On 03/18/2014 04:19 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
In this
case I spoke of 3h and 3h1p .AMB files, brought into some LRTQ +
extension form. My question if you could not just code this into LRTQ -
UV PQ - the latter 4 channels from the B format hierarchy - has not been
answered on this list. ;-)
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 03/18/2014 04:19 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
In this
case I spoke of 3h and 3h1p .AMB files, brought into some LRTQ +
extension form. My question if you could not just code this into LRTQ -
UV PQ - the latter 4 channels from the B format hierarchy - has not been
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140317/3daa7aba/attachment.html
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Kan Kaban wrote:
We´re working on documentary series based on a/b-format. This BBC
thing caught our attention... the future is here?.
A-format? Progressive stuff...Why this? ;-)
Best,
Stefan Schreiber
___
Sursound mailing list
Martin Leese wrote:
Schumacher Marlon wrote:
Hi,
Thanks everybody for your well-considered comments.
The reason for going for a 2-channel format is compatibility with
distribution media formats (CD) - and I suppose it will mostly be listened
to without a decoder.
The possibility of
Stefan Schreiber wrote:
I would call this a serious case of incompetence. In the sense that it
was possible to archive 3/4 channels, also in the 80s.
Strong words. I visited Nimbus in the early 90's. I must say that they used
the best possible equipment that was available at the time.
The
Eero Aro wrote:
Stefan Schreiber wrote:
I would call this a serious case of incompetence. In the sense that it
was possible to archive 3/4 channels, also in the 80s.
Strong words. I visited Nimbus in the early 90's. I must say that they
used
the best possible equipment that was available
Hi
The DASH format was published by Sony and Studer in 1982:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Stationary_Head
Mitsubishi had their own format.
I would assume that it was
possible at this time to combine several stereo tapes into some
virtual multitrack tape
I find this today as an
Stefan Schreiber wrote:
...
Or distribute 3-4 channel UHJ, which is the stereo-compatible form of
FOA. Of course this proposal didn't catch on, even if this should
work. (I see this doesn't work for a CD distribution, but this is the
only case by now. But if you chose physical distribution,
Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
From: Sampo Syreeni de...@iki.fi
Date: 3/17/14 4:39 pm
To: Surround Sound discussion group sursound@music.vt.edu
On 2014-03-17, Eero Aro wrote:
The DASH format was published by Sony and Studer in 1982:
http
At 23:03 17-03-14, mgra...@mstvp.com wrote:
Weren't the first digital recorders actually adapted helical scan video
ones? Because, I mean, those things are line accurate by necessity, so
that once you have them time coded, you ought to be able to get sample
accurate registration of the
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
From: David Pickett d...@fugato.com
Date: 3/17/14 5:15 pm
To: Surround Sound discussion group sursound@music.vt.edu
At 23:03 17-03-14, mgra...@mstvp.com wrote:
Weren't the first digital recorders actually
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 04:04:43PM -0700, mgra...@mstvp.com wrote:
We did edit using SLO series Betamax, but it was control track
editing, nothing with reference time code. It was much later
before I encountered anything that could be locked to proper
SMPTE time code.
I remember doing
and the two FM
audio tracks in SVHS, but not unfortunately any Ambisonic recordings.)
Umashankar
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:43:09 -0700
From: hel...@ai.sri.com
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
I used a PCM-F1/SL-2000 combo extensively in the 1980s; about 150
Martin Leese wrote:
Stefan Schreiber wrote:
...
Or distribute 3-4 channel UHJ, which is the stereo-compatible form of
FOA. Of course this proposal didn't catch on, even if this should
work. (I see this doesn't work for a CD distribution, but this is the
only case by now. But if you chose
: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
Message-ID: 54597.109.213.106.225.1394813302.m...@i-a-a.ch
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8
There is another point - you can recover the B-Format horizontal
information from UHj - so, notionally, using Bruce Wiggins' irregular
decoding, you could display it on 5.1
Schumacher Marlon wrote:
Hi,
Thanks everybody for your well-considered comments.
The reason for going for a 2-channel format is compatibility with
distribution media formats (CD) - and I suppose it will mostly be listened
to without a decoder.
The possibility of recovering (2D) B-Format can
--On 16 March 2014 12:38 -0600 Martin Leese
martin.le...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
Unfortunately, converting
back from UHJ to B-Format (and then to other
formats) cannot be done without loss.
Surely it would be better to say that the encoding to UHJ is where the
loss takes place, and the
I could be possible, b-format being the surround essence worldwide
would be nice ;). You could select any delivery format on demand,
instantly... ex: The binaural option has a great potential for streaming
(on headphones). It could spread ambisonics (surround) worldwide, since
not too much
: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
Message-ID: 54597.109.213.106.225.1394813302.m...@i-a-a.ch
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8
There is another point - you can recover the B-Format horizontal
information from UHj - so, notionally, using Bruce Wiggins' irregular
decoding, you could display
On 03/14/2014 03:48 AM, Schumacher Marlon wrote:
Dear list,
A friend of mine was planning to encode a recording of his
instrumental music (appr. 20 mic feeds) into 2-channel (2D) UHJ
format and was strongly discouraged as UHJ would introduce nasty
phasing effects. Since there should be some
...@derby.ac.uk
t: 01332 593155
-Original Message-
From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Jörn
Nettingsmeier
Sent: 14 March 2014 10:48
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
On 03/14/2014 03:48 AM, Schumacher Marlon wrote:
Dear
--On 13 March 2014 22:48 -0400 Schumacher Marlon
marlon.schumac...@music.mcgill.ca wrote:
I read about the stereo-widening effect when listened to undecoded
That depends how you perceive it. There can be some effect of
reproduction outside the speakers (as some other techniques like
Blumlein
Hi All
I wouldn't call the UHJ encoding phase differences nasty. The designers
of the encoding tried to choose such phase shifts, that shouldn't sound bad
to most listeners.
A mono sound panned directly behind has a 110 degrees phase difference
in the
encoded UHJ stereo signal. To me it
Sent: 14 March 2014 10:48
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
On 03/14/2014 03:48 AM, Schumacher Marlon wrote:
Dear list,
A friend of mine was planning to encode a recording of his
instrumental music (appr. 20 mic feeds) into 2-channel (2D) UHJ
Dear list,
A friend of mine was planning to encode a recording of his instrumental music
(appr. 20 mic feeds) into 2-channel (2D) UHJ format and was strongly
discouraged as UHJ would introduce nasty phasing effects. Since there should be
some hundred 2-channel UHJ LPs and CDs (which should be
26 matches
Mail list logo
