to make is that the very concept of 'property', of 'owning' things makes sense only if it is recognised by others - it is a social agreement and not a law of nature. Well, lets look at that a bit more closely. ... Again, I never wrote any of 'Information wants to be free', 'I want it herefore it is right', etc, I did not interpret Darwin, and I'm not stating any moral imperatives. So please stop blaming me for what may be some people's ideas or errors but certainly not mine. Ciao, It's a discussion. Relevant since there is an interest in the principles and problems of intellectual property (or whatever else we call it) on this list - to say nothing of the broader issues around free v commercial, the GPL, etc. Ultimately, ~all~ arguments not purely about hard facts hinge on the conflict between moral imperatives, and draw on rhetorical techniques to present them. I am not accusing or blaming anyone here. This is a very general issue. But the words social agreement inherently imply an imperative of some kind - the idea that ownership is relative or sanctioned, rather that absolute (if only in the sense that breaking the agreement might be judged under another imperative, or justified by it). I give simple examples to illustrate and clarify. These things are present in the words, whether we like it or not, intentional or not, and we ~all~ call upon them frequently, one way or another, perhaps the the more so the more political we are. Topics just on this list have included copyright, DRM and watermarking, as well as patents, and I have surely perpetrated quite a few moral imperatives myself, in unguarded moments! Richard Dobson ___ 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] Soundfield-type mics: inverting or not?
Le 11-10-07 17:40, Sampo Syreeni a �crit : On 2011-09-30, Daniel Courville wrote: I think we should try to establish some sort of official database of what SoundField (and TetraMic) models are polarity inverting at the B-Format output. In that case we first need a datal model. Based on what you're talking about in below, it has one relation. The key is canonical mic name, and its dependent attributes are inverting and stereo. Some of the values are unknown, which suggests a bit of further normalization. Hum... I not sure I understand. What I'm suggesting is a simple database (a CSV file would be fine, even a Web page) where we have, per mic model, whether it's inverting or not at the B-Format output and at the stereo output. For A-Format mic (TetraMic, SPS200), it would be at the output of the software used to make A to B conversion. OK, to answer that one: for TetraProc: -it allows inversion, or not, at the user's choice (it actually allows it on a per channel (per mic capsule) basis -it also allows ... to complicate your task ... 'Endfire' (that is with the mic's 'top' pointed towards the soundstage, rather than the classic mic in a vertical position: with 'endfire' the 'handle' and the cabling point horizontally away from the soundstage). A word of caution though: If my memory is correct then TetraMic phantom power converters (or some of them) invert, before the signal reaches any software (see previous post). Am I saying the same thing as you (but with different words)? Maybe I should have said a list? Mmm a database seems 'a sledgehammer to crack a nut' ... but equally too many projects are not designed to allow for growth. In this case, though, a webpage might be the best start, as there do seem so many potential 'footnotes'/caveats that make the data set rather unclean. Michael - Daniel ___ 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] Soundfield-type mics: inverting or not?
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 08:24:02AM -, Michael Chapman wrote: for TetraProc: -it allows inversion, or not, at the user's choice (it actually allows it on a per channel (per mic capsule) basis -it also allows ... to complicate your task ... 'Endfire' Not really exact. Tetraproc allows to invert any combination of X,Y,Z and the Endifire options which swaps X and Z and inverts one of them. All of these operate on the B-format signals. There are no UI controls to invert the capsule signals. It can be done of course by editing the A-B matrix. Not exact at all ;-( I'd just got out of bed ... a poor excuse. Thanks the correction, Fons. Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Great responses to my post--thanks!
Hello Eric,
Very interesting post. I was a bit intrigued by what you had to say
regarding binaural recordings and the lack of sense of space. Reproducing
a sense of space is something that has interested me a lot as a sound
artist and I've been experimenting with building different types of
binaural mics. Here is an example recording I made:
http://soundcloud.com/hcenteno/kids-running-in-the-wychwood-barns
If I close my eyes I can really feel the space and the kids running in
front of me, and not inside my head, but I wonder how would other people
perceive it
Headphones:
(Comments made before reading above para.!)
Very good sense of space.
I mistakenly thought the kids would circle round me ;-)
Most of the movement was behind me.
Some movement went through my head.
The (?)board they run over was always behind me.
Soundstage seemed limited to:
from due L, round behind to RF (90 to 315 degrees).
(Cheap (actually free) Thomann ('t-bone') HD800 headphones :
so give this what weight you wish ;-)
Thanks for making it available,
Michael
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patents, Serendipity, and Questions
Questions follow: Not answers, but some thoughts that might help, pending any answers ... 1. Is there any preferred method of calibrating speakers used in an Ambisonic setup? I'd look at Jörn Nettingsmeier's paper, and particularly his slides (both PDFs) on digital room correction for ambisonics. We implemented his method, here, earlier this year (if you want any more comments!). 2. Has anyone compared or noted differences between the Virtual Visual Microphone (VVM) software and offline processing using MATLAB? Beware Matlab ... it gets Condon-Shortley 'wrong' (from an ambisonic, if not a quantum mechanic, point of view) ;-( 3. I have seen discussion and articles regarding Ambisonics and shelving filters. Ambdec comes with some nice ready made configuration files. Think you can take these to be 'state of the art'. (Even if you don't use Ambdec, you can look at the config's;-) For the background theory see the BLah series (which you are probably referring to above). Any recommendations as to best filter settings based on speaker-to-listener radius? Are you suggesting altering the frequency setting in relation to distance? Not sure what the basis for that would be. for such a tiny, 8-speaker arrangement? Would this system even lend itself to Ambisonics? Eight speakers for two-dimensional / horizontal / pantophonic first-order ambisonics is over-kill ... ... Hope my quick thoughts help your own thinking ... and hope you get some more profound answers. Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patents, Serendipity, and Questions
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:51:45PM -0800, Eric Carmichel wrote: 3. I have seen discussion and articles regarding Ambisonics and shelving filters. Any recommendations as to best filter settings based on speaker-to-listener radius? Very few AMB decoders provide both dual-band operation (or shelf filters) and near-field compensation. I'm the author of one that does (Ambdec), but since I suspect you are on Windows you can't use it. I'd give a big vote (and thanks) for Ambdec. Having also (this Spring/Summer) got bogged down in cross-platform (dual operating system) 'problems', I would also emphasise that many are highly soluble. You can take a selection of B-format recordings/files and 'cook them' to speaker feeds using Ambdec on either MacOS or Linux. (For Linux you can even install dual boot on a MS machine, rather than borrowing cycles of a friend's Mac / Linux box.) Save the speaker feeds as a six (or four (but preferably not eight;-)) channel file ... and 'bring it back home' for direct playback on a MS box. Just an idea, Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Ambisonic-Binaural piece using Brahma mic (was Re: Great responses to my post--thanks!)
Hi Umashankar (and anyone interested), Following up on this thread, I just uploaded a soundscape piece I made using the Brahma mic, presented here in a binaural version. The recordings were converted from A to B-Format with Tetraproc (thanks to Fons for the calibrated preset), ambisonic decode with Ambdec (using the extended cube preset extcube-1h1v, which is a regular cube plus speakers on the centre of each face) and then binaurally processed with a Max/MSP patch that uses the IRCAM Spat objects (I also programmed head tracking in this patch). I wonder if using that Ambdec preset would be the best for creating BInarual versions so any comments are welcome. You are almost certainly aware that TetraProc offers two channel outputs ... Fons (some years ago) was quite self-deprecaing about the Xtalk option. But I appreciated it. I certainly use them with success for 'stereo', but have little experience with binaural. Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Linux help and difficult listening (uploaded wav files)
1) From what I’ve read thus far, I look forward to trying AmbDec. Chances are, however, I’ll create the requisite audio files using one platform (i.e. Linux) from B-formatted files, and then play them back using a PC-based DAW. The impetus for the PC-based DAW is because I’m using hardware that I designed and built for automating psychoacoustic experiments. At the risk of repeating myself ... everything you have written seems to suggest you would be best forgetting 'realtime': Convert to speaker feeds (i.e. convert from B-format to ?D-format / ?G-format) on a Linux box. Play the 'speaker feed ambisonic' files on your existing set-up. 2) Look forward to listening ... but that'll have to await broad band access, after this week. Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Motivation for authors(Robert's off topic rant!)
Just turning things over in the back of my mind. Eric was pointing out that, without the peer review that goes with publication in a prestigious journal, a paper isn't taken seriously. as Robert points out, peer review offers at least some assurance that a paper does not contain 'junk information'. Don't disagree on the merits of peer review. On the downside, though it can just end up as an example of GB Shaw's all professions are conspiracies against the public (or whatever he said). It can get stupid: One card carrying reviewer wanted 'rejection unless rewritten' because in a low level piece on legal risks I had said something like 'you could get sued like Mrs Smith (Daily Mirror, 1966, etc.) as it was not a peer reviewed _reference_ ... what did she want the All England Law Reports (also not p-r)? But, given that we don't get paid for reviewing, and reviewing standards vary considerably across publications (so we can't quite be sure of those assurances unless a particular journal is highly prestigious particularly for its rigour), is there another way? Citation indices aren't bad. (Or weren't till Google patented them ... ;-) (Though hilarious junk science gets over-cited, if only to contradict it.) On the question of publishing but not preaching to the converted, one could see that some kind of peer review might help. I'm thinking that specialised publishing from leaders in the field, but pitching at the early-undergrad /bright-and-interested 6th former (in the Uk - that's a 17 year old; not sure of equivalents elsewhere)/ New Scientist reader would be of great benefit. Apart from anything else, it would provide good introductory teaching material, open source. I know all this openness puts the wind up those whose business model requires that information should be constrained (such as journals and universities), but it could be used to drive up the level of debate. Is there still a level? I was recently asked to review an e-learning resource for undergrad biologists (more for the e-learning than content). I queried why science undergrad's need such a resource for what was first and second year college (11-13 y.o.) chemistry ... to be assured that that _was_ the level now. On your specific point: Reviews are excellent and under-published. IMHO all doctoral students should write and publish one in their early year(s) ... but I doubt if there are that many openings to publish them(?). So not disagreeing ... and your ideas are interesting, Peter. Just sceptical ... Regards, Michael One could see how discussion papers and erudite responses (which also need some kind of review process) could be quite illuminating. It still needs some kind of editorial function, I think, to keep up standards and to minimise 'noise' In the area of 3-d sound and spatial hearing, I would think this list is where one would look first regards Dr Peter Lennox School of Technology, Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology University of Derby, UK e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk t: 01332 593155 ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Sursound Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19
operating sytem will probably be windows im afraid (I know I know) the same spec machine with exactly the same procesor , ram, hd etc costs nearly 4 times as much on a mac and linux will not run the software I wish to use Sorry, then, my comments must be limited . . . AFAIK (i'm at home, it is in the studio) Behringer DA converters do allow for synching. (Eric Benjamin's point is of the upmost importance ...) That still leaves you with ensuring the ?4 ADAT generating cards are synched with each other. MOTU Travelers (and kindred) are meant to be stackable and synch with each other. For 32-ch you would presumably need two plus 2 Behringers (a Motu Tr will output 8 analogue and one ADAT (=16) ... I have done this for 16-ch. It _sounded_ ok, but never measured.) If I was starting from fresh (and _not_ recording) I would look at things _like_ http://www.thomann.de/fr/rme_hdspe_raydat.htm which _seems_ on a quick perusal to give you your 32-ch for ?less than the price of a Motu. One point worth considering is cabling. Depending on your layout, you may prefer to pay a bit more to get groups of channels around the room in one easy 'cable' such as ADAT, than having lots of analogue from the centre. If the RME route is attractive, I'd ask again. Someone on the list must have practical experience. Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?
I understand that, which is why I made the snide remark about ticket sales. To place an microphone at audience level, one would have to empty enough seats around the mic position to make neighbors a non-issue. But revenues trump everything. Similarly, they could do a recording while doing final rehearsal, since there's no guarantee what ends up being the better performance anyway (and generally I could deal just fine without the disturbing applause in my living room, random coughing, and other stuff that comes with live events (like air conditioners kicking in because the collective body heat raised the temperatures too high, etc.) Oh, but the labour of transporting 100 manequins in fur coats into the concert hall to get the acoustics right. Much better to hope the concert attracts the correct socio- economic class ( ... mink ... ) ... and the hall is cold enough that they keep them on. Mind you with anti-fur campaigns spreading to continental Europe we all may be finished soon ;-)) Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Unless of course they publish a file format for it Want a minimal and purposely highly (even overtly) extensible one? That I can design. In fact I've meant to do something like this from teenage up. :) Please do! A group of us proposed a CAF based file format at Graz (in 2009) http://mchapman.com/amb/reprints/AFF.pdf It had a mixed response ;-) It has though been taken forward and a further proposal was made at the US Ambisonics symposium by Christian Nachbar (Graz) and colleagues. (N3D instead of SN3D, being one major change.) Time has brought greater agreement and stability. As I wasn't at York, and as the Graz folks are on this List, I won't give a reference as it would probably be out-of-date, anyway. So problem solved Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Thanks the correction. Yes, the move was N3D _to_ SN3D. Three years on from the original proposal and one on from the improvements, hopefully this is stable ( ... unless there any seismic improvemnts at York ???). Michael The 2011 paper by Nachbar, et al, ambiX - A Suggested Ambisonics Format, specifies SN3D as the normalization scheme. (see eqn 3 in section 2.1, The normalization that seems most agreeable is SN3D...) The papers are here http://ambisonics.iem.at/proceedings-of-the-ambisonics-symposium-2011 -- Aaron Heller (hel...@ai.sri.com) Menlo Park, CA US On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Michael Chapman s...@mchapman.com wrote: Unless of course they publish a file format for it Want a minimal and purposely highly (even overtly) extensible one? That I can design. In fact I've meant to do something like this from teenage up. :) Please do! A group of us proposed a CAF based file format at Graz (in 2009) http://mchapman.com/amb/reprints/AFF.pdf It had a mixed response ;-) It has though been taken forward and a further proposal was made at the US Ambisonics symposium by Christian Nachbar (Graz) and colleagues. (N3D instead of SN3D, being one major change.) Time has brought greater agreement and stability. As I wasn't at York, and as the Graz folks are on this List, I won't give a reference as it would probably be out-of-date, anyway. So problem solved 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] B-Format to Binaural
Hi All, thanks a lot for your replies. Harpex-B is quite expensive - I like to try Tetraproc, but I am not sure how to run it on my mac without Linux... Do you have an advice? There were instructions on ambisonia.com. (For installation, running is easy ...) Not sure if anyone has them elsewhere? Or you could try archive.org If you get stuck, do get in touch off list ... but it is years since I did my installation. Fons (whose creation it is), I know does not support Mac as he does not have the hardware. His software (Tetraproc, that is) runs fine on Mac though. Michael The SC3 library looks very nice as well. I will give it a try! Thank you, Moritz Am 04.04.2012 um 13:27 schrieb Joseph Anderson: Hello Moritz, If you're up for getting into SuperCollider, we've just released the Ambisonic Toolkit as an SC3 library: www.ambisonictoolkit.net/ We've included three different sets of binaural decoders, using two measured sets (IRCAM Listen, UC Davis CIPIC) and a synthetic head set. On 4 Apr 2012, at 9:13 am, Moritz Fehr wrote: Dear List members, over the past months, I have been following this group with great interest. I would like to ask you if you can give me some advice on converting B-Format recordings to a binaural format for reproducing the spatial impression of my recordings on headphones. Mostly, I am recording with a Tetramic. I am looking for useful tools for doing this conversion on a mac. Thank you very much, Moritz -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120404/e0770986/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] microphone epiphany ?
I think I may be having a microphone epiphany or at least what smug
boffins
might call an intuitive understanding but please feel free to correct
any
errors in my thinking. In using a six capsule (or 3 capsule) microphone
setup with 3 figure of eight pairs this gives you localisation information
based on the pressure gradient between each of these pairs (given by the
antiphase ?) . This pressure gradient gives you the localisation of the
sound on any of the given axis (X,Y,Z) and with this information you can
get the localisation of the sound in a sphere ? Is this correct , or even
vaguely correct ?
I won't comment in details as either
-you've missed something, or
-I have misunderstood.
If you have three ribbon microphones (one on each axis), or
some other 'figure of eight' microphones, you will never
get ambisonics.
Just as two (what is, in fact, Blumlein stereo) will never give
you 2-D / pantophonic ambisonics.
You need the zero-order component ('W') as well.
Two figure of eights and an omni will give you X,Y and from the
omni: W.
But obviously trying to put all that lot in the same spot in space at
the same time has led to simpler approaches ;-)
You need the sum, as well as the differences ...
Michael
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] The Sound of Vision (Mirage-sonics?)
Gregory, R.L., (1996) Is your green as green as mine? in The Sunday Times, Science section 8th September 1996 Dr Peter Lennox At least one can describe green-greener-greenest, or loud- louder-loudest, or high-pitch---higher-pitch--- ... but colour is really an odd one: You can only describe 'green' as 'green', but what I see as green you may 'see' as red ... but we both call it green. There is -as far as I know- no relative way of describing colours . . . Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] Ambisonia : BitTorrent
I suspect that this was well considered when Ambisonia was moved to York, but I'll ask anyway : Does York have sufficient bandwidth (and is it willing to allow its use) for Ambisonia downloads to be just that : i.e. file downloads direct* from the server ? If not, I'll get the cold towels out, wrap my head and try and get BitTorrent going again (it worked fine on my _previous_ system ;-( Michael *Another question has to be : how much difference BitTorrent actually makes in bandwidth used : I got the impression that Etienne had enormous bandwidth problems with the original server ... possibly implying that BitTorrent was not relieving that much of the pressure (?). ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Ambisonia : BitTorrent
Thanks Paul : Somebody (perhaps you) already suggested Opera. And yes I have installed it and it does 'work'. I didn't want to put my 'personal' problems on the list, but ah well: Opera is now trying to route through some proprietory ADSL box . . . and I'm trying to understand the opaque instructions about the box's firewall. I am quite used to tweaking firewalls on servers and on benchtop machines, but the box seems to have its own 'little tricks'. So thanks, but it's back to reading the manual, I fear ... Michael --On 12 June 2012 09:14 + Michael Chapman s...@mchapman.com wrote: If not, I'll get the cold towels out, wrap my head and try and get BitTorrent going again You don't really need to; install a copy of the Opera browser, and then you can just click on a torrent link, select Open rather than Save, and the browser will do the torrent download (so long as you leave it open, of course). No extra setup required. It also shares, as torrents expect, but when the download is complete, you can stop the sharing by right-clicking it in the downloads list (or just by closing Opera). Paul -- Paul Hodges ___ 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] VLC Ambisonic player module
On 06/27/2012 12:22 PM, Dave Malham wrote: Hi Folks, I remember a few years ago there was talk of getting Ambisonic playback going in VLC. Did that ever get anywhere? Or, indeed, Ambisonic playback for any cross-platform player? I once used mplayer to play back a video with a 3rd order horizontal ambisonics sound track: mplayer -ao jack -channels 7 myvideo.avi The mplayer output was routed to ambdec for decoding. I've used mplayer a lot, with great success. Obviously it is then your problem to decode B-format. I wasn't sure if the original question was seeking something that gave 'speaker' feeds or B-format. I rather presumed the former but ... then ... I rather doubted if (m)any on this list would trust any decoder packaged with a player, unless they knew an awful lot about it ;-) Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Quicktime player ??
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:05:49 +0100 From: Dave Malham dave.mal...@york.ac.uk Subject: Re: [Sursound] VLC Ambisonic player module Hi there, Whilst MPlayer is an excellent piece of kit, it's not exactly suited to people with little or no computer literacy, so someone on a Windoze machine and an audio file to play can't just be told to instal MPlayer - for them, mplayer -ao jack -channels 7 myvideo.avi is slightly less intelligible than the average inscription in a Pharaoh's tomb :-) I must be missing something : Couldn't we just sell a piece of software, for an immense sum, -that puts an icon on the desktop -when the icon is clicked* it executes our patented code ( mplayer -ao jack -channels 7 myvideo.avi ) -and ... One 'click for the user ... and we all retire rich (unless it is expensive there'll be no take up). *Yes, I know 'click' won't work, it needs some way of dragging the myvideo.avi icon onto the userousplayer.exe icon ... or something ... sorry WIMP is not my field (which may of course be why -as I said- I'm missing something). Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] []OT] List of open source software for wavefield synthesis
Augustine Leudar augustineleu...@gmail.com wrote: [ ... ] anyone know of anything that works on windows ? That's just unkind Michael ;-) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Sursound Digest, Vol 48, Issue 12
Le param�tre d'usine est de 45� pour l'�l�vation Cube aussi bien dans Harpex que dans VVMIC It's a bit peripheral to the generality of this discussion, but I read the above as the default elevation for cube arrays in Harpex and VVMic is 45 degrees. It's rather counter-intuitive, but the elevation of the 'corners' of cube is such that cotangent(elevation) = sqrt(2), which gives an elevation significantly less than 45 degrees. (I think that's about 35 degrees, but I am out of the office and away from my tables (yes I still use a book of tables;-).) Michael (As ever, corrections to 'top of the head' calculations welcomed!) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 4 channel Nipper
Marc Lavallée m...@hacklava.net wrote : Here's the link to the scanned issue: http://books.google.ca/books?id=iVOwQhCJ2GgC The article on page 222 is worth reading; Will ambi-sound shatter the peace and quiet of the stereo market? Very interesting (and _sobering_) reading . . . , thanks. Michael Minor (compared with the general impression), but I noted the author's commentary on : -the pursuit of patents as against 'outreach' and -the quality (or lack of it) of 'outreach'/demonstrations M ;-( ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] What AV Linux distro to use with an old laptop - is it likely to be at all useful
[ . . . ] * Which distro(s) of Linux are most useful for surround sound (Ambisonic) work? And * Which (32-bit) distro of Linux is likely to be light enough for such an ancient laptop? Gerard Lardner I've always like Dyne (now apparently puredyne) and 'played' with it often, but _never_ used it for a serious project ... (I'd welcome comments (+ or -) on puredyne, myself ...) AFAIK a laptop doesn't know if it is booting from a CD-CD or a CD-DVD... but anyway why not install on the HD (unless you have nostalgia for Windows 1066 ;-) Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] OT: Yorkshire's success in 2012 Olympics
The democratic republic of Yorkshire (=; hmmm has a certain ring to it. Not so sure about 'democratic' (a bit passè in the century of global empire?) : Everyone's som'at odd, Except thee and me, And I'm not so sure about thee. [Mis-remembered / misquoted, but ah well ... ] Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] re-inventing the wheel
Come on, don't knock them. They are very special : One third the size (voiceover) 33% smaller (video text) You can't judge these wonders by the antiquated laws of physics ... Michael And ... er ... using the subwoof does _not_ create all the horrible problems that twin cone loudspeakers (they say) produce. Clever. And it all packs into a hatchback? Not my daughter's vintage VW Polo, methinks... I wonder if the drivers have that nice horn shape that gave the Tannoys such ...um... character. Gerald On 28 Aug 2012, at 10:16, Dave Malham wrote: Come back Tannoy, all is forgiven... http://www.mackie.com/products/dlmseries/lineup/ It's definitely Laugh Out Loud as you watch the Technology And Features video - even though I don't _think_ that one's actually meant to be funny Dave -- These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer /*/ /* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */ /* Music Research Centre */ /* Department of Musichttp://music.york.ac.uk/; */ /* The University of York Phone 01904 322448*/ /* Heslington Fax 01904 322450*/ /* York YO10 5DD */ /* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */ /*http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/; */ /*/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] Ambdec 0.5.1 and Mac OSX
Just upgraded my version of Ambdec, Unless I missed something (it's 3 in the morning;-) there is no longer a Mac Makefile. I have got Ambdec running nicely (though do not have the facilities to check on a rig until next week ... so fingers crossed). In the source directrory, I : cp Makefile Makefile-Linux mv Makefile Makefile-Mac then edited Makefile-Mac (see below) then cp Makefile-Mac Makefile then the 'make' 'make install' as instructed in the INSTALL file. There was one complaint/warning ... but hopefully non-fatal. (install: ambdec_cli: No such file or directory make: *** [install] Error 71) Think I left a (?)redundant line in the Makefile ... Running ambdec then results in an error message that it cannot find two PNG files. I made the necessary directory and hand copied them from the 'share' directory. (source user$ sudo mkdir /usr/local/share/ambdec/ source user$ sudo cp ../share/meter* /usr/local/share/ambdec/ ) Ambdec then comes up nicely. Apologies if this is a re-invention, but I couldn't find it anywhere ... Michael :source user$ diff Makefile-Mac Makefile-Linux 21,22d20 # Homemade : MJC 20120902 30c28 #CPPFLAGS += -march=native --- CPPFLAGS += -march=native 33c31 all: ambdec --- all: ambdec ambdec_cli 41,42c39,40 ambdec: LDLIBS += -lclxclient -lclthreads -ljack -lpng -lXft -lX11 -framework Cocoa ambdec: LDFLAGS += -L/usr/X11R6/$(LIBDIR) --- ambdec: LDLIBS += -lclxclient -lclthreads -ljack -lpng -lXft -lX11 -lrt ambdec: LDFLAGS += -L/usr/X11R6/lib 49a48,59 AMBDEC_CLI_O = ambdec_cli.o jclient.o nffilt.o xover2.o decoder.o adconf.o sstring.o ambdec_cli: LDLIBS += -lclthreads -ljack -lrt ambdec_cli: $(AMBDEC_CLI_O) g++ $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ $(AMBDEC_CLI_O) $(LDLIBS) $(AMBDEC_CLI_O): -include $(AMBDEC_CLI_O:%.o=%.d) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Ambdec 0.5.1 and Mac OSX
Sorry, this was on Mac OS X Version 10.5.2 (? 2008). Just upgraded my version of Ambdec, Unless I missed something (it's 3 in the morning;-) there is no longer a Mac Makefile. I have got Ambdec running nicely (though do not have the facilities to check on a rig until next week ... so fingers crossed). In the source directrory, I : cp Makefile Makefile-Linux mv Makefile Makefile-Mac then edited Makefile-Mac (see below) then cp Makefile-Mac Makefile then the 'make' 'make install' as instructed in the INSTALL file. There was one complaint/warning ... but hopefully non-fatal. (install: ambdec_cli: No such file or directory make: *** [install] Error 71) Think I left a (?)redundant line in the Makefile ... Running ambdec then results in an error message that it cannot find two PNG files. I made the necessary directory and hand copied them from the 'share' directory. (source user$ sudo mkdir /usr/local/share/ambdec/ source user$ sudo cp ../share/meter* /usr/local/share/ambdec/ ) Ambdec then comes up nicely. Apologies if this is a re-invention, but I couldn't find it anywhere ... Michael :source user$ diff Makefile-Mac Makefile-Linux 21,22d20 # Homemade : MJC 20120902 30c28 #CPPFLAGS += -march=native --- CPPFLAGS += -march=native 33c31 all:ambdec --- all: ambdec ambdec_cli 41,42c39,40 ambdec: LDLIBS += -lclxclient -lclthreads -ljack -lpng -lXft -lX11 -framework Cocoa ambdec: LDFLAGS += -L/usr/X11R6/$(LIBDIR) --- ambdec: LDLIBS += -lclxclient -lclthreads -ljack -lpng -lXft -lX11 -lrt ambdec: LDFLAGS += -L/usr/X11R6/lib 49a48,59 AMBDEC_CLI_O = ambdec_cli.o jclient.o nffilt.o xover2.o decoder.o adconf.o sstring.o ambdec_cli: LDLIBS += -lclthreads -ljack -lrt ambdec_cli: $(AMBDEC_CLI_O) g++ $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ $(AMBDEC_CLI_O) $(LDLIBS) $(AMBDEC_CLI_O): -include $(AMBDEC_CLI_O:%.o=%.d) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Ambdec 0.5.1 and Mac OSX
Just upgraded my version of Ambdec, Unless I missed something (it's 3 in the morning;-) there is no longer a Mac Makefile. [ . . . ] I think the diff below resolves my previous issues (but with a concert next week I haven't had the courage to do a de-install re-install, just to check ;-( Michael user n$ diff Makefile-Mac Makefile-Linux 21,22d20 # Homemade : MJC 20120902 30c28 #CPPFLAGS += -march=native --- CPPFLAGS += -march=native 33c31 all: ambdec --- all: ambdec ambdec_cli 41,42c39,40 ambdec: LDLIBS += -lclxclient -lclthreads -ljack -lpng -lXft -lX11 -framework Cocoa ambdec: LDFLAGS += -L/usr/X11R6/$(LIBDIR) --- ambdec: LDLIBS += -lclxclient -lclthreads -ljack -lpng -lXft -lX11 -lrt ambdec: LDFLAGS += -L/usr/X11R6/lib 49a48,59 AMBDEC_CLI_O = ambdec_cli.o jclient.o nffilt.o xover2.o decoder.o adconf.o sstring.o ambdec_cli: LDLIBS += -lclthreads -ljack -lrt ambdec_cli: $(AMBDEC_CLI_O) g++ $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ $(AMBDEC_CLI_O) $(LDLIBS) $(AMBDEC_CLI_O): -include $(AMBDEC_CLI_O:%.o=%.d) 52a63 install -m 755 ambdec_cli $(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/bin 57a69 /bin/rm -f $(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/bin/ambdec_cli 63c75 --- /bin/rm -f ambdec_cli --END of EMAIL-- ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 3D Array
- Are identical speakers needed for each speaker of the array, or can I DIY it buy mixing and matching speakers from old hi/fi and found systems? Don't think anyone would recommend it ... but one has to be realistic. There are some good classical recordings on ambisonia.com A few of those played back, should give you an idea of how bad (good) the system is. (I have a movement from a symphony that rotates (pans) round the room over several minutes. Gives some idea of the whole (horizontal) system.) Digital Room Correction (DRC) is good for room sized arrays. There's a good paper and slide demo by Jörn Nettingsmeier (on his site). I wonder how well it would iron out blemishes of an unmatched array ... ? Seems an interesting possibility! - I was reading that the exact layout of an HOA is not so important, there's tolerance for different configs, unlike traditional 5.1 channel based systems which have specific locations that they should live in.. if so, what is the determining factor for accurate localization? If I rig up my studio with one config, will it translate to a much larger space by scaling up ? (assuming enough power in the loudspeakers?) The whole point of ambisonics is that it is independent of the final rig. - What are ways of writing original music for this format? I use Logic and Max... does this format need specific compatible syths/instrument with multiple out, or is the source irrelevant and it's all in the host routing? Also have a look at Ambisonic Tool Kit and its lead author's (Joseph Anderson's) work. - What's the easiest way of using my existing stereo samples/recordings to convert them for use and reproduction ? Is this even possible? If I convert, will I then have to manually 'map' movement across the field? So many questions! If anyone has time, would love to chat with you about all of this much appreciated. Sounds like a ripe opportunity to create a set of tutorials, podcasts, screencasts of how to get started (if there aren't already) In many ways that ought to be better if done by a neophyte (no danger of presuming knowledge that has not been covered, etc., etc.). Am sure if you produced some drafts (How I did it.) you would get some criticism ... Good luck, Michael ___ 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.
Martin Leese wrote : The Ambi-5 Auditorium Decoder. I have a PDF of an Audio + Design leaflet which somebody sent me. If people want it I can place it on my Google Site for download. However, it just says: The Ambi-5 produces five loudspeaker feeds arranged as a regular pentagon with See also Pentagon [ . . . ] This rig configuration produces a strict idealised response that satisfies the Ambisonic matching equations. Generally this type of configuration produces a relatively small stable listening area. (See controlled opposites below.) http://www.muse.demon.co.uk/ref/speakers.html ( Richard Furse) Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Trans-Dimensional Portal
Marc Lavallée wrote : This list is not the place to explain why, but I must also mention that I'm strictly non-Facebook. Amen ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Trans-Dimensional Portal
Eric Benjamin wrote : I don't understand what would be the benefit of a facebook group I certainly sympathize with all of those who have posted anti-facebook comments. That is why I maintain only a minimal facebook presence. But it does seem to me that there are some benefits. Like accompanying commentary with supplementary pictures or audio recordings. Thought TBL sorted that in 198? err, a webpage? Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [OT] FB etc. (was: Re: Trans-Dimensional Portal)
Very much off topic is what follows. Just as a point of information, I think Hitler's election did not depend on fraud. I think he actually did have a lot of popular support at one point . Why is a complex question, but I believe he did, though of course he was not above fraud if fraud was needed. Yes, when my children used to come home from 'ra-ra' civics classes, I used to pose the question: In 1945, of Churchill, Hitler, Stalin and Truman, which were elected as leader in a democratic election? And it is quite true that the search engines, for all their remarkable power, do not promote in -depth study of things or issues. Too much piffle comes up too easily--if commercial interests are invovled Shameless plug : There is something called the WWW Virtual Library that aims to give expert overviews of particular subjects on the Web. (It actually started (by TBL) as a catalogue of the whole Web (e.g. http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/DataSources/bySubject/Overview.html).) Finding volunteers (and fighting off the commercialisation attempts) is though increasingly difficult ;-( Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [OT] FB etc.
As I said, it was a question I posed to my children ... in effect to get them to question naïve simplifications. Your response Stefan is neither naïve nor simplistic, if I got an answer half-as-good as that I would have been happy (I'd probably have been happy if I thought my children's teachers' teachers could give an answer half-as-good as that ;-) Regards, Michael Michael Chapman wrote: Very much off topic is what follows. Just as a point of information, I think Hitler's election did not depend on fraud. I think he actually did have a lot of popular support at one point . Why is a complex question, but I believe he did, though of course he was not above fraud if fraud was needed. Yes, when my children used to come home from 'ra-ra' civics classes, I used to pose the question: In 1945, of Churchill, Hitler, Stalin and Truman, which were elected as leader in a democratic election? Hitler had 44% of the vote in 1933 (last election of Weimar Republic). How the Weimar Republic was de facto abolished latest in 1934 (after the death of Hindenburg, the President) is another story. (The Weimar Republic was never abolished in an official way. Hitler just got a kind of eternal President/Chancellor. Of course this was not constitutional at all, but potential opposition had been crushed before.) Therfore, Hitler was certainly not elected to get into the function in which he put himelf. (There was not any election after 1933. Media, justice and even religious organisations were taken over by the NSDAP party within a short time-frame, so what is even the point of the question above? Hitler and Stalin were dictators, the other two not. End of story...) You could say that the Democratic parties were too weak in 1933. It is untrue to pretend that Hitler was a kind of elected dictator. (The Communists were also very strong in 1933, but of course they were the first to be taken out.) I mean: If Merkel would receive a 50% in the 2013 election, it still would be quite hard for her to take over. Which means an absolute mayority is a potential election result, but hardly a legal base to crush other parties, abolish further elections etc. Books have been written why the Weimar Republic crushed, but it didn't happen because of the election results per se. Best, Stefan P.S.: Don't want to start a huge political discussion. But if I read the elected leader question, I think this is supposed to put democracy into question, but in a completely wrong way. - NSDAP reached never a 50% share of votes. (44% was the maximum vote share.) - Also 50% would not have been enough to abolish the Weimar Republic/Constitution in a legal way. - Hitler's Machtergreifung was not exactly a constitutional process, and it was actually not supposed to be! Parliament members (left parties) were arrested and killed already in 1933/34, so it was a far-right revolution from the start. There were different militias all around, and the President didn't stop this. (Hindenburg was too old even to understand what happened. ) Therefore, Hitler was not the elected leader in 1945. No historian I know would support such a theory. Further, he and his fellows were declared enemies of the democracy, from the start. They acted in a way to get into charge, ruthless and certainly not caring at all about constitutional procedures. (Of course pretending to act in a constitutional way. And don't forget that Hitler had been jailed after a failed military plot a decade before... The second time the plot/revolution was still there, but far more hidden and slower.) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121011/1eb323f9/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] Trans-Dimensional Portal
Also http://www.mail-archive.com/sursound@music.vt.edu/ M. I think the *real* problem is that sursound does not have a publicly available archive. Etienne You are at http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.audio.sursound/2709 ... and I always thought this list was 'private' ... ;-( (I think ... I may ... have seen other mirrors ... but not sure ...) 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] [ot] new and interesting words
as an aside (and without looking it up) ossuary clearly means some official receptacle for bones, I would guess? Dr Peter Lennox What I find fascinating is words that are either absent, or if present rarely used but replaced by compounds. Things like 'foot-fingers' (French) and 'hand-shoes' (German) and by comparison 'sibling' (English) which is rare* (certainly, compared with it's German equivalent (though I stand to be corrected)). Think, I might excuse Finnish for not having a word for ossuary, though ! Michael *I remember being told there was no direct English translation, when I first learnt German ;-( ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [ot] new and interesting words
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 01:56:04PM -, Michael Chapman wrote: What I find fascinating is words that are either absent, or if present rarely used but replaced by compounds. Things like 'foot-fingers' (French) and 'hand-shoes' (German) and by comparison 'sibling' (English) which is rare* (certainly, compared with it's German equivalent (though I stand to be corrected)). The French have real toes, called 'orteilles'. Agreed, but I don't think it is the commoner usage (or not round here). But I'm on the border of French and Savoyard numbering (70, 80, 90) ... so we may not be typical ... or normal ;-) One of my daughters who has an acute ear for language once did 'badly' with the school doctor ... for talking like a fifty year old ... she rhetorically asked me if she (the doctor) would have preferred playground slang Ah well. Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Auro 3D
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 05:26:57PM -, Michael Chapman wrote: Because the knobs on the amp's are at the other end of the room (or if not there, it would mean bending one's back). Modern PA gear is remote-controlled and monitored. And even if not, that's no excuse :-) No, no, no I've worked with classical musicians. Happy to try electronic violins, happy to try way out things like ambisonic recordings (even very bizarre microphone placements 'for research'). But (a part of) the 'amplified music' boys are real traditionalists, they are trying to re-enact something all the way down to mixing and sono. It has to 19?0, or else. (with ? being some numbe such as 5, 6, or 7). To use the remote control would be as much as an anaethma as a character in Shakespeare using a mobile phone. I hyperbolise, I know ;-) (But I managed o do it without using 'analogue' or 'valve'/'tube' ;-) Regards, Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [ot] new and interesting words
Michael Chapman wrote: Think, I might excuse Finnish for not having a word for ossuary, though ! It has, although it possibly wasn't very clear in Sampo's original post. The word is luusto, as he wrote. Finnish, as many other languages can form an neverending multitude of words by combining existing words together. Ah thought that was Sampo's creation (possibly with a US patent attached ... ;-) My donation to English is sibloid (adj., from sibling). (Seeing as we are apparently archived on the Web, I thought I'd lay claim before M$ patented it.) Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Hi, Just noticed this the other day: WO2012059385 DATA STRUCTURE FOR HIGHER ORDER AMBISONICS AUDIO DATA http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012059385 I haven't read all the 75 pages, mostly looking at the pictures :-) Who is/are the applicant(s) ? But it looks like it's about combining different streams of HOA content with mono streams to be spatialized on the fly (sound objects). Haven't looked, but 'prior art' (2009): One example that occurred during development has been the addition of ‘position’ files. These allow test files (of the “Up Left Front, Up Front, . . . ” variety) to be distributed as four channel files (mono, ux , uy , uz ), which can then be ‘inflated’ by the user to a normal file of any ambisonic order. may (or may not) be relevant ... Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Hi On 24 October 2012 09:37, Michael Chapman s...@mchapman.com wrote: Hi, Just noticed this the other day: WO2012059385 DATA STRUCTURE FOR HIGHER ORDER AMBISONICS AUDIO DATA Who is/are the applicant(s) ? Well it's Thomson and the inventors include people like Johann-Markus Batke and others ? ? ? M ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
The B-Format (based on the extensible ^iff/wav' structure) with its *.amb file format realisation as described as of 30 March 2009 for example in Martin Leese, File Format for B-Format , http://www. ambisonia.com/Members/etienne/Members/mleese/file-format-for-b-format, is the most sophisticated format available today. With due deference to your work of 2000, Martin, in 2012 one might question whether that important work, is the most sophisticated format available today (?). Patents, patents, M ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Ambisonic 'File' Formats
There's also the possibility of a new version of Broadcast Wav (BWF). Dave Thanks Dave, URL and/or other reference ??? 'Native' CAF also has the possibility for 'W,X,Y,Z' so (again without acknowledgment) I suspect that could be counted as a *.amb variant. MPEG formats: anyone have the key URLs ? Technicolor ... started this round. Anymore ? Michael On 30 October 2012 09:40, Michael Chapman s...@mchapman.com wrote: The thing that is really annoying, really frustrating, is that the community that I am trying to serve (which includes me) keeps shooting itself in the foot, incessantly, year after year, by arguing over the same details, over and over and over. ED, Sunday. At the risk of another abortive cycle. We seem to have: Richard Dobson's *.amb Widely used, widely accepted. Problematic as order number increases. Has the underlying *.wav problems (and advantages). Etienne Deleflie's 'UA' I had thought this had been dropped in favour of the fourth of these, so have rather taken my 'eye off the ball'. Perhaps Etienne could comment (he is one of the author's of the fourth). The Graz Proposal of 2009. This fell on stoney ground ;-( It was CAF based, and we did have promises of a 'CafPak' from the 'WavPak' development team. http://mchapman.com/amb/reprints/AFF The Kenticky Proposal of 2010. The current situation is: a library available at http://iem.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=iem/ambix;a=summary and the unofficial documentation at http://iem.at/~zmoelnig/libambix/ambix_8h.html I'll happily put up a webpage with URLs / links to them all (and any others). Even try a Wikipedia type table of 'what does/offers what' (if the authors will assist). (And genericlly these re not 'file format's so much as 'interchange formats' (files, streams, ... .) Once we've got the facts straight perhaps we could recommence on a solid basis ?? __ [ . . . ] ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Vestibular response, HRTF database, and more
Eric, A bit wide of your topic ... if not indeed off topic. If you lie a young healthy person (i.e. 'normal' skin elasticity) on their back and take a copy of their face (a mask). If you place this on your desk (paperweight-like) it may draw comments, but not about it being unnatural. Now hang it on the all. It won't look right and people are likely to say so. Those who have seen 'death masks' in museums might even ask if it is one. (You can extend this ... with strange results ... to parts of the body that are 'normally' clothed ... but that is another matter.) So a trivial example of an audience's automatic (and unconscious) compensation for orientation. Think you now have to do the experiments you've outlined ;-) Michael or orientation ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Upgrading a voice recorder with a hex editor - TEAC VR-20 to Tascam DR-08 audio recorder
I no longer remember my sursound password. how do I get it fixed? umashankar It's emailed to you once a month. If you still have: from: mailman-ow...@music.vt.edu date: Nov 1, 2012 subject: music.vt.edu mailing list memberships reminder It is in there. If not ... hope one of the admin's picks up your message. If neither ... ... email them direct. Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Quietest place on Earth revisited
Those outside the UK may have missed that the BBC has just paid out about a quarter of a million USD to someone they wrongly named as a paedophile. For the sake of accuracy, I suppose that should be implied was not named as, as the naming was done on Eric's aliens' Internet ... M ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Beamforming with HOA
Hi, all I think there are somebody have worked about beamforming of spherical array. Now I want to design the beampattern steering to certain direction and get the signal from that direction (Sptial filtering). I get the 32 channels signal p from Eigenmic. Get the Pnm of different orders according to the spherical fourier transform. And then weighted and sum all Pnm with the weight, Wnm=Ynm(omiga)/(4pi*i^n*bn). Ynm is the spherical harmonics and n is the order of it, omega is the look direction, and bn is the mode strength to equalize different mode. In my simulation there is a two voice in the directions 0 degree and 135 degree respectively. When the order is set n=2, I get the output signal( signal from the steering direction 0 degree). The voice from 0 degree is enhanced and the voice from 135 degree is weakened. The spatial filter takes effect. But when I set the order n=3, the signal is heard just like the one of order n=2. And n=4, the signal is even worse than the one n=2. It don��t have any spatial filter effect. Can anybody help check what is the main cause of the problem? Thanks advanced. You don't say what happens in first order : is that normal ? Certainly for HOA soundfields that work in first order, but breakdown in higher orders (except for (?) 0 degrees sources (I haven't checked the maths for that, but I think that is the case)), then ... the first thing I'd check is Condon-Shortley*. My apologies if that is stating the obvious and you have already done so. Regardless, do say what happens in first order ... (?). Michael See, for example http://mchapman.com/amb/reprints/Symmetries.pdf at pages 5 and 6. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Beamforming with HOA
Thanks a lot. I apology for not telling the status of the first order. It is normal. It has spatial filter effect but not very obvious. Also, The value of spherical harmonics by my script is the same as the one computed by the function of WOLFRAM(http://functions.wolfram.com/webMathematica/FunctionEvaluation.jsp?name=SphericalHarmonicYGeneral). I haven't checked, but I would strongly suspect Wolfram SH is that used in quantum chemistry, that is _with_ Condon-Shortley (and, thus, not exactly what you want). But whether that is your problem. . .? Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Array for sound field recording and extend the sound image
Hello, all [ ... ] The W component equals to the mean of signals from four mics. Then I decoded them to get the feeding signal for four loudspeakers, and used HRTFs to get the left and right signal for headphone. 1. Furthermore, the experiment is made that a person was walking around the array and say something in an office. After processed by the method above, I find there is a problem that the speech sounds like a person talking and moving around my head but very near to my ears [ ... ] Do you get the same problem if you playback through four loudspeakers, or is it only after HRTF manipulation ? (I cannot see how it would cause this, but: Have you controlled to see if W is at the correct level compared with X and Y (depends a lot on the polar pattern of your mic's). Probably would need to analyse some recordings of 'point' sources to check that.) Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...
OK, Stefan, I'll look at my diary ;-( But 1) January 14-23 is ten days ... it is alo both tentative and 'next' week; 2 How does all this tye in with the MPEG-H 3D Audio Workshop (see copied email below). Whether related, or not, it would seem worth involving Gregory Pallone. If Orange (aka France Telecom) have a commercial interest in ambisonics then we have an ally. Michael Stefan Schreiber wrote: Michael Chapman wrote: The current situation at MPEG: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/com16/video/Pages/jctvc.aspx Next meetings: * Geneva, Switzerland, October 2013 (tentative) * Vienna, Austria, 27 July - 2 August 2013 (tentative) * Incheon, Korea, 20-26 April 2013 (tentative) * Geneva, Switzerland, 14-23 January 2013 (tentative) Possibly not relevant in these days of (relatively) cheap air travel, but: I am near Geneva, colleagues at Graz are near Vienna, _if_ physical presence is a factor. But this is just 'mechanics' ... and should not distract from the main thrust of Stefan's call ! Michael I think it would be a great idea if some people like you would show up, because others ARE there and won't take our case. After reading all this Auro-3D/Barco stuff: It really seems they have invented 3D audio, and I am scratching my head in despair... :-) Somebody should also tell them that decoding to binaural/motion compensated binaural is of course possible and probably available , because this is currently an important topic. (If you can play surround /3D audio on some of all these trillions of mobile devices, surround of any kind ain't be a niche.) Thanks for your posting, very good point... Stefan Original Message Subject: [Sursound] Make HOA count From:gregory.pall...@orange.com Date:Thu, July 5, 2012 11:33 pm To: sursound@music.vt.edu sursound@music.vt.edu -- Hello, I'm new to this group (even if my colleague Jerome (Daniel) shares sometimes info about it) so I hope you will excuse my usage of this list for the following information and questions ... The MPEG audio group is about to start a standardization process in order to create a 3D audio codec. As 3D audio experts, you are welcome to assist freely to the MPEG-H 3D Audio Workshop in Stockholm on July the 18th (all details here: http://www.audioresearchlabs.com/mpeg-h-workshop/101-3D-AudioWorkshop.pdf) This codec should have the ability to flexibly render an audio program to an arbitrary number of loudspeakers with arbitrary configurations. I think it could be a good opportunity to make it also support HOA format (as input of the audio encoder, output of the audio decoder, or both), and not only classical multichannel formats such as 5.1, 7.1, 10.2, 22.2... In this context, could you please send an email before July 11th to hoamilit...@gmail.commailto:hoamilit...@gmail.com indicating in just several sentences: - if you support HOA format as an input of the future 3D audio encoder, and why (what use-cases?) - if you support HOA format as an output of the future 3D audio decoder, and why (what use-cases?) - please indicate also what is your point of view: content creator, capturing or rendering device manufacturer, researcher, developer ... Thank you for sharing this valuable information which should help in militating in favor of HOA, and sorry for people not interested in my message. Gregory PS: Don't hesitate to forward this message to people/organizations/companies who could also be interested in attending the workshop and/or helping to militate in favor of HOA. _ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120705/33b3eec8/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list
Re: [Sursound] Array for sound field recording and extend the sound image
Thanks very much. You are so kind. I will have a try as your suggestion. Best regards, Rilin Chen Do let us know with what results ! These type of problems are usually a learning experience for us all Best of luck, Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] DTS Headphone:X
Peter Lennox wrote: ... beyond 3D sound - my goodness! Just how many dimensions? - this is going to upset the theoretical physicists. New Dimensions for Ambisonics https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?elib=14608 Shameless plug ... (not least for hyperspherical harmonics ... ;-) , Michael But if they are clever enough to do that, why can't they actually speak English? Dr. Peter Lennox ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] DTS Headphone:X
Peter Lennox wrote: ... beyond 3D sound - my goodness! Just how many dimensions? - this is going to upset the theoretical physicists. New Dimensions for Ambisonics https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?elib=14608 Shameless plug ... (not least for hyperspherical harmonics ... ;-) , Michael But if they are clever enough to do that, why can't they actually speak English? Dr. Peter Lennox ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Broadcasting b-format over 802.11g to Ambisonic speaker system
Anyway if anyone knows of a
wireless cable system out there that is high quality and works over
distances of up to 400m (in places where there is no internet) please let
me know !
You can (or could) get little boxes that plugged ino power points (as in
220v sockets) that each had an (?)ethernet* socket.
A sort of poor man's WiFi for in the home ... except they weren't that cheap.
Did they allow a network (two parties 'on line') ?
What was their range ?
Bandwidth?
Latency ?
Suspect one had to be on the same phase of the power supply (it was that
_thought_ that caused us to abandon the query for a building with three
phase (well, with different halls on different phases)).
(You could possibly get round that by transmitting between neutral and
earth ... maybe they did anyway?)
Even more esoteric: Back in the Seventies Mullard published a design for
point-to-point optical connections. DIY using two bits of sewer/drainage
pipe as the housing.
And yet further: somewhere on the Web used to be details of using a wok
(as in cuisine) _basket_ (for ?deep fat frying?) as a reflector
('parabole') for WiFi ... was reputed to _greatly_ enhance range ...
(don't think it was a joke ...)
(You needed a USB/WiFi thingie to place in the focal point of the 'dish'.)
Michael
*Audio over intranet seems quite 'done'. Have some _limited_ experience
(with CAT5).
M
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Broadcasting b-format - again
I have implemented a similar thing and had phase-locked audio coming out of ~20 iPod touches using one enterprise-grade access point. At Xmas, with multiple iPhone users all playing music on 'loudspeakers' at the same time ... whether one couldn't harness them all and play surround sound ... Of course the soluton to 'lag' is to use a neutrino stream ... they travel faster than light ... don't they ... ;-) M ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Broadcasting b-format over 802.11g to Ambisonic speaker system
Ross Bencina wrote: On 27/01/2013 6:16 PM, Michael Chapman wrote: You just then need a master signal to: -synchronise -adjust volume -select track - ... ? If you're outdoors then you can use GPS time for synchronization. In which case you can just program everything to start at a certain time and forget about communication. You've got to leave at least a volume controé for the chief 'man in black' ... otherwise the unions will squash the idea ;-) But good point (I had browsed the DCF77 signal (Frankfurt clock) but wondered how to synch to it ... wondering if you would need NTP-style drift measurements and correction ... ; never thought of GPS ... durh!). MC ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 8+ channel players ?
Interesting - so I wasn't the only one who spotted the market niche for this sort of thing, wished I'd gotten on with my design :-( Still a market(?) for one with a low channel count and which can be used in groups with (?)GPS sync between them ... ... Go modular ... Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] Syncing modular playback devices
Maybe DCF77 or mains AC (50/60Hz) is more reliable: http://m.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/feb/13/gps-jammers-uk-roads-risks Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [allowed] Re: Gran Sasso - first impressions
Here's a suggestion: a place that is publicly-accessible, but is under threat ... Also look at http://www.subbrit.org.uk/ Our members study and investigate man-made and man-used underground places — from mines to railway tunnels, military defences to nuclear bunkers and everything in between. I think the 'best' Cold War sites suffer from asbestos ... but if white suits and face masks are not a problem it might be arrangeable ... Michael (Near Bath is the old ASG (?Corsham) which whilst (I hope;-) declassified may not be abandonned. I suspect though other 'volumes' on the above and similar sites would be more physicall interesting ...) Peter, remember being taugh that 'the climax vegetation was oak forest' ... but no longer the context of teaching ... M ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Sound Field Microphone
Good Morning Everyone, I'm interesting to buy a Sound Field Microphone but I don't have any experience in this field. Could you recommend me some models or brands according to your experience? There are many on here more expert than I. But to get the ball rolling, I think you are limited to: 1) Soundfield (tradename) 2) TeraMic (Coresound) 3) Home made. (1) is ??four times the price of (2). Jörn published a review on a (1) he was leant. (I think a direct comparison with a (2) he owns ... but time dims the memory.) Conclusion (IIRC) was he'd buy one ... if he had the money. The review should still be on the Web. The link in this lists archive. (2) has become the 'standard'. Len Moskovitz (owner of Coresound) is on this list. I have one. 'No complaints' is an understatement ... ;-) (3) Is I presume fiddly. But that pales to nothing compared with calibration/correction. So I won't expand. Secondhand ones are from time to time announced on here ... Corrections will I hope now flood in ;-) Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Any experience with dome acoustics?
Greetings, Does anyone on the list have prior experience installing ambi-based 3D sound into 'dome' shaped replay environments? I'd try looking at Graz* publications. It won't help me, but may help other responders: What is ear height ? I.e. are the listeners at ground level? Standing or sitting? Michael *Whilst they have done half spheres ... I think they avoided contending with reflections ... ;-( ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] Smart speakers
Sonos Soundbar aims to ease pain of setting up home theatre sound systems Co-founder Tom Cullen talks smart speakers ... http://m.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/feb/18/sonos-soundbar-home-theatre-system I searched the article for an interesting quote ... but it is mostly froth ;- M ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Bi-Amping the B-format
The system is comprised of 16 channels. The advantage of 16 (or less) channels is that I don’t have to use a dedicated Word Clock to sync my MOTU FireWire interfaces. I’m fond of these interfaces, and two of them can sync-up via the FireWire link without complication. i don't know which MOTUs you're using, but don't most of them include ADAT outs? so you could easily get 8 extra outs per MOTU without any sync hassles, and just the minor investment into an 8ch DA converter. Did wonder if he had some new card ... I use 8-analogue + 8-ADAT from one MOTU (think you can squeeze a few* more out as well). Secondly, mine has tow firewire ports and you can daisy-chain ... with sync. But ... then again ... perhaps he has some new model ... (?) . Michael 22 comes to mind 16+ ? stereo 'headphones' ? stereo AES/EBU ? ? maybe 20? ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] A Thanks... And Another Post
Jörn brought into the discussion not only filter type and slope, but the choice of audio interfaces. I have first-generation MOTU 896HD units. Although there are two FireWire ports on each unit's backside, MOTU states that the only two units can be synchronized using a FireWire (daisy chain connection), and the combination of more than two interfaces requires a master clock (the units have word clock in and out). There is an optical interface in addition to the AES Pro (XLR). My gear is currently out of reach, but I’m guessing that the optical connect is intended for ADAT/Lightpipe, not optical S/PDIF (they're two distinctly different protocols and not interchangeable). A separate 8-channel A-D could certainly be used with ADAT. I suppose there’s no reason to worry about inter-channel timing issues when using dissimilar components (meaning a MOTU optically linked to an D-A device). Similar to the MOTU interface, my M-Audio ProFire 2626 provides a lot of input and output options (two ADAT ports), but a D-A converter would still be needed for 8 analog outs. A bit trivial compared with your other points and I don't have mine here but IIRC the Motu Traveller (which is a bit of a Swiss Army knife, and its features may not be reflected in other products) -has 8 analogue out - has two more (headphone socket) - has an optical out Think the latter can be S/PDIF or ADAT at wish. To recover the ADAT you need a Behringer box (200€} ... with 8 nice XLRs on it. So it looks as if you can easily / cheaply have 36-out. The Motu Traveller works nicely on a Mac, and if you use Jack you can see all your connections. (I say 'nicely' ... well once you get rid of the kids' toy idiocies ... my favourite is that my 'Pro' computer stops a multi-channel recording, for a few samples, as it urgently needs the processor ... to put up a screensaver ... great!) Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the power of doppler shift illusion
Semiotic frameworks such as that of Charles Peirce indicate that references (or signs) work in different ways. For example, mono reverb acts as an icon (that is, it is similar to) the experience of large spaces. Whereas the recording of hair clippers acts as an index of close proximity (that is, it follows that, when you hear hair clippers, they will be close to you). Mmmm, sounds plausible on first read, but on reflection: The recording of hair clippers acts as an 'icon' for (that is, it is similar to) the experience of close proximity (indeed a sound one only hears at close proximity). Whereas mono reverb acts as an 'index' of large spaces (that is, ...). ?? Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Looking for a very, very old thread - mics pointing inwards?
Hi All I have been spending some time looking for a thread that I think we had ages ago about a surround sound microphone setup, in which the microphones would not be pointing outwards from a point, but inwards. Is there anyone who would remember that thread? I only found three posts of a short thread started by Etienne on Nov 14 2002. Somehow I feel like there has also been another more lively discussion about a similar subject. Maybe I just don't find the right words for my search in the Archive. 1) Don't think this is it, but better to forward than delete ? Jörn Nettingsmeier | 17 Jan 2011 14:45 Re: good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? On 01/17/2011 02:33 PM, Paul Hodges wrote: --On 17 January 2011 14:08 +0100 Jörn Nettingsmeier nettings at stackingdwarves.net wrote: if you want to use cardioids, your best bet will be three at 120° angles. As briefly used by Michael Gerzon: http://www.michaelgerzonphotos.org.uk/microphones-calrecs.html interesting. i would have stacked them, for perfect horizontal coincidence. if used like this, does the array require correction filters? and isn't it a problem that frontal sound hits the front microphone after the rear ones, or can it be corrected? if it can be corrected, why aren't we all using four schoeps or b+k cardioids in an inverted tetrahedron, i.e. pointing inwards? or On 01/17/2011 02:33 PM, Paul Hodges wrote: --On 17 January 2011 14:08 +0100 J?rn Nettingsmeier wrote: if you want to use cardioids, your best bet will be three at 120? angles. As briefly used by Michael Gerzon: http://www.michaelgerzonphotos.org.uk/microphones-calrecs.html interesting. i would have stacked them, for perfect horizontal coincidence. if used like this, does the array require correction filters? and isn't it a problem that frontal sound hits the front microphone after the rear ones, or can it be corrected? if it can be corrected, why aren't we all using four schoeps or b+k cardioids in an inverted tetrahedron, i.e. pointing inwards? Perhaps not old enough ... 2) Certainly look at http://www.michaelgerzonphotos.org.uk/microphones-calrecs.html and maybe search for links to that ? Good luck ! Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 3/7/2013 6:15:15 AM
Better solution is to moderate new subscribers, low chance of long term members suddenly turning into spammers. Depends what OS they use ;-(( Michael But, despite that the original idea is a good one ...) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Multichannel audio in Museums
Hello all, I am looking for examples of permanent multichannel/surround sound audio installations in museums. Does anyone know of any examples. I am interested in any that have at least 4 channels and not a stereo file diffused over 4 speakers etc. An anecdote that might mean 'there isn't the material for them' or 'the understanding of them' ... or might mean nothing ... I came across a museum with a four speaker system in a circular hall. IIRC it had obviously been designed for something better (I think there were 4 channels of amp's of which only two were used) but was wired down to stereo. I re-wired it for a soirée of ambisonics ... then dutifully put it back as it had been ... ;-( Hope you get some more positive replies than this. Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Surround formats and lossy compression
Eric (C), 1) In summary, my reasons for not recommending MP3s is that they are already “psychoacoustically tainted” and not the equivalent to actual stimuli even if perceived by normal-hearing listeners as equivalent. Frequency response isn’t the culprit. And with today’s technology, there’s very little reason to “conserve” memory in order to accommodate small speech (wav) files. I think you give a fair answer to your own question (though Eric B. gives a more complete one). Anyway, just an excuse for a couple of OT comments (not least having resisted your (I presume accidental) comment about lack of sense in recordings of the female voice (jokes about coat trailing for misogynists, whilst unfair, did seem possible;-) : 2) A byte is 8 bits--just basic computer nomenclature that goes back to caveman days ... For amusement: 'A Dictionary of Computers', Anthony Chandor, Penguin, 1979. bite --- an alternative spelling for byte. byte --- A set of binary digists considered as a unit, usually a sub-division of a word. with 'words' being of (any) fixed ... or variable ... length. Don't know when it was fixed as 8. But then there was the (?)Elliot 503 which ran off five track paper tape around (?)1970 ... 3) Somewhere ... I do remember an attempt (but by who?) to make all abbreviations for 10^+3m as upper case (K, M, etc.) and all 10^-3m lower case (m, mu, etc.). (m being a positive integer) k / K seems to have defeated this ... if it ever was that official. Twas a nice idea though. . . Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Making a standalone 8ch player
Hello all, I want to start making a standalone 8 channel player (maybe more) - something that can be used in museums, festivals etc for sound installations that can just be turned on and will instantly start looping a multichannel composition on an sd card. At the moment I am using rather unwieldly setups of small computers and multi channel soundcards such as RME and motu. Cables can easily be jogged loose and it would be nice to have something more robust and that staff can easily just turn on and off. So I have looked into the arduino (only 12 bit audio) and the raspberry pi but neither seem suitable . Systems already avaailable are ludicrously expensive (1000s of euros) Has anyone got any ideas on the best way to go about this - is there something maybe Im missing with the raspberry pi/ arduino that could be customised ? Perhaps a custom made circuit board ? Ideas ? best, Gus If you are thinking of wider applications I would really encourage you to go modular ... that is daisy chainable devices: 2+2+2+2 = 8 4+4 = 8 2+2+2+2+ ... = maybe more even if it is 8+ ... = maybe more Good hunting, Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Nevaton microphones
Hello, anyone tried these multichannel mic? http://nevatonmics.com/mics_multichannel.php I wonder what the quad configuration is. Looking at the PDF ...it _looks_ like two 'figure of eights' mounted in the horizontal plane. I say 'figure of eights' but with four outputs, that is presumably two pairs of back-to-back (?)cardiods ... (there are polar patterns in the PDF). The vertical spacing is not trivial as the capsules seem quite big. So ... I suppose you could do pantophony (and all the possible coincident derivatives). But calibration ... ? Think they'd need to be significantly cheaper than a tetrahedral to get much entry ? Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Nevaton microphones
Eric Benjamin à écrit: The lack of a vertical component is an interesting conundrum. I always insist on recording 'Z', and then almost never end up using it... Still ... seems a pity to have _four_ capsules and no 'Z' ... Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Nevaton microphones
At 19:55 1/6/2013, Sampo Syreeni wrote: On 2013-06-01, David Pickett wrote: What I take this to mean is that if one is using WXY (derived from A-format) for horizontal only playback, W will contain unwanted vertical information that should be discarded. Correct for W, but also for X and Y. That's not the end of the story either: you can't nicely and linearly subtract even the cleanest, purely up-down information from the signal set. If you try to do that by subtracting Z from W, it works for signals which come from above. But now signals coming from below are suddenly doubled. All you ended up doing is to put in a cardioid weighting on the signal set, and you can't have the cardioid pointing more than one way at the same time. That holds for the notional cardioid pointing in other directions as well, which shows you X and Y too are affected. So, to record horizontal-only ambisonics, does it follow that a native-B approach of four cardioids or fig8/fig8/omni will give inhrently better results than a tetrahedral array? Unless I am totally adled by today's rare sunshine ... : You can obtain either of those set-ups from the output of a tetrahedral just as you could get Blumlein from any of the three. (Tetraproc will do it for you, but you would need two passes (or two instances) to get four cardiods out (and then mix to get figure of eight). Omni is W ... unless you have a horizontal omni ... ?) In practice things like size and calibration must kick in, but -a terahedral is likely to be smaller -tetrhedral calibration is frequent, not sure about other arrays (though obviously possible). Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Nevaton microphones
David Pickett wrote:
Perhaps I was not clear. Take 2:
It seems to me that Sampo claimed that the omni from a double capsule
mic is not the same as the W signal obtained by processing the ouputs
of the four mics in the A-format tetrahedral array, and I would
agree. However, the former can at least produce an omni in one (i.e.
the horizontal) plane -- which i what I want. So the question really
is whether X and Y derived from the tetrahedral array are different
from those that would be obtained with two horizontal figure of eight
mics. (I dont think that they are, but I am asking for confirmation
or denial.)
...Always asuming that the polar diagram are perfect, which they never
are...
I would say confirm ... but happy to hear another view ;.)
I would also (in a way) disagree with Sampo about whether one can take Z
away from W.
Certainly you cannot arithmetically subtract it (as he explains).
But:
-If you want a horizontal W (say 'W(2)')
-if you are happy to have this 'omni' as having a cardiod polar pattern
(in the vertical plane) -which surely one wants to match the vertical
polar patterns of X and Y (???)
then:
-I am fairly sure you can derive this from a Periphonic B-format, that is
a transformation from
{ W(3), X, Y, Z } --- { W(2), X, Y }
is possible (and X and Y are unchanged).
(I'm thinking aloud, one should try it first and speak second !!!
If there is anything in this ... then there are two interesting
comparisons that could be tried:
A)
(I used to like this one when I only had four channel playback ... Never
mind the reverb, hear the vertical placement of the orchestra.)
Discard X, and playback W, Y, Z on four speakers mounted in a square on a
wall facing you ... using either W(2) or W(3).
Though even that 'is not right' as you should be in the centre of the
plane of speakers ...
so:
B)
Try X and Z as pantophony.)
My (very iimited) experience of omni mic's is that they don't specify
vertical polar patterns
Michael
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] a query
Interesting - I found the letter through the Uni's electronic journals access. Peter used both ambisonic and ambiphonic ( _not_ Ambiophonic !) in that letter. However, I was then able to go back to his letter in the Feb 8 1973 of that Journal and found that that one also contained ambisonics and, not only that, but it also discusses the use of phase shift based matrix technologies to get two channel representations (ie what became uhj) - moreover the letter is actually dated November 1972! So we've missed the Thirtieth Anniversary (bit bad, that ;-( ... bottles back down to the cellar, etc. Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] a query
Interesting - I found the letter through the Uni's electronic journals access. Peter used both ambisonic and ambiphonic ( _not_ Ambiophonic !) in that letter. However, I was then able to go back to his letter in the Feb 8 1973 of that Journal and found that that one also contained ambisonics and, not only that, but it also discusses the use of phase shift based matrix technologies to get two channel representations (ie what became uhj) - moreover the letter is actually dated November 1972! So we've missed the Thirtieth Anniversary (bit bad, that ;-( ... bottles back down to the cellar, etc. Michael Du . . . Fortieth sorry had started one already, Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Ambisonics - Decoding 16 channels in DAW
Dear Members of Sursound, i am using the VVMicVst Plugin in Reaper for mixing and decoding my B-Format recordings. The plugin is limited to an output of 8 channels. For a new sound installation, I would like to decode to 16 channels (two circles of 8 speakers stacked). I know that I could use ICST for Max, but if possible in any way, I would to keep on working in a DAW. Are there any other plugins or tools available for this purpose (OSX) ? OSX : Ambdec ... ? Michael You can input / output through a DAW if you use Jack. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Ambisonics - Decoding 16 channels in DAW
...i will look at ambdec but it does seem to need a lot of routing using jack. Sixteen speakers need a lot of routing whatever you use ... said not to be unfriendly, just to emphasise I'm not sure I understand ;-) If you are worried about repeatedly having to connect everything, then IIRC the GUI's to Jack allow for a 'save this configuration'. Even without that Ambdec configuration allows for named connections (sorry it's along time since I set one up). Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] A higher standard of standardness
To make a name for learning, When other roads are barred, Take something really easy, And make it really hard. For the removal of doubt ... I am on your side Robert. Had a student from a certain university convinced that one needed a trillion spot mic's at 5K each and that _recording_ above 16-bit was a waste of time their illustrious professor had never mentioned dithering, either ... I will now reach for my homeopathic pills Michael (ackl: Piet Hein) Hugely long. But one point cries out for comment: It is simply nonsense to say that it would not be useful to have the results available for pink noises sources at various spots on the stage recorded via various microphone positions. It is well known and completely established that pink noise is a very good indicator of general tonal character. It is for instance by far the most reliable identification tag for different loudspeakers or different EQ settings. That one can become fatigued--take a break occasionally! This is just not true to say that this would not give a lot of information. In fact, David's whole response is just more of the kind of argumentation that prevents audio from getting anywhere. People seem unable to understand how analyitical thought works. One starts with simple situations and answerable questions: What does this microphone technique do to the frequency response of a standaidzed source located at various positions? It is silliness to say that this is not information. It is also silliness to say that this is the only information one needs. But the former silliness is worse because no one would think the latter. The truth is that the field or recording seems almost intent upon keeping their methods intellectually mushy. It is as if they do not want to know how things work. And the really odd thing is that other people in the sound world are not like this. Auditorium acousticians try like crazy to figure out what does what in concert hall sound. They do a good job too (Harris got Benaroya to match Vienna GMVS reverb time with in 0.1 secs bottom to top--try that with mushy methods). And people who make and adjust instruments study constantly the effects of things. All violinists know which strings do what to the sound. It is part of our work. Knowning such things does not make life less artistic--it makes it possible to advance. Only recording(and playback) seems to be attached to the idea that no one ought really to know anything. No one who has made a recording has failed to notice that unexpected and complex things matter. Blumlein miking a one point can sound quite different from the same at another point not far away for example. But once again, a field progresses by analyzing its work one step at a time not be having a club of people who just mess around with the ways they have always messed around and say that no analysis is possible because everything is so complicated. This is the sort of thing that the mush minded said about genetics say, before it began to be figured out. Oh we shall never understand how things are inherited, it is all so complicated and hidden. To return to the main point, I think it is a basic misunderstanding to say that how a microphone technique records a pink noise source at different spots on a stage is irrelevant information. I think it is very relevant indeed. A journey of ten thousand miles begins with a single step. That would be a reasonable first step in understanding microphone techniques(and microphones). And it is surely a most basic misunderstanding to say that pink noise response is not a useful indicator of sound. Exactly the opposite is true. It is the most reliable and accurate one if one must have a single source--it is a demonstrated fact that it is for example the signal that gives the best identification of which loudspeaker is which when comparing blind two similar but different speaker. Robert On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, David Pickett wrote: At 06:31 3/7/2013, Robert Greene wrote: Variations from reality ought surely to be based on knowing how to reproduce the reality first and then introducing the variations. One does not bend pitches for artistic effect until one is able to play in tune, so to speak. Yes, indeed; but such question begging exposes the problem per analogiam. What does one define as in tune? What you are asking for is the ability to reproduce a complete soundfield with 100% accuracy, and then to introduce variations. We have not yet progressed to this level. If people want to treat recording as a pure art form where one simply judges the results on aesthetic grounds. it would be hard to say that was wrong. But it surely takes recording out of the realm of science. I am not sure that many of its practitioners (even Blumlein) regarded recording as a science: it is rather an exercise in engineering combined with aesthetics and as such intrinsically hard to theorize
Re: [Sursound] A higher standard of standardness
Oh dear, sorry to upset you, Robert. I _do_ recognise the value of pink noise and I've used it plenty of times myself for exactly the reasons you give. However, I don't regret a bit what I said about the far greater value of real instrumental recordings for these sorts of purposes. Pink noise is indeed a very sensitive test of timbral alterations - but just how important is that in the context of recording real instruments? Maybe not (or maybe) much. But all the poor chap is saying (if I get the message) is that if we are serious we might measure it ! The exact polar pattern of a cardiod mic probably makes little difference ... bur manufacturers do publish them Michael I've certainly heard very real sounding recordings which I know must have had timbral modifications but without very close and careful listening they have not been at all obvious - and I'm sure everyone else who's done any recording will have observed the same. Dave On 5 July 2013 17:20, Robert Greene gre...@math.ucla.edu wrote: Hugely long. But one point cries out for comment: It is simply nonsense to say that it would not be useful to have the results available for pink noises sources at various spots on the stage recorded via various microphone positions. It is well known and completely established that pink noise is a very good indicator of general tonal character. It is for instance by far the most reliable identification tag for different loudspeakers or different EQ settings. That one can become fatigued--take a break occasionally! This is just not true to say that this would not give a lot of information. In fact, David's whole response is just more of the kind of argumentation that prevents audio from getting anywhere. People seem unable to understand how analyitical thought works. One starts with simple situations and answerable questions: What does this microphone technique do to the frequency response of a standaidzed source located at various positions? It is silliness to say that this is not information. It is also silliness to say that this is the only information one needs. But the former silliness is worse because no one would think the latter. The truth is that the field or recording seems almost intent upon keeping their methods intellectually mushy. It is as if they do not want to know how things work. And the really odd thing is that other people in the sound world are not like this. Auditorium acousticians try like crazy to figure out what does what in concert hall sound. They do a good job too (Harris got Benaroya to match Vienna GMVS reverb time with in 0.1 secs bottom to top--try that with mushy methods). And people who make and adjust instruments study constantly the effects of things. All violinists know which strings do what to the sound. It is part of our work. Knowning such things does not make life less artistic--it makes it possible to advance. Only recording(and playback) seems to be attached to the idea that no one ought really to know anything. No one who has made a recording has failed to notice that unexpected and complex things matter. Blumlein miking a one point can sound quite different from the same at another point not far away for example. But once again, a field progresses by analyzing its work one step at a time not be having a club of people who just mess around with the ways they have always messed around and say that no analysis is possible because everything is so complicated. This is the sort of thing that the mush minded said about genetics say, before it began to be figured out. Oh we shall never understand how things are inherited, it is all so complicated and hidden. To return to the main point, I think it is a basic misunderstanding to say that how a microphone technique records a pink noise source at different spots on a stage is irrelevant information. I think it is very relevant indeed. A journey of ten thousand miles begins with a single step. That would be a reasonable first step in understanding microphone techniques(and microphones). And it is surely a most basic misunderstanding to say that pink noise response is not a useful indicator of sound. Exactly the opposite is true. It is the most reliable and accurate one if one must have a single source--it is a demonstrated fact that it is for example the signal that gives the best identification of which loudspeaker is which when comparing blind two similar but different speaker. Robert On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, David Pickett wrote: At 06:31 3/7/2013, Robert Greene wrote: Variations from reality ought surely to be based on knowing how to reproduce the reality first and then introducing the variations. One does not bend pitches for artistic effect until one is able to play in tune, so to speak. Yes, indeed; but such question begging exposes the problem per analogiam. What does one define as in tune? What you are
Re: [Sursound] Fwd: Non Mixer Spatializer Demo
and 3) When youtube transcodes the video it adds an annoying click about once per second (I believe this is due to a mismatch between the camera's framerate and youtube's expectations. I would love to provide a theora/vorbis screencapture video instead, but, alas, I cannot find any tools that can capture screen activity and record audio via JACK in sync. Anyway, the poor quality of the video is not due to a lack of effort. Is putting it on your own site (HTML5 video tag : video.../video ) out of the question ... ? Good luck, anyway. Michael ___ 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
Re: [Sursound] Fwd: Non Mixer Spatializer Demo
It is very dependent on type of music. For music genres that are mostly presented on stage or similar, there is probably no need for down (or possibly even up!) as a panning location. You probably speak for the majority (about 'up') by I like listening to a 'tiered' orchestra in FOA/periphony ... and accept that is probably a personal idiosyncrasy. Michael ___ 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
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] Esfera Mic: IBC launch
Anyone at this year's IBC might be interested in the launch of Sennheiser's new microphone: the Esfera. http://www.noodls.com/view/84DDC0FB08F1DCD3D116474D5EC49E93382C4A5F Not sure on any other details as of yet so if anyone is going - could you report back? Thanks! Esfera provides 5.1 surround sound from just two channels, making complicated surround mic installations a thing of the past. Always suspected there were other channels secretly multi-plexed into stereo ... Seems to be not so much a mic as 'a 19 rack-mount processing unit'. Mind you if you want a black box that turns mono into third order ambisonics ... I met a man in a pub last night ... and ... Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
