superfluous is weeded out, creating a sort of
hyper-reality.
Ciao,
Dave Hunt
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:37:14 +0200
From: J?rn Nettingsmeier netti...@stackingdwarves.net
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious
question)
On 05/31/2012 11:38 AM, Richard
Interesting - must be an aspect of the cocktail effect ...
On 2 June 2012 04:13, umashankar mantravadi umasha...@hotmail.com wrote:
as a location sound mixer, i exploited the visual reinforcement of sound
in many situations. if you are recording half a dozen people speaking, and
the camera
I once had a piece played atspatial audio concert and some people came to
visit. Afterwards one guy came up to me and said - the sound was right
there - right there in front of my face ! Was it ambionics ? Im pretty sure
he just heard what he expected or hoped to hear - simply because he
thought
to build a
anechoic room :-)
- Bo-Erik
-Original Message-
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On
Behalf Of etienne deleflie
Sent: den 31 maj 2012 02:28
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice
On 31/05/2012 01:27, etienne deleflie wrote:
..
perception. I wonder if perhaps direction is *not* that important to
spatial audio. Ofcourse, it is a part, but is it central? This view leads
to the questioning of the value of higher order ambisonics.
I don't think people are actually allowed
On 30/05/2012 21:49, Eric Carmichel wrote:
So how good is Ambisonics in reproducing the original auditory 'scene'? If the
reconstructed wavefield is close to the original, then what happens when you
record the Ambisonics system itself? Will the playback of this recording yield
the same
Dave said:
Here, to any extent, I depart from Gibson. With sufficiently advanced
technology there comes a point at which the effort required to suspend
disbelief is so small as to be negligible. I was reading a report on a paper a
few months ago (I think in New Scientist) where the authors
On 31 May 2012 12:52, Peter Lennox p.len...@derby.ac.uk wrote:
Actually, there is something here, though I do wonder if it is pathological.
I've met people who told me that such-and-such a driving game was
fantastically realistic. I found it stilted, leaden and profoundly
unrealistic. I've
Greetings All,
I was intrigued by the post titled 'catching flies' because distance-to
information is an area of interest to me. As a few folks out there know, my
interest in Ambisonics (aside from music) is its application to hearing
research. It is important for safety reasons that a hearing
Although I don’t ascribe to a single 'school' of psychology, I do buy into
James Gibson's idea that man (and animals) and their environments are
inseparable (this is at the heart of Ecological Psychology).
I think (or at least hope) that James Gibson's ideas are slowly making
their way into
10 matches
Mail list logo
