Hello Richard,
I was going to pipe up with very similar comments of my own... particularly as
my creative work often uses close mic material recorded with the Soundfield mic.
I've recently compared some of these close mic materials I've recorded with the
Soundfield and then transcoded to
Hi,
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:24:55 -
From: Richard Lee rica...@justnet.com.au
Mr. Hunt, I hope Sampo Fons have been sufficiently enlightening. A
Classic Ambi rig or soundfield mike has no concept of a unit circle.
They record present distance as
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 09:35:41PM +0100, dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote:
I have an interesting question (well, I think it's interesting). The
Soundfield microphone, like any directional microphone, has a boosted
bass response to close sounds. When listening to this through a speaker
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 05:45:48PM -0700, Robert Greene wrote:
To make sense of this jargon, suppose a source is on the line that is
equistant from three of the capsules. Then its distance to those three
will always be the same, and if the source is reasonably far away the
distance to
On 2011-07-24, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
In a normal SF mic the effect could become significant if the distance
between the capsules is a non-trivial fraction of the source distance
AND of the wavelength, so not really at low F.
Does that really matter, though? I mean, by definition XYZ contain
, 2011 5:45:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their
viability for actual 360 degree sound
I feel a little diffident in commenting on this in the presence of so many
experts on the Soundfield mike in theory as well as in practice,
but unless I am
On 2011-07-24, Eric Benjamin wrote:
We can model the W output as being composed of a zeroth order
(monopole) component plus a quadrapole component, which is frequency
dependant. A quadrapole has a squared proximity effect, so for very
close sources the proximity effect due to the quadrapole
On 2011-07-25, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
Especially because, as you pointed out for quadrupoles, the
sensitivity goes up exponentially.
Actually to be more exact, isn't the increase something like quadratic
in order?
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
There's loadsa good stuff being discussed here. If I can comment on just
one or two
When listening to this through a speaker rig, we hear this boost and tend
to interpret it as meaning the sound is close especially in a dry acoustic
with a Greene-Lee head brace etc., etc.,. However,
Hi Folks,
I have an interesting question (well, I think it's interesting). The
Soundfield microphone, like any directional microphone, has a boosted bass
response to close sounds. When listening to this through a speaker rig, we
hear this boost and tend to interpret it as meaning the
I feel a little diffident in commenting on this in the presence of so many
experts on the Soundfield mike in theory as well as in practice,
but unless I am misunderstanding how it works, there are VERY serious
problems of other kinds with using it at the kinds of distances (fractions
of a
On Jul 21 2011, Bearcat M. Şandor wrote:
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
Hi again,
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:45:45 -
From: Richard Lee rica...@justnet.com.au
It is true that 1st order ambisonics doesn't consider distance,
with all
sources being reproduced at the distance of the speakers,
.
synthesis, the ambisonic encoding equations do not include
On 2011-07-21, Dave Hunt wrote:
There is certainly no consideration of values outside the unit sphere.
[...]
Correct, and we've been here before. As BLaH points out, even the first
order decoder handles distance as well as it possibly can. So does the
SoundField mic on the encoding side.
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
Hi Jörn,
Saved me some typing - pretty well what I would have said :-)
Dave
On 18/07/2011 18:27, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/18/2011 06:18 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Now, it turns out that one of the techniques for projecting sound into
space based on the auditory system is
On 18/07/2011 19:01, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 07:27:26PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
sound of coffee being expelled through the nose
I hope you managed to clean your keyboard. It could have
happened to me as well...
I was fortunately luck enough not to have brewed
Dave Malham wrote:
Hi Jörn,
Saved me some typing - pretty well what I would have said :-)
Dave
Absolutely same opinion, right? :-D
Surround is not just about Ambisonics and maybe WFS, yet again.
True - but they are ones that work and are well established.
Dave
On 07/18/2011 06:18 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Now, it turns out that one of the techniques for projecting sound into
space based on the auditory system is something called HRTF, or
head-related transfer functions, where the frequency or spectral
characteristics of a broadband audio signal,
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/18/2011 06:18 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Which means that they are probably using HRTF techniques. Because HRTF
is an individual parameter, they would have to use some form of
standard HRTF, as long as they don't perform individual measurements.
For me, the
I found that review/interview of the 2 channel surround sound i was
referring to earlier:
http://www.hometheater.com/content/tech-spotlight-srs-future-surround
The first copy i saw didn't have the 2nd page. In it it's explained that
you'd need speakers behind you to hear things behind you.
They
On 07/16/2011 01:32 AM, Bearcat M. Şandor wrote:
I found that review/interview of the 2 channel surround sound i was
referring to earlier:
http://www.hometheater.com/content/tech-spotlight-srs-future-surround
The first copy i saw didn't have the 2nd page. In it it's explained that
you'd need
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 01:56:08 +0100, Stefan Schreiber
st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote:
The minimum for surround with height is 8 speakers, for Ambisonics 1st
order. If the sphere is full-sphere (and not half-sphere), you probably
need 12+ speakers, although I suspect there could be a solution
On 07/12/2011 03:24 PM, Tom Jordaan wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 01:56:08 +0100, Stefan Schreiber
st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote:
The minimum for surround with height is 8 speakers, for Ambisonics 1st
order. If the sphere is full-sphere (and not half-sphere), you
probably need 12+ speakers,
On 07/12/2011 05:39 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
there is an AES paper by simon goodwin that deals with this layout:
www.codemasters.com/research/3D_sound_for_3D_games.pdf
the rationale is that you can deliver a pre-decoded stream over the
eight channels of a hdmi
Both links work for me, too.
Dave (from home)
On Jul 12 2011, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/12/2011 05:39 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
there is an AES paper by simon goodwin that deals with this layout:
www.codemasters.com/research/3D_sound_for_3D_games.pdf
On 07/11/2011 12:39 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
With all these efforts, why is actually nobody just marketing a
headphone solution with head-tracking?
smyth research makes one (called the realizer), or there's the
beyerdynamic headzone.
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen,
Well, unless the amplifier encounters some of the elusive square
(freak) waves... :-D
Stefan
Robert Greene wrote:
No speaker requires a fast amplifier,
whatever that means. ALL amplifiers that
are not defective are far faster in any reasonable
sense than any speaker is. Some amps
have
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/11/2011 12:39 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
With all these efforts, why is actually nobody just marketing a
headphone solution with head-tracking?
smyth research makes one (called the realizer), or there's the
beyerdynamic headzone.
We have discussed the
Bearcat M. Şandor wrote:
On 07/10/2011 11:10 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
To clarify a few basic things:
The first poster in this thread (and obviously some other people who
maybe should have known better) are claiming that you could receive a
360º representation via just two (supposedly
On 7/11/2011 8:30 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
However, the 12+ channel audio system (for Ambisonics?) is a
caricature, at best. 8 horizontal speakers would be enough for
Ambisonics 3rd order, for home purposes. 1st order can be reproduced
with 4 speakers, you really won't need more than 6.
. Now we need some more variety!
I'll contact you off-list.
Eric
- Original Message
From: Paul Hodges pwh-surro...@cassland.org
To: Surround Sound discussion group sursound@music.vt.edu
Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 12:45:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats
Bearcat M. Sandor wrote:
On 7/11/2011 8:30 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
However, the 12+ channel audio system (for Ambisonics?) is a
caricature, at best. 8 horizontal speakers would be enough for
Ambisonics 3rd order, for home purposes. 1st order can be reproduced
with 4 speakers, you
Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt a écrit :
Right. I was speaking of 360 horizontal. Just to be clear, how
many speakers are necessary at minimum for a full sphere 3D
system? I've been told that a double twisted hex (3 in front, 3 in
back at ear level, and 3 in front, 3 in back up
group sursound@music.vt.edu
Sent: Sat, July 9, 2011 8:22:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their
viability for actual 360 degree sound
There was a method developed by Finsterle that worked very well
indeed, much better than Trifield(which has always seemed to me
On 07/10/2011 12:32 AM, dw wrote:
I was thinking more of recording in mono, computing the vectors in
various bands from the output of some large microphone array and then
encoding (the mono sound) into the required number of spherical
harmonics.
i don't think that's possible. imagine two
On 07/10/2011 03:41 AM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
I'm waiting for a pair of
very directional speakers that should (hopefully) help me enjoy
conventional stereo.
then the manger might be for you: http://manger-msw.de/index.php?language=en
this is a speaker that has been optimized for very good
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:41:04PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
If you could help me understand spherical harmonics, I'd be a MAG
fanboy in no time. The best didactic resource I found is a very
strange article titled Notes on Basic Ideas of Spherical Harmonics.
It's so good that I barely
On 10/07/2011 09:00, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/10/2011 12:32 AM, dw wrote:
I was thinking more of recording in mono, computing the vectors in
various bands from the output of some large microphone array and then
encoding (the mono sound) into the required number of spherical
harmonics.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:10:49AM +0100, dw wrote:
Any microphone capable of separating two sound sources MUST be large in
terms of wavelengths (similar to the diffraction limit for telescopes)
The soundfield microphone cannot separate two or more sound sources at
_any_ frequency for
On 10/07/2011 11:02, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:10:49AM +0100, dw wrote:
Any microphone capable of separating two sound sources MUST be large in
terms of wavelengths (similar to the diffraction limit for telescopes)
The soundfield microphone cannot separate two or more
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:49:49AM +0100, dw wrote:
You snipped the context.
i don't think that's possible. imagine two similar instruments, one at
0° and the other at 180°. once recorded in mono, they will be fused
together irrevocably. you won't be able to separate them with the help
Is this the one you mean(the strange article)?
http://www.regonaudio.com/SphericalHarmonics.pdf
I wrote it myself!
I surely did not mean for it to be strange at all.
But the idea is intrinsically a bit complicated.
What one is really doing is developing ad hoc
eigenfunctions of the Laplacian
Jörn Nettingsmeier netti...@stackingdwarves.net a écrit :
On 07/10/2011 03:41 AM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
I'm waiting for a pair of
very directional speakers that should (hopefully) help me enjoy
conventional stereo.
then the manger might be for you:
Robert Greene gre...@math.ucla.edu a écrit :
Is this the one you mean(the strange article)?
http://www.regonaudio.com/SphericalHarmonics.pdf
Yes! :)
I wrote it myself!
I surely did not mean for it to be strange at all.
But the idea is intrinsically a bit complicated.
What one is really
Although I have done this many times before, I again put on a left right test
track using RACE and two line source ESL speakers and I can rotate my head as
much as my neck permits without detecting any noticeable shift in the
localization of the voices at the extreme right and left. With two
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:41:04PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
If you could help me understand spherical harmonics, I'd be a MAG
fanboy in no time. The best didactic resource I found is a very
strange article titled Notes on Basic Ideas of Spherical Harmonics.
It's
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 05:44:50PM +0100, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
As a violinist, my choice would be the sawtooth wave, just for
demonstrational purposes.
Which has the same problems (infinite bandwidth etc.)
But yes, as a violinist it would probably hurt your
ears less...
Ciao,
--
FA
Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt a écrit :
I don't want to annoy anybody or you, but don't explain acoustics via
square waves...
I think that square waves is a good choice because of the amount of
resolution required, and because of their harmonic distribution:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 05:44:50PM +0100, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
As a violinist, my choice would be the sawtooth wave, just for
demonstrational purposes.
Which has the same problems (infinite bandwidth etc.)
But yes, as a violinist it would probably hurt
Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt a écrit :
Now come on, a square wave is not about music!
Iannis Xenakis would not agree with you...
--
Marc
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt a écrit :
Now come on, a square wave is not about music!
Iannis Xenakis would not agree with you...
--
Marc
___
But HIS square waves are irregular, or a chain of
dw surso...@dwareing.plus.com a écrit :
On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
If you can't reproduce full horizontal 360º surround via two front
speakers, then the binaural via two loudspeakers approach doesn't
work, and there is no solution to reproduce 3D sound in this way.
On 10/07/2011 19:36, Marc Lavallée wrote:
dwsurso...@dwareing.plus.com a écrit :
On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
If you can't reproduce full horizontal 360º surround via two front
speakers, then the binaural via two loudspeakers approach doesn't
work, and there is no solution
This one is vaguely in-head rather than down, and also well-out-of head.
I am doing these with the my public domain 'stereo' filter, which is not
ideal for this. I have deleted my stuff as I am turning my back on audio
for another decade after I tidy up some loose ends.
On 07/10/2011 06:14 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeiernetti...@stackingdwarves.net a écrit :
and don't mind around 10% THD in the low frequencies (which is not as
bad as it sounds, but also not as good as manger make it sound),
oops, this is bogus. THD means total harmonic
Thanks Stefan. The very bottom remarks are really about previous posts.
In theory it is possible to do full periphonic sound via two somethings (maybe
not looudspeakers as we know them). Choueiri believes he can come close to
this by using laser-like loudspeakers, precision placed in a quiet
Ralph Glasgal wrote:
Thanks Stefan. The very bottom remarks are really about previous posts.
In theory it is possible to do full periphonic sound via two somethings (maybe
not looudspeakers as we know them). Choueiri believes he can come close to
this by using laser-like loudspeakers,
Hello Marc...
I don't get access to the (dropbox) file.
Error (404)
We can't find the page you're looking for.
Is this because I am not based in the USA?
Best,
Stefan
Marc Lavallée wrote:
dw surso...@dwareing.plus.com a écrit :
On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt a écrit :
Hello Marc...
I don't get access to the (dropbox) file.
Error (404)
We can't find the page you're looking for.
It's not my DropBox, it's David's.
He probably removed the file. I get the same error.
His last message was :
I have
On 07/10/2011 11:10 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
To clarify a few basic things:
The first poster in this thread (and obviously some other people who
maybe should have known better) are claiming that you could receive a
360º representation via just two (supposedly narrow) front speakers.
Jörn Nettingsmeier netti...@stackingdwarves.net a écrit :
have you seen jerome daniel's experimenter's corner?
I tried to read the beginning of his doctoral thesis; because it's in
French, I though it would be easier to understand than the vast
majority of papers in English, but I was wrong
[Hello to all - It was good 2 C some of you at ICAD Budapest - and +ve 2 C a
deal of activity in ambisonics for auditory design.]
On 09/07/2011, at 6:40 AM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:06:37PM -0600, Bearcat M. Sandor wrote:
The ear canal is just a tube, so there's no
ML: Maybe it can; is there a way to up convert non-ambisonics recordings to
horizontal ambisonics?
If you down sample a 48kHz recording to 16kHz what happens? All the audio
information above 8kHz is lost right?
If you up convert back to 48kHz can you recover the bandwidth lost? No. You
just
Neil, I used the wrong words.
Please excuse my up-converting nonsense, and let me ask again.
The perceived directional bandwidth of stereo recordings is better
than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reproduce.
So, is it possible to adapt a stereo recording to play on a horizontal
--On 09 July 2011 14:04 -0400 Marc Lavallée m...@hacklava.net wrote:
So, is it possible to adapt a stereo recording to play on a horizontal
ambisonics system, in order to get a better stereo image than with
conventional stereo? A kind of restored stereo experience that
ambisonics can provide
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
The perceived directional bandwidth of stereo recordings is better
than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reproduce.
This is again a game of words.
Most stereo recordings are made to be reproduced by two speakers,
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:19:07PM +0100, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
The perceived directional bandwidth of stereo recordings is better
than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reproduce.
Totally agree 100%.
Personally I would state that I have a totally different experience when
listening to the same recordings via loudspeakers versus headphones.
Headphones rarely give me a the orchestra/band is in front of me
presentation (and no it is not a function of cheap or crappy
On 09/07/2011 21:38, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:19:07PM +0100, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
The perceived directional bandwidth of stereo recordings is better
than what conventional
On 07/09/2011 11:13 PM, dw wrote:
Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo
recording for me to play with.
well, this kind of stand-off isn't likely to lead anywhere. sounds
good is very hard to define or even test.
i'm not terribly interested in applying xtc to
On 09/07/2011 22:28, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/09/2011 11:13 PM, dw wrote:
Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo
recording for me to play with.
well, this kind of stand-off isn't likely to lead anywhere. sounds
good is very hard to define or even test.
On 07/09/2011 11:49 PM, dw wrote:
On 09/07/2011 22:28, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
ps. I am sure M Gerzon knew that ambisonics (low order) has theoretical
sweet spot the size of a pea, but it still sounds good to some people,
His fans are still as self-righteous as ever.
i could imagine way
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 10:13:13PM +0100, dw wrote:
Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo
recording for me to play with.
If it's anything I produced myself you'd just say I engineered
it to fail with XTC :-) Which indeed I could easily do...
I've been
Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.org a écrit :
Most stereo recordings are made to be reproduced by two speakers,
seen by the listener at an angle of 60 to 90 degrees, and such that
the signals from either speaker reach both ears. That is the way it
is supposed to work. There is a solid theory
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 06:58:29PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
I understand your clinical point of view, but I don't consider the act
of listening to reproduced music as a scientific activity.
Agreed 100%. But the act of analysing and discussing the merits
of technical systems to reproduce
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/09/2011 11:13 PM, dw wrote:
Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo
recording for me to play with.
well, this kind of stand-off isn't likely to lead anywhere. sounds
good is very hard to define or even test.
i'm not terribly
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/09/2011 10:19 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
The perceived directional bandwidth of stereo recordings is better
than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can
Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.org a écrit :
As to material produced for conventional speaker playback, some
of it produces a 'nice' sound, with a clear spatial effect, as
long as you are not trying to focus your attention on individual
sources or instruments. Which is something I can't
There was a method developed by Finsterle that worked very well
indeed, much better than Trifield(which has always seemed to me
to have a serious center detent.
Finsterle's method had sound in the rear psychoacoustically
encoded not to sound in the rear but to solidify the front
images.
This
Folks,
I've been reading up on the various proposals for 3D sound from a set of
stereo speakers. The 3D Audio Alliance is working on such a system.
Astound Surround is getting ready to market, Edward Choueiri is working
on the same idea (see:
My personal opinion:
a) 3D sound from 2 speakers
Rubbish. Unless energy is arriving from the general direction of the supposed
source, the best any system can do is present some psycho-acoustically
confusing cues that attempt to fool the brain, but sadly (for the 2-channel
snake-oil folk)
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:19:15PM -0400, Neil Waterman wrote:
My personal opinion:
a) 3D sound from 2 speakers
Rubbish. Unless energy is arriving from the general direction of the supposed
source, the best any system can do is present some psycho-acoustically
confusing cues that
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:06:37PM -0600, Bearcat M. Sandor wrote:
The ear canal is just a tube, so there's no
directionality once the waves are in there.
Once they are in there. Which is why you can make things
work with headphones plus head motion tracking.
When using speakers, the sound
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 11:34:18PM +0100, dw wrote:
60 degrees seems excessive head movement for someone seated listening to
speakers..
Why ? It's a natural thing to do if there is any significant sound
from that direction. Why should being listening to speakers make
any difference ? I like
93 matches
Mail list logo
