Re: [Sursound] ST450 capsule assembly

2012-02-29 Thread Dave Malham
-- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 1970 bytes Desc: not available URL:https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120229/5f3e4d8f/attachment.bin

Re: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetrical setups

2012-02-29 Thread Fons Adriaensen
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 01:15:40PM +, Miguel Negrao wrote: I’ve been a bit disconnected from the ambisonics world. From my past reading on this list it is my understanding that there isn’t an explicit formula for decoding coefficients for non-symmetrical setups. Are there currently

Re: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetrical setups

2012-02-29 Thread Dave Malham
There's a third method - Bruce Wiggins' Heuristic algorithm based methodology (http://www2.derby.ac.uk/sparg-content/pdfs/bw_aes31_paper.pdf). This is, I believe, available in his Wigware decoder plugins.There is also some work from China on genetic algorithm based design, but I don't know what

Re: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetrical setups

2012-02-29 Thread Dave Malham
Ah - I withdraw that about the Wigware decoders as the versions on Bruce's website are probably not sufficiently flexible for your purposes, though the actual heuristic methodology probably is. Dave On 29/02/2012 14:47, Dave Malham wrote: There's a third method - Bruce Wiggins' Heuristic

[Sursound] Periphonic problems

2012-02-29 Thread Paul Power
... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120229/3675d289/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Periphonic problems

2012-02-29 Thread Jörn Nettingsmeier
On 02/29/2012 08:16 PM, Paul Power wrote: The problem with the 2nd order decoder is that the final gains given do not give negative phase for the diametrically opposed speaker. I have also tried using a regular shaped speaker set up, but this still does not give me negative phase in the

Re: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetrical setups

2012-02-29 Thread Miguel Negrao
Thanks for all the answers. Since I really looking for a method I could use more or less blindly, I guess for the moment I will not dive more into it. I would be interested the tools that Eric mentions when they are released. Would an automated “blind search algorithm possibly give worse

Re: [Sursound] Periphonic problems

2012-02-29 Thread Fons Adriaensen
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 07:16:18PM +, Paul Power wrote:   I am a currently looking into Ambisonic periphonic systems. This is my first post so please go easy on me. I am currently using a 16 speaker rig which includes a cube and an octagon set up. I understand that this is not a regular

Re: [Sursound] Periphonic problems

2012-02-29 Thread Fons Adriaensen
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 08:36:45PM +0100, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: On 02/29/2012 08:16 PM, Paul Power wrote: The problem with the 2nd order decoder is that the final gains given do not give negative phase for the diametrically opposed speaker. I have also tried using a regular shaped

Re: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetrical setups

2012-02-29 Thread Peter Lennox
I think the problems of using less-than-perfect decoders are easily overshadowed in the concert situation by the fact that almost all listeners are sitting quite outside the sweet spot; precision in imagery just isn't going to be there. Using higher orders with sub optimal decoders would yield

Re: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetrical setups

2012-02-29 Thread Fons Adriaensen
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 08:55:05PM +, Miguel Negrao wrote: Would an automated “blind search algorithm possibly give worse results then just using the equations for the symmetrical case ? I know many people using ambisonics for eletroacoustic music and I think all of them use the

Re: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetrical setups

2012-02-29 Thread Eric Benjamin
Bruce Wiggins's (I hope) research was what started this fray out in the first place Yup.  And several others.  But the point is that there is a good deal more to be done, especially as you point out that: this sort of optimization retains the blackbox leanings of machine learning as a

Re: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetrical setups

2012-02-29 Thread Richard Furse
Dang. Have written all that, I should add that though the code works at higher orders, the player only supports formats up to third order (the game engine actually goes up to fourth right now). And rather fatally for Miguel's purposes, the decoder generator doesn't allow the coefficients to be

Re: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetrical setups

2012-02-29 Thread Miguel Negrao
A 29/02/2012, às 21:24, Fons Adriaensen escreveu: On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 08:55:05PM +, Miguel Negrao wrote: Would an automated “blind search algorithm possibly give worse results then just using the equations for the symmetrical case ? I know many people using ambisonics for

Re: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetrical setups

2012-02-29 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Sampo Syreeni de...@iki.fi wrote: Personally what I find a bit worrisome is that this sort of optimization retains the blackbox leanings of machine learning as a general discipline. None of the ambisonic specific, closed form optimization literature, or the

Re: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetrical setups

2012-02-29 Thread Aaron Heller
The code that goes with the LAC2012 conference paper does 3D and higher orders. In fact we used it to make a new 3rd-order Ambdec config for CCRMA's 22 speaker array. Its written in MATLAB/Gnu Octave, and it's not a lot of code. So plenty of opportunity for tinkering with the goal functions.