Re: [Sursound] 3DAA | Audio Alliance

2010-12-23 Thread Scott Wilson
- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20101223/e206af07/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 3DAA | Audio Alliance

2010-12-23 Thread Stefan Schreiber
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: On 12/23/2010 04:32 PM, newme...@aol.com wrote: Jorn: My question about how it SOUNDS wasn't merely rhetorical. just to make sure we talk about the same thing: stefan was suggesting building upon third-order systems, which is what my comments were about (sin

Re: [Sursound] 3DAA | Audio Alliance

2010-12-23 Thread Stefan Schreiber
c.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20101223/7316f4d0/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 3DAA | Audio Alliance

2010-12-23 Thread Stefan Schreiber
newme...@aol.com wrote: Jorn: My question about how it SOUNDS wasn't merely rhetorical. Presumably, the 3D/AA has embraced "object-oriented audio" in order to a) abstract from speaker layouts b) reduce number of audio "channels" to 6 or 8 (i.e. fit into 5.1/7.1 distribution media like Blu-r

Re: [Sursound] 3DAA | Audio Alliance

2010-12-23 Thread Stefan Schreiber
Richard Dobson wrote: On 22/12/2010 22:59, newme...@aol.com wrote: .. Maybe< we> just declare a standard? Fast track: - Ambisonics up to 3rd order, including mixed order systems - Channel order, coefficients: Furse-Malham system - B format is included (soundfield recordings) - "standar

Re: [Sursound] 3DAA | Audio Alliance

2010-12-23 Thread Stefan Schreiber
be very happy about all this... Just kidding! It usually never happens. :-X ) Best, Stefan -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20101223/2c7de6

Re: [Sursound] 3DAA | Audio Alliance

2010-12-23 Thread Jörn Nettingsmeier
On 12/23/2010 04:32 PM, newme...@aol.com wrote: > Jorn: > > My question about how it SOUNDS wasn't merely rhetorical. just to make sure we talk about the same thing: stefan was suggesting building upon third-order systems, which is what my comments were about (since i've been working with third

Re: [Sursound] 3DAA | Audio Alliance

2010-12-23 Thread Martin Leese
Stefan Schreiber wrote: > Martin Leese wrote: >>As the results will be royalty-free, I can't see >>Dolby having much involvement. > Speculation: > Only the < transmission > will be royalty-free, not the standards... > :-) >From their FAQ: "All standards and protocols developed by 3DAA a

Re: [Sursound] 3DAA | Audio Alliance

2010-12-23 Thread Newmedia
nd event engineer - Ambisonic surround recordings http://stackingdwarves.net ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.mu

Re: [Sursound] 3DAA | Audio Alliance

2010-12-23 Thread Jörn Nettingsmeier
On 12/22/2010 11:59 PM, newme...@aol.com wrote: > Stefan: > >> Was that easy enough? :-) > > Sure but how does it SOUND?? it sounds good, without having to jump through too many hoops in the mixing stage (in fact, the workflow is a lot more straightforward than for discrete multichann