Dave Hunt
From: Stefan Schreiber
Date: 31 March 2016 17:20:20 BDT
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT Stereo stage width - Was: Static stereo
source in rotating soundfield, possible?
Aaron Heller wrote:
Marc Lavallée, Eric Benjamin, and I put together a Trifi
Aaron Heller wrote
> Marc Lavall, Eric Benjamin, and I put together a Trifield (three speaker
> stereo) plugin and demo'ed it a Burning Amp last fall. It is hosted at
https://bitbucket.org/ajheller/trifield/overview
> There are also some plots that use Gerzon velocity and energy localization
Hi,
I'll not copy what has already been said, as this discussion has got
fairly lengthy.
Perhaps "normal" stereo with speakers at plus and minus 30 degrees
came about from a variety of things.
The preponderance of control rooms that are rectangular, with
speakers mounted near the corner
Aaron Heller wrote:
Marc Lavallée, Eric Benjamin, and I put together a Trifield (three speaker
stereo) plugin and demo'ed it a Burning Amp last fall. It is hosted at
https://bitbucket.org/ajheller/trifield/overview
It is written in Faust so can be compiled for a number of different hosts,
bu
Marc Lavallée, Eric Benjamin, and I put together a Trifield (three speaker
stereo) plugin and demo'ed it a Burning Amp last fall. It is hosted at
https://bitbucket.org/ajheller/trifield/overview
It is written in Faust so can be compiled for a number of different hosts,
but we provide precompil
David Pickett wrote:
Michael Gerzon, "Three Channels. The Future of Stereo?", Studio
Sound, vol. 32
no. 6, pp. 112, 114, 117, 118, 120, 123 & 125 (1990 June) (An account of
Ambisonic ideas applied to 3-speaker frontal stereo.)
http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Resources/Three_channels_A4.pdf
David Pickett wrote:
At 14:27 30-03-16, Peter Lennox wrote:
>
>At the back of my mind, the4re's something nagging me - I'm sure I've
>read of someone advocating 3 speaker stereo (is that similar to
>trifield?) and finding that a wider spacing of LR speakers was
>desirable? - makes sense.
Michae
I believe the first effort to work around this with loudspeaker design
called was the BBC dip.
In sweden the stereo error compensation in speaker design is a well known
factor, at least the readers of the forum www.faktiskt.as :-)
and I believe not many of the better loudspeakers in the world are d
of Derby
Tel: 01332 593155
From: Sursound [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Eero Aro
[eero@dlc.fi]
Sent: 30 March 2016 20:09
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT Stereo stage width - Was: Static stereo source in
rotating soundfield, possible?
T
At 20:44 30-03-16, Eric Benjamin wrote:
>I have two observations from my own research. The first is that the
>ear signals resulting from equal signals at the loudspeakers is not
>the same as for a real source located between the loudspeakers. The
>second is that, if I measure the ear signals for
Thank you Eric. That sums it great up, and you give the sources of the
researches.
Finally some facts to the table.
Some of those papers are in the Motherlode, but by which names?
Eero
30.3.2016, 21:44, Eric Benjamin kirjoitti:
There are several classic papers on 2-channel stereo reproduc
There are several classic papers on 2-channel stereo reproduction. I'll give
them here:
[1] Blumlein, A. D., British Patent 394 325 (application 1931 Dec. 14; granted
1933 June 14). [2] Clark, H., Dutton, G., and Vanderlyn, P., "The 'Stereosonic'
Recording and Reproducing System", IRE Trans. Aud
Alan Blumlien's original stereo patent (one of the 128 he was granted) is
available on line at http://www.richardbrice.net/blumlein_patent.htm Well
worth a read.
Dave
On 30 March 2016 at 18:11, David Pickett wrote:
> At 17:10 30-03-16, Peter Lennox wrote:
>
> >Alan Blumlein at the EMI star
That's right. I've always found it interesting that the 2 approaches -
Blumlein's 'binaural' and the 'curtain of microphones/speakers' - wavefield
synthesis, more or less - go back to 50's and the 30's. And we've ended up
with the 3 channel compromise in 5.1 systems.
jim
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1
At 17:10 30-03-16, Peter Lennox wrote:
>Alan Blumlein at the EMI started with 30...35 degrees stereo stage
>with two loudspeakers. Remember, he was thinking about "binaural" not
>stereo sound.
What Blumlein called "binaural" was not what we call "binaural",
using headphones -- it was his name
n...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of
newme...@aol.com
Sent: 30 March 2016 15:52
To: eero@dlc.fi; sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT Stereo stage width
Eero:
Yes, history is fascinating. I researched this a while back (yes, which
was also why I joined this group) and can add some
al Message-
From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of
newme...@aol.com
Sent: 30 March 2016 15:52
To: eero@dlc.fi; sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT Stereo stage width
Eero:
Yes, history is fascinating. I researched this a while back (yes, which was
also wh
The interesting case here is panned sources between the speakers; where
'equal power" implies the sound follows an arc of a circle centred on
the listener (constant distance = constant power etc). However, the
intuitive/vernacular understanding of panning is a linear path between
the speakers -
Eero:
Yes, history is fascinating. I researched this a while back (yes, which
was also why I joined this group) and can add some to your description . . .
!!
The 1930s Bell Labs "Auditory Perspective" research actually concluded that
the "minimum" required THREE speakers (for an audience
Peter Lennox wrote:
At the back of my mind, the4re's something nagging me - I'm sure I've
read of someone advocating 3 speaker stereo (is that similar to
trifield?) and finding that a wider spacing of LR speakers was
desirable? - makes sense.
Well, Harvey Fletcher and the Bell Labs team started
At 14:27 30-03-16, Peter Lennox wrote:
>
>At the back of my mind, the4re's something nagging me - I'm sure I've
>read of someone advocating 3 speaker stereo (is that similar to
>trifield?) and finding that a wider spacing of LR speakers was
>desirable? - makes sense.
Michael Gerzon, "Three Channe
11:45
To: eero@dlc.fi; Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT Stereo stage width - Was: Static stereo source in
rotating soundfield, possible?
At 11:54 30-03-16, Eero Aro wrote:
>If 90 degrees between the speakers works for you, fine. Most likely the
>commercial recordings
At 11:54 30-03-16, Eero Aro wrote:
If 90 degrees between the speakers works for you, fine. Most likely
the commercial
recordings you are listening to, have been monitored with an 60
degrees angle, as
that has been the "standard" setup in studios for more than 60
years. It didn't happen
when 5.
David Pickett wrote:
Somebody else said that he has encountered people who have difficulties
with stereo.
I said that I have met during the three decades or so, students who perceive
a stereo image reproduced by two loudpeakers in different ways.
Most people seem to integrate a stereo sound im
Lecturer in Perception
> College of Arts
> University of Derby
>
> Tel: 01332 593155
>
> From: Sursound [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Hunt [
> davehuntau...@btinternet.com]
> Sent: 29 March 2016 19:02
> To: surso
At 20:51 29-03-16, Peter Lennox wrote:
>wasn't the original conception for stereo = 90 degrees, but 'hole in
>the middle' effects led to standardising on the narrower figure?
There seemd to be an echo in here!
Running down the email and deleting as I go, I come to:
>> From: David Pickett
>> Da
l: 01332 593155
From: Sursound [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Hunt
[davehuntau...@btinternet.com]
Sent: 29 March 2016 19:02
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT Stereo stage width - Was: Static stereo source in
rotating soundfield
result in a "hole in the middle".
Why plus and minus 30 degree separation for "normal stereo" is still
a mystery to me.
Ciao,
Dave Hunt
From: Stefan Schreiber
Date: 28 March 2016 19:07:14 BDT
To: eero@dlc.fi, Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursoun
The problem with speakers at +/- 45 degrees is that one needs a wide
room if one is to sit at a decent distance from them. However, it
can be impressive. I have found the effect even better if a centre
speaker of the same typeis added. Gerzon gave the ratios necessary
for matrixing 2 channel
Eero Aro wrote:
Hi Dave
I have a feeling that this subject has been discussed in Sursound many
times
before.
The point in my reply was that when you use two channel stereo in the
surround sound field, a wide angle between the virtual loudspeakers
doesn't
work too well.
I don't know where
Hi Dave
I have a feeling that this subject has been discussed in Sursound many times
before.
The point in my reply was that when you use two channel stereo in the
surround sound field, a wide angle between the virtual loudspeakers doesn't
work too well.
I don't know where the 60 degrees angle b
31 matches
Mail list logo
