Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-20 Thread Dave Hunt
Hi, The next thing that you heard with CC3D was another psychoacoustic phenomenon that we kind of discovered last year about what sounds do when they come closer versus moving farther away. And we found that we were able to simulate something that normally can?t be done with traditional

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-20 Thread Richard Dobson
On 20/07/2011 09:53, Dave Malham wrote: ... Sorry, but their blurb reads like snake oil sales talk so I called it that. It wasn't a comment on the system - since I haven't heard it and have no technical information to go on, I couldn't do so. It would, of course, not be unknown for companies

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-20 Thread dave . malham
Hi all, I think that one of the problems with all these discussions is that we tend to think of the distance of an audio object as being the exactly the same sort of thing as the coordinates of the object w.r.t. the listener - but it's not because, unlike direction, we humans can't determine

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-20 Thread Stefan Schreiber
Thanks for your (thoughtful) answer. IMO it is not very efficient to (en)code 3D audio in maybe 32 audio tracks (including some metadata, tracks maybe in 96Hz), or to transmit/store even more audio objects. Therefore, they should consider or include Ambisonics (up to 3rd or 4th order) into

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-20 Thread Stefan Schreiber
Dave Hunt wrote: It is true that 1st order ambisonics doesn't consider distance, with all sources being reproduced at the distance of the speakers, although Gerzon did consider distance panning. A Soundfield mic recording contains distance information. If attempting spatial synthesis,

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-20 Thread Dave Hunt
Hi, Date: 20 Jul 2011 11:36:10 +0100 From: dave.mal...@york.ac.uk Hi all, I think that one of the problems with all these discussions is that we tend to think of the distance of an audio object as being the exactly the same sort of thing as the coordinates of the object w.r.t. the

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-20 Thread Robert Greene
Here is the truth! I have spent a LOT of time at live musical events(when the music was not too interesting , while I waited for what I came to hear or just sat through if I had gone for some social reason only) listening with my eyes closed to whether one could hear the distance of things. My

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-20 Thread Robert Greene
PS FIrst line refers to Dave's message not mine Also some words got left out-- later on in the opening of the second paragraph it is supposed to say that one cannot expect to hear any kind of exact distance except if things are very near by On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Robert Greene wrote: Here is

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-20 Thread Bearcat M. Şandor
On 07/20/2011 03:49 AM, Richard Dobson wrote: So - noisy pterodactyls and dragons are mixing it with the brass section. How weird is that likely to sound? Especially if the music track itself has been recorded in surround the way so many people enthuse about here? Dragons in the Brass