[Sursound] Volume question WRT 7.1 sound recorded at listening position.

Hi I do not have a 7.1 sound system so can't actually test this, also as may become apparent I don't know much about sound :-) I would be grateful if someone could correct/confirm the following. If I were to mix down a digital 7ch to mono I have to reduce by 1/7 amplitude to prevent

Re: [Sursound] Volume question WRT 7.1 sound recorded at listening position.

dw wrote: On 22/09/2013 12:51, Andy Furniss wrote: Hi I do not have a 7.1 sound system so can't actually test this, also as may become apparent I don't know much about sound :-) I would be grateful if someone could correct/confirm the following. If I were to mix down a digital 7ch to mono I

Re: [Sursound] Volume question WRT 7.1 sound recorded at listening position. (dw)

Ken Landers wrote: While -16.9 might keep you safe, a better option might be -20 dBFS. Gives some headroom in case you need it. Also, many consumer playback devices may not handle full scale output. Interesting, I am not a producer of anything as such, but do see that a lot of digital music

Re: [Sursound] Volume question WRT 7.1 sound recorded at listening position.

Aaron Heller wrote: On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Andy Furniss adf.li...@gmail.com wrote: I don't quite understand the in phase though, are you saying that they artificially adjust phase for the same sound that comes out of more than one speaker to affect the mixdown? The Recording

Re: [Sursound] Volume question WRT 7.1 sound recorded at listening position. (dw)

Andrew Levine wrote: See Bob Katz' K-20: http://www.digido.com/how-to-make-better-recordings-part-2.html Thanks for the link, looks interesting, though I haven't had time to read properly yet. Accepting the above may give insight into my query, just to be clear I am not a producer in

Re: [Sursound] Very inexpensive surround speakers

Bearcat M. Şándor wrote: Since we're talking about this, I've had my eye on Emotiva Stealth 8s http://www.emotivapro.com/products/stealth-8 . I assume they (or the upcoming Stealth 88 which adds an additional 8 driver) would do just fine for an ambisonic installation? Now i just need to be able

Re: [Sursound] Flying Scotsman programme

Dave Malham wrote: I was watching the BBC programme on the Flying Scotsman the other nigh when I spotted something at just over 37'40 in - in a film from between 1963 and 1968, the guy recording an interview with Alan Pegler, the then owner of the famous loco, was using a dummy head - or at

Re: [Sursound] B-Format test signals 5.1

Eero Aro wrote: I am afraid I binned the discussion thread about the test signals. However, if anybody's interested, I made quickly a couple of files. I panned a pink noise pulse train into the speaker directions of ITU775, the 5.1 layout. The files are 44.1 kHz/16 bit four channel wav:s. The

[Sursound] Linux ambdec b-format channel order

I am not experienced with ambdec, but while trying something today I noticed something confusing when feeding direct with mplayer - mplayer -channels 4 -ao jack:port=ambdec pwh-VoiCE-Round.amb The channels are crossed as in the screenshot. This doesn't happen if I were to use the same mplayer

Re: [Sursound] Linux ambdec b-format channel order

Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:00:10AM +, Andy Furniss wrote: I am not experienced with ambdec, but while trying something today I noticed something confusing when feeding direct with mplayer - mplayer -channels 4 -ao jack:port=ambdec pwh-VoiCE-Round.amb The channels

Re: [Sursound] Linux ambdec b-format channel order

Marc Lavallée wrote: In my experience, the order of channels in jack are stable enough to use this simple channels remapping trick: mplayer -channels 4 -af channels=4:4:0:0:1:3:2:1:3:2 -ao jack:port=ambdec AJH_eight-positions.amb FWIW, while looking at mplayer code it occured to me that -

Re: [Sursound] Encoding a 7.1 audio DVD ?

Augustine Leudar wrote: Seeing as there is a dearth of 8 channel players - I was thinking I could just use a 7.1 DVD on a loop for an eight channel sound installation - as long as I can send a seperate audio signal to each of the 8 (the LF sends a full range signal too) there shouldnt be a

Re: [Sursound] status of ambisonia.com?

Paul Hodges wrote: --On 16 December 2013 16:14 +0100 Jörn Nettingsmeier netti...@stackingdwarves.net wrote: what's the status of ambisonia.com? it appears that while the site is distributing torrent metadata, nobody is actually seeding the files. I agree that some seem unseeded and it was

Re: [Sursound] Encoding a 7.1 audio DVD ?

Stefan Schreiber wrote: Andy Furniss wrote: According to wikipedia DVD-Audio only does 5.1 - it could be wrong of course. The DVD-Video page claims 8ch PCM support is in the spec, but says it's not well supported by players. Starts with the interface problems. Today you would use HDMI

Re: [Sursound] Encoding a 7.1 audio DVD ?

Bearcat M. Şándor wrote: If the bluray spec only supports up to 7.1, why are we seeing receivers with 11.2 outputs? Are those just matrixed channels with some reverb thrown in? I'll be thinking about this for my ambisonics setup. When I said Having had a look at the DTS spec (ETSI TS 102 114

Re: [Sursound] Encoding a 7.1 audio DVD ?

Stefan Schreiber wrote: Andy Furniss wrote: Nothing to do with this thread and I am not saying that any players use it, but I did see the words Ambisonic and WXYZ in the spec, so there is some provision for carrying and flagging as special b-format in a DTS extension stream. Maybe hidden

Re: [Sursound] Encoding a 7.1 audio DVD ?

Augustine Leudar wrote: Hi Eric, this is what I have done in a couple of permanent installations. I use a motu ultralite and a mini pc (or mac). This is fine for an installation that will never be touched. However even using linux or a mac there are problems with this setup for permanent

Re: [Sursound] Encoding a 7.1 audio DVD ?

Stefan Schreiber wrote: I would say that's debatable, in that bluray players should accept Dolby/DCA and both are specified so that decoders skip substreams/extensions that they don't know about. Additionally if instructed, the player can just pass on bitstreams without decoding to a receiver

Re: [Sursound] ambiX v0.1 Ambisonic software, mcfx v0.1

Matthias Kronlachner wrote: hi! i finally got my ambisonic plug-ins to a stage where i'd like to share them with the community. these are working under windows, osx and linux as vst, lv2 and standalone applications. (the linux version still needs some treat - help wanted!) Thanks for getting

Re: [Sursound] ambiX v0.1 Ambisonic software, mcfx v0.1

Matthias Kronlachner wrote: On 06/02/14 21:34, Andy Furniss wrote: Matthias Kronlachner wrote: hi! i finally got my ambisonic plug-ins to a stage where i'd like to share them with the community. these are working under windows, osx and linux as vst, lv2 and standalone applications. (the linux

Re: [Sursound] ambiX v0.1 Ambisonic software, mcfx v0.1

Andy Furniss wrote: Matthias Kronlachner wrote: what exactly are the problems with the standalone build? as they are working fine for me under debian. ambix_binaural_standalone_o5 will segfault when I connect its output to system playback using qjackctl connections window. So I finally

Re: [Sursound] ambiX v0.1 Ambisonic software, mcfx v0.1

Matthias Kronlachner wrote: So I finally got to get round this one tonight - though the workaround is probably sub optimal. I did try others, but jack was in a state from all the crashing where nothing was working, leading me to falsely think they were all failing and dismiss them. thanks for

Re: [Sursound] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31. March)

Paul Hodges wrote: --On 20 March 2014 11:14 + Andy Furniss adf.li...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's just like playing any compressed audio file. But it isn't, because a slight mismatch in clock speeds would mean that the playback could run ahead and eventually run out of buffered samples

Re: [Sursound] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31. March)

Dave Malham wrote: 48 kHz is pretty well the international standard sample rate for broadcast organisation and has been since they started upgrading from the 32kHz used (by the Beeb) for distributing audio to FM transmitters back in the late 60's. Dave True I expect, but for some reason the

Re: [Sursound] BBC Proms in 4.0

Rupert Brun wrote: The BBC will make the BBC Proms Concerts available in 4.0 using MPEG-DASH. The stream will be available internationally. So the're available to the world subject to what browser/os you use, but not to me who pays the licence fee. Why must MPEG-DASH be used for this? It's

Re: [Sursound] BBC Proms in 4.0

Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: On 07/18/2014 03:48 PM, Andy Furniss wrote: Rupert Brun wrote: The BBC will make the BBC Proms Concerts available in 4.0 using MPEG-DASH. The stream will be available internationally. So the're available to the world subject to what browser/os you use, but not to me

Re: [Sursound] BBC Proms in 4.0

Rupert Brun wrote: We can't deliver over normal broadcast channels because we don't have the bandwidth and there would be very significant costs for a small audience. We are using MPEG DASH because it handles surround sound well and can be decoded entirely within the browser without any third

Re: [Sursound] BBC Proms in 4.0

David Pickett wrote: At 21:38 18-07-14, John Leonard wrote: Stream working well here - shame it's wildly out of sync with the broadcast picture, though. Some distortion apparent on FF passages? Yes, I heard some distortion on the violins in places: it sounds digital but I wasnt sure

Re: [Sursound] BBC Proms in 4.0

Rupert Brun wrote: Some people have commented that we should make a normal surround sound stream available but I'm not at all sure what they mean by this. For live streaming you need a codec and a transport layer. Our normal transport layers Flash and Shoutcast. Flash won't support more than

Re: [Sursound] BBC Proms in 4.0

Rupert Brun wrote: the browser/flash requirement/restriction is your arbitary choice. I doubt I am that exceptional as a Linux user in not using browser/flash to access BBC content. I could even download r3_aaclca.pls with wget look in it and download with wget using the long http:// url.

[Sursound] BBC Radio 3 surround broadcast

May be of interest to some on here - I don't know if it will be UK only though. http://rdmedia.bbc.co.uk/radio3/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05202hw ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu

Re: [Sursound] Ambisonics recording of LOUD night club or venue?

Eric Carmichel wrote: Greetings Everyone,I haven't posted in ages--a move to Silicon Valley over a year ago has occupied my time.Does anybody have a Soundfield recording of a loud nightclub or live music venue? I mean really LOUD electronic dance or rock music. I understand this isn't something

Re: [Sursound] ambisonics audio for 360 film (VR)

David Pickett wrote: Is everybody on the list getting gibberish (éäJ, etc), as I am? It works for me. Maybe your mail prog didn't like it as it wasn't a normal mail = the raw source looks like - snip Reply-To: Surround Sound discussion group sursound@music.vt.edu Content-Type: text/plain;

Re: [Sursound] ambisonics audio for 360 film (VR)

Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 08:16:05PM +0100, Andy Furniss wrote: David Pickett wrote: Is everybody on the list getting gibberish (éäJ, etc), as I am? It works for me. Maybe your mail prog didn't like it as it wasn't a normal mail = the raw source looks like

Re: [Sursound] Binaural broadcast

Richard wrote: From the program link David gave - the binaural version is website/iplayer only. Many thanks for the heads up. I think i'd best warn folks hear in the K this will be best heard on the FM service, as the broadcasts via DAB, Freeview and Satellite use Jstereo to help reduce

Re: [Sursound] vertical precendence and summing localisation (wallis and lee 2015)

Joseph Anderson wrote: effect. (Of course, all built out of the SuperCollider version of the ATK .) You may want to get rid of the soundofspace links as they point to something quite different now.