On 14/04/2012 18:23, Martin Leese wrote:
Somebody who was involved at the time (which I was not) would be better able to answer this.
Thatcher came to power in 1979. In 1981, the NRDC was merged into the British Technology Group. It
is true that development and promotion of Ambisonics was the
Ronald C.F. Antony r...@cubiculum.com wrote:
On 12 Apr 2012, at 19:57, Martin Leese martin.le...@stanfordalumni.org
wrote:
...
The UK Government, through the
National Research Development Corporation,
strongly supported the development of
Ambisonics; they paid for it. While the NRDC
had
was it not true that the UK did not, or would not, help to support
the ambisonic fledgling business due to some frustrating legal
restriction? this was a major point in the killing of the launch.
in addition, when MAG openly criticized (and mathematically gutted)
the Quad stuff, he did not
seva s...@soundcurrent.com
was it not true that the UK did not, or would not, help to support
the ambisonic fledgling business due to some frustrating legal
restriction? this was a major point in the killing of the launch.
I assume by the UK you mean the UK
Government. The UK Government,
At 22:10 10/04/2012, Robert Greene wrote:
One thing that crosses my mind is this:
and a lot more...
I dont often agree with Robert, but I agree with him entirely in this posting.
Second, in the exploration of why Ambisonics did not
succeed commercially(yet), it seems to me important
David Pickett d...@fugato.com a écrit :
Second, in the exploration of why Ambisonics did not
succeed commercially(yet), it seems to me important
to understand the whole nature of the success of technological
products. They succeed if they offer a lot but demand nothing
of the consumer
On 5 Apr 2012, at 12:44, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 04/04/2012 10:09 AM, Scott Wilson wrote:
why do people still fall for the BEAST?
jörn (with apologies to the birmingham crew ;)
Ahem...
;-D
I figured it was a polite invitation! :-)
4. More composers are starting to look at ambisonics though there is
still some resistance to it , mainly I think because its hard to get
your head around. I'm still trying to work out why stereo diffusion
into multiple speakers is more popular to many composers than
ambisonics and
On 4 Apr 2012, at 06:29, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 04/03/2012 03:16 PM, Augustine Leudar wrote:
4. More composers are starting to look at ambisonics though there is
still some resistance to it , mainly I think because its hard to get
your head around. I'm still trying to work out why
On 4 Apr 2012, at 06:29, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 04/03/2012 03:16 PM, Augustine Leudar wrote:
4. More composers are starting to look at ambisonics though there is
still some resistance to it , mainly I think because its hard to get
your head around. I'm still trying to work out
On 4 Apr 2012, at 6:29 am, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
that is a phenomenon i haven't been able to figure out either :)
why do people still fall for the BEAST?
jörn (with apologies to the birmingham crew ;)
Doh! Not sure I really want to enter the melee here!
For me, I came to Ambisonics
Michael Chapman wrote:
Think it is generally agreed that feeding too many speakers
for the given 'prder' of ambisonics is not a good idea.
So more than six for first order would be deprecated ...
I have not found this to be the case, at least in the setups we use here at
Derby. I regularly
PS Leaving my own evaluation aside, one of the things
I have noticed about this type of recording is that there
is a direct connection between how much people like it
and how familiar they are with the actual sound of the
particular orchestra in the particular hall.
I did not have contact with
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 09:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Greene gre...@math.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?
To: Surround Sound discussion group sursound@music.vt.edu
Message-ID: alpine.lnx.2.00.1204020914100.6
I have to agree with this - at least, to some extent. One of the best
recordings, in the sense of most enjoyable to me when I listened back
to it, I ever did with the York Waits was one of the ones we did at
the marvellous Bossal Church near York. It had to my ears a perfect
balance of the
So I am nervously edging towards the following conclusions :
1. Music can be mixed ambisonically and then decoded or bounced
down to Speaker configurations like 5.1, 7.1 ,1100.12 , stereo
whatever.
2. This can all be done with software - there is no need for
specialist decoders or hardware -
On 3 Apr 2012, at 07:31, Jörn Nettingsmeier netti...@stackingdwarves.net
wrote:
On 04/02/2012 06:33 PM, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
On 2 Apr 2012, at 17:57, Eero Aroeero@dlc.fi wrote:
Because Nimbus Records devoted themselves strictly to one point
miking, they didn't record any
I understand that, which is why I made the snide remark about ticket
sales. To place an microphone at audience level, one would have to empty
enough seats around the mic position to make neighbors a non-issue. But
revenues trump everything.
Similarly, they could do a recording while doing
On 3 Apr 2012, at 16:21, Michael Chapman s...@mchapman.com wrote:
Oh, but the labour of transporting 100 manequins in fur coats
into the concert hall to get the acoustics right.
Much better to hope the concert attracts the correct socio-
economic class ( ... mink ... ) ... and the hall is
At 14:01 02/04/2012, Aaron Heller wrote:
I put some files at
http://ambisonics.dreamhosters.com/DTS/
I downloaded, cut onto CD and listened to the finale of Brahms I,
which I have conducted several times (where was this recorded?). It
is the first time I have heard 4.0 from a CD and for
On 04/03/2012 03:16 PM, Augustine Leudar wrote:
4. More composers are starting to look at ambisonics though there is
still some resistance to it , mainly I think because its hard to get
your head around. I'm still trying to work out why stereo diffusion
into multiple speakers is more popular to
Um. Every single recording on Ambisonia was available as a
DTS-CD RIFF/WAV file of a 4.0 decode (that is, Center and LFE were
silent). All one needed to do was burn them to a CD and play in a DVD
player connected to a 5.1 home theater set up. See Richard Elen's
article Getting
Robert Greene wrote:
2 Forces people to use one point miking
Actually I don't understand why you list one point miking in the
Goods. :-)
However, from quite early on, it was possible to use mono and stereo
microphones and to encode them into UHJ with the Audio Design
Transcoder and into
anyone help with my dissertation please?
OK I thought that was a good idea, for people to say what they thought
was good and not good about Ambisonics. So here I go(first I guess
but my mother always said Act in haste, repent at leisure. I think
she meant it as cautionary but I have always taken
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 10:05:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: newme...@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Message-ID: 1343c.5791214f.3ca9b...@aol.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Robert:
But I think
--
Message: 19
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 00:22:21 +0100
From: Peter Lennox p.len...@derby.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?
To: Surround Sound discussion group sursound@music.vt.edu
Message-ID
All you need to do is.., is the end of the line here.
Commercially, you might as well try to sell a car
where all you need to do to start it is to type
in a ten digit code, sing Mary had a little lamb three times,
and notify the post office.
No one is going to go through this sort of thing in
] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?
OK I thought that was a good idea, for people to say what they thought
was good and not good about Ambisonics. So here I go(first I guess
but my mother always said Act in haste, repent at leisure. I think
she meant it as cautionary but I have always
Robert Greene wrote:
Because it is good!
Yes, it is good for many occasions.
Because Nimbus Records devoted themselves strictly to one point
miking, they didn't record any operas, as the singers, choir and the
orchestra are scattered in a large area and you cannot get a good
balance with one
Re marketing
I am not a marketing expert but it seems to me that if anyone
had really wanted Ambisonics to succeed, there would
have been
1 presentations at shows for example. I have
over the years encountered exactly one, by Meridian. Period.
And
2 there would have been low priced or free demo
; Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?
But lots of people already have five channel systems.
What they do not have is a Trifield processor built in to their
receivers to
make stereo into three channel.
They have other schemes to do
Sorry I got bogged down in technical details. Thanks for pointing
that out to me.
What I should have said was that every recording on Ambisonia (~250,
iirc) was available as a file that could be downloaded, burnt to CD,
and played on a plain old 5.1 home theater system -- presumably just
the
At 11:33 02/04/2012, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
On 2 Apr 2012, at 17:57, Eero Aro eero@dlc.fi wrote:
Because Nimbus Records devoted themselves strictly to one point
miking, they didn't record any operas, as the singers, choir and the
orchestra are scattered in a large area and you cannot
On 04/02/2012 06:33 PM, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
On 2 Apr 2012, at 17:57, Eero Aroeero@dlc.fi wrote:
Because Nimbus Records devoted themselves strictly to one point
miking, they didn't record any operas, as the singers, choir and the
orchestra are scattered in a large area and you
Your dissertation question clearly touches something important, but lacks
focus.
By that, I mean (in a caring way, possums) that framing the question this
way makes it very difficult to elicit clear answers.
A better way to frame the question might be:
Given ambisonic's lack of commercial
Etienne:
the eroticism of virtual reality ...
Good point! And now we shift from the engineering explanations to the
social and more theoretical ones.
Here, I would recommend a careful consideration of Marshall McLuhan.
His 1962 The Gutenberg Galaxy summarizes his views of how Western
Robert:
But I think that using this sort of thing as a way
to persuade people they ought to have 16 channels
of playback or something is wrong headed.
Of course it is but how about THREE?
Remember that the most obvious home-playback application of Michael
Gerson's mathematical work is
I raised earlier the question of why Trifield is not available
to the general public.
Given that there are other people(e.g. J. Bongiorno in High End
and all kinds of things in home theater) offering
devices to synthesize a third channel--and that
lots of people already have a center channel
There are quite a few free downloadable files on the 2l.no website
that are worth exploring. Not Ambisonic, but good sound and exciting
playing. A pity the website is not easier to navigate. There is a
mini drop down menu at the top. Click on Test Bench HD audio files.
David
At 17:00
I have tried playing three channels over two speakers. I used
Gerzon's equations, with inverted crosstalk -- does one need anything
more sophisticated? I achieved this in Totalmix with my RME
FF800. It sounds good, but the L/R speakers need to be on 90 degree
axes, which implies a large
again to anyone who says things like ambisonics cant compete with 5.1
please bear in mind this is like saying amplitude panning can't
compete with 5.1 - it doesnt make any sense at all. You mix your
tracks horizontally ,without elevation, using ambisonics plugins and
burn your ac3/dts file like
I don't think anyone thinks that! What people do think
is that Ambisonics needs some sort of commercial accesibility--
which it could get if discs were put out that provided not
abstract Ambisonics as it were but Ambisonics as decoded
to the 5.1 set up. The message was that no one (statistically
At 18:28 01/04/2012, Neil Waterman wrote:
I agree totally with Robert here.
Most of my work mates have 5.1 set-ups at home, but would never be
bothered to have anything that required more thought, so bring on
the 5.1 mixes of ambisonic source material and at least let the
masses get a
OK I thought that was a good idea, for people to say what they thought
was good and not good about Ambisonics. So here I go(first I guess
but my mother always said Act in haste, repent at leisure. I think
she meant it as cautionary but I have always taken it as advisory!).
Good
1 Elegant as
This surely confirms my view , at least to my mind.
When the only available items is computer games...
well, I know there is money in they, but they are not for me
and I care not at all what they sound like.
This seems to me going out not with a bang but a definite
whimper. Gerzon would be
Richard Dobson wrote:
My own assumption when first discovering Ambsonics (public concert by
electric Phoenix, and later via CDP, from the late 80s) was that it was
purposed towards use in public diffusion
Rob Alexander describes the beginnings of Ambisonics in Gerzon's biography:
One of the things that is emerging here is(dare I say so)
that Ambisonics for music at home is just not such a good idea.
Attractive though it is mathematically--and it is very much that--
it is really impractical for home music.
Perhaps it is worthwhile to think for a moment about why.
My
On 03/31/2012 04:35 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
The revival of the past ten years or so is largely the result of
higher order becoming possible in practice, along with an interest
from telecom companies rather than music producers.
I am curious about
In addition to everything else that has been stated in this thread already, I
also believe we can think of consumer media technology as following two
diverging strands, in particular from the 80s onwards. One is the high fidelity
approach. High quality stereo reproduction systems, quadraphonic,
Robert:
Music of the ordinary sort is in front . . .
Yes it is! Which is why Ambisonics makes *no* sense for the FRONT in a
musical reproduction system.
However, it still makes great sense for the REST -- the sides, back and
UP-AND-DOWN ambience for listening to music.
This is why
Hi,
This thread brings up several things that have been discussed
previously, and others have given good answers that cover why
ambisonics has failed to enter the mainstream.
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:23:04 +0100
From: Peter Lennox p.len...@derby.ac.uk
I don't even think it has failed -
At 05:30 31/03/2012, Eero Aro wrote:
The Soundfield microphone didn't attract sound engineers
because it was so expensive.
In my experience, early models were also very fussy regarding output
levels: either noisy or distorted. The expense kicks in when
professionally one needs more than
David Pickett wrote:
In my experience, early models were also very fussy regarding output
levels: either noisy or distorted.
As is common in Sursound, we are drifting out from the thread subject, but
yes, tell me news. I tried to use a SFM for dialogue recording in the
first half
of the
--On 31 March 2012 19:45 +0300 Eero Aro eero@dlc.fi wrote:
it is really too bad that the one place
where Ambisonics could help out in commonplace
daily life--namely, in how to mix stereo to three
(or more) frontal channels, that there is not a cheap
easy simple standalone unit to do just
--On 31 March 2012 12:53 -0400 newme...@aol.com wrote:
Music of the ordinary sort is in front . . .
Yes it is! Which is why Ambisonics makes *no* sense for the FRONT in a
musical reproduction system.
Music of the ordinary sort being the music that's in front, I guess,
making that a
At 14:04 31/03/2012, Eero Aro wrote:
David Pickett wrote:
In my experience, early models were also very fussy regarding output
levels: either noisy or distorted.
As is common in Sursound, we are drifting out from the thread subject
Not really drifting: this is a very good reason why the SF
At 14:33 31/03/2012, Paul Hodges wrote:
--On 31 March 2012 12:53 -0400 newme...@aol.com wrote:
Music of the ordinary sort is in front . . .
Yes it is! Which is why Ambisonics makes *no* sense for the FRONT in a
musical reproduction system.
Music of the ordinary sort being the music
David Pickett wrote:
One of the most exciting recordings I have is the Tallis
Scholars' later version of the Allegri Miserere
Here is another great performance and recording:
2L29SACD Ensemble 96 IMMORTAL NYSTEDT
http://www.2l.no/
Amazing! Not Ambisonics, not SFM.
Eero
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf
Of Eero Aro [eero@dlc.fi]
Sent: 31 March 2012 23:00
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?
David Pickett wrote:
One of the most exciting
I did not say it should(be played in front)! It just is.
Of course there are instances when antiphonal effects
are used, and very well they can work too.
But I think that using this sort of thing as a way
to persuade people they ought to have 16 channels
of playback or something is wrong
Hi,
I'm currently a student taking my third year at a university, having
completed two years in Live sound engineering at dBs Music, UK.
Due to my final year on a media based course (Live Music) I have no
resources or tutors to speak with on ambisonic matters.
So any response or pointers in the
Cara Gleeson coarsean...@gmail.com wrote:
...
*Outline of dissertation question*: *Why did ambisonics not take off
between the 1970's-90's?*
Hi Cara,
You will probably already have found the
FAQ's spin on this. If not, visit:
-boun...@music.vt.edu [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf
Of Martin Leese [martin.le...@stanfordalumni.org]
Sent: 30 March 2012 18:54
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?
Cara Gleeson coarsean...@gmail.com wrote:
...
*Outline
I think there were a number of reasons
1 It took a long time for a medium to arrive that offered
a conveninent way to present a lot of channels. Actually,
while in principle CD did, in practice this was never
used. The surround schemes that came along that worked
commercially either involved
PS There is one more reason, which is less obvious and perhaps
not obvious at all to those of you in Europe.
Namely, Americans have never liked one point recording.
They have never liked Blumlein or ORTF(quasi one point) stereo
and they still do not.
Starting with the Bell Telephone Labs(as the
Robert:
I think there were a number of reasons . . .
Very well said!!
As some on the list know, so I should report back on my efforts, I tried to
interest some senior people at Sony (and elsewhere) in considering a
version of Ambisonics for the surround component of 3D VIDEO --
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:52:22PM -0700, Robert Greene wrote:
Surround in music has never been a hit in any form and it still
is not. Moreover most music is not really enhanced by it in the minds of
most people. Orchestral music benefits enormously--most of what you hear
in an orchestra
67 matches
Mail list logo
