Hi Richard,
As we announced at the conference, Ambisonia is well on the way to being resurrected, thanks to
the efforts of Oli Larkin, Marc Lavallée and Ettienne Deleflie. There's lots of fiddly details and
housekeeping to finish off, but...RSN
Dave
On 14/04/2012 10:31, Richard
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
On 14 Apr 2012, at 16:47, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote:
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
UHJ is simple and convenient, because people can buy it as a regular stereo
track like the rest of the music. No pop-up with a choice: stereo or surround
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
and then there might be a few issues. (Mathematically-logically, it is
impossible to press 3 channels into 2. You will have some artefacts if presenting
surround sound in just 2-channels.)
The artefacts are not significant. They are certainly less of an
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
Did I say anything different? The thing is FOA sounds just fine with 4 speakers, and 4 decent speakers are a
lot more affordable than 6, 8, or more decent speakers. The way the world economy is going (stagnant wages
combined with inflation in the rich countries,
The solution to establish any mass market for surround would be
obviously to look into better playback via headphones.
(binaural, 5.1, FOA, .AMB, etc.)
Listening via (4-x) speakers at home would be higher en.
Motion-compensated playback is possible nowadays. Many devices have
motion sensors.
This is getting rather off-topic, but...
On 15 Apr 2012, at 23:02, Robert Greene gre...@math.ucla.edu wrote:
This is very unlikely to be true, that one can justify
getting a new TV to save electricity for the sake of the world.
To save on your own bills will also take a very long time.
Paul Hodges wrote:
--On 13 April 2012 03:08 +0100 Stefan Schreiber
st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote:
I am not sure that any form of surround will make it into the home,
I have quite a lot of commercial surround music recordings, on 5.1
media. However, because of my recording activities, my
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
UHJ is simple and convenient, because people can buy it as a regular stereo
track like the rest of the music. No pop-up with a choice: stereo or surround
version, no playlists where one has to make sure the stereo version ends up on
the iPod, and the surround
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
So who cares about bandwidth and storage? But even if these other issues were
moot, bandwidth and storage remain at a premium, because my iPad holds only
64GB, and the iPhone's music download over 3G or 4G has a rather hefty price
tag.
Yes, but your next iPad
Robert Greene wrote:
I was not objecting to high order for production.
But it is never going to fly in playback terms.
Everyone takes for granted (I assume) that
people can and often do things to make recordings
that do not happen at the playback end.
(How many consumers know Protools?)
That
Hi,
Generally I totally agree with Ronald C.F. Antony and Robert Greene.
Ambisonics is useful and pleasing, even at first order. Until that
gets out of the starting blocks into more widespread use it will
remain a minority pursuit. I think all on this list would agree that
this is
On 14 Apr 2012, at 16:47, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote:
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
UHJ is simple and convenient, because people can buy it as a regular stereo
track like the rest of the music. No pop-up with a choice: stereo or
surround version, no playlists where one has
can a tetrahedral mic be used to create a room (correction) impulse response
in B format? and how?
Yes.
I can make a sensible attempt today for an Ambi rig spaced away from the walls
as the HiFi pundits and other gurus have mandated for years. This however has
near zero Wife Acceptance
--On 13 April 2012 03:08 +0100 Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt
wrote:
I am not sure that any form of surround will make it into the home,
I have quite a lot of commercial surround music recordings, on 5.1 media.
However, because of my recording activities, my surround reproduction
Me for one.
Steve
On 13 Apr 2012, at 08:37, Paul Hodges wrote:
Actually, I'd be interested to know how many people on this list
listen to surround recordings on a surround system for simple
pleasure, as opposed to in the lab or as part of specific
investigations of the process.
Paul
On 13/04/2012 09:07, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 04/13/2012 03:49 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
While the mode of expression is even more emphatic
than my own, RCFA is to my mind right all up
and down the line. Talking about 3rd order is
just castles in the air. As a theoretical mathematician,
I
On 13/04/2012 03:08, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
..
If you promote G format, 99% would see and listen to this as a 5.1
surround file. (An 99% would listen to an UHJ as a stereo file, cos
there are really very few decoders around. In fact, 5.1 seems to be way
more mainstream than decoded UHJ.)
On 13 Apr 2012, at 04:08, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote:
Steven Dive wrote:
IMHO I can't see how FOA isn't clearly worth promoting along with up to
3rd order G-format decodes for 5.1/7.1 setups for home users. Basically,
get UHJ and, while we are at it, superstereo
On 13 Apr 2012, at 10:07, Jörn Nettingsmeier netti...@stackingdwarves.net
wrote:
On 04/13/2012 03:49 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
While the mode of expression is even more emphatic
than my own, RCFA is to my mind right all up
and down the line. Talking about 3rd order is
just castles in the
As my 'studio' is my spare room in our flat, I have decent set up where I can
use the surround set-up, which Ronald will be pleased to know uses five matched
loudspeakers, an LFE unit and has proper bass management, to listen for both
work and pleasure. I play my SACD recordings on an
At 02:37 13/04/2012, Paul Hodges wrote:
Actually, I'd be interested to know how many people on this list
listen to surround recordings on a surround system for simple
pleasure, as opposed to in the lab or as part of specific
investigations of the process.
I try to do this; but it is not
I disagree with this. I suppose for some things like
pop vocals that do not have a natural acoustic venue
surrounding them, surround is not helpful.
But for large scaled acoustic music like orchestral
music(which of course some people here would
dismiss as a niche market) it really does help
/umashankar
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:40:31 -0700
From: gre...@math.ucla.edu
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
I disagree with this. I suppose for some things like
pop vocals that do not have a natural acoustic venue
surrounding them, surround
Could you explain to me this phrase:
Amibsonics (i.e. FOA) is fabulous for AMBIENCE but, alas, not for MUSIC
(due to the lack of frontal emphasis) and c'mon . . . we all know it.
For one, why would I want frontal emphasis? The whole point of Ambisonics is
that it does NOT have any
I think that the idea that surround is not good enough
for music , good enough to matter, really does
not make sense. This is more or less like restricting
the idea of music to what works well enough in stereo
to be all right. But that is not all music, and indeed
for example it does not include
Folks:
ALL reproduced music is a special effect -- if you wish to hear a
performance, as it was actually played, go to the performance.
MONO is a special effect.
STEREO is a special effect.
SURROUND is a special effect.
MP3 is a special effect.
None of them is a live performance.
Being doctrinaire is really not a substitute for thinking.
Of course no reproduced music at home is going to be
identical to live experience. No one suggested
it was. But one could get closer.
And it is just silly to say go to the performance.
The music played , even in major cities,
is a very
Robert:
Who would have predicted in 1975 the current state of things?
Many did exactly that. In particular, the reality of technology
increasing the productivity of manufacturing such that labor-arbitrage would
come to
dominate global trade and that the post-industrial economies would
I do. I have two classic Ambisonic decoders, a old Meridian in the
sitting room, decoding to 5.1 speakers (the TV shares the speakers), and
an ancient Minim AD10-based system in my office with 4 good speakers
(soon to be extended to a 6-speaker hexagon array).
Both are horizontal-only, obviously;
On 13/04/2012 00:43, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
The cardboard speakers that ship with affordable 5.1 systems are not suitable
for music, and anything halfway acceptable is on a good sale at least
$250/speaker, which means with four speakers you're at or above $1k, add a
decent four channel
I ain't objecting to HOA. I'd love to have a HOA system again for normal
listening; I /have/ heard it and agree it is good. But two things argue
against it: 1.) Cost for a home installation. Despite what I wrote in an
earlier message today, it was hard work to assemble even 8 /good/
speakers
yes indeed. perfect example.
and easily applied to gaming (i use that adjective with tongue
approaching cheek).
imagine the laser quest with HUD in a room, with virtual fighters,
and true sound placement around you. kids would (of all ages) pony up
large money for such an experience.
but for
seva s...@soundcurrent.com wrote:
...
but for me, i'd really like some tools to use in film mixing (even
with the distributed Ls and Rs speakers). anyone on the list care to
tell me what tools might be best, or why it just won't work? the
idea is to simply improve location and immersive
On 12/04/2012 18:31, Martin Leese wrote:
sevas...@soundcurrent.com wrote:
...
but for me, i'd really like some tools to use in film mixing (even
with the distributed Ls and Rs speakers). anyone on the list care to
tell me what tools might be best, or why it just won't work? the
idea is to
On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:27, Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.org wrote:
First order definitely isn't good enough. As long a you insist that
one can't go up in order, just forget about it all.
Tell that Meridian, and all their customers who have enjoyed immensely not only
listening to
On 13/04/2012 12:13 AM, seva wrote:
but for me, i'd really like some tools to use in film mixing (even
with the distributed Ls and Rs speakers). anyone on the list care to
tell me what tools might be best, or why it just won't work? the
idea is to simply improve location and immersive aspects
Meridian may be expensive, too, but at least they are sticking with
Ambisonics. Full horizontal 1st order B-format is now included in
their decoders, as well as UHJ, superstereo and Trifield. Oh, and I'm
a Meridian customer enjoying one of the few (only?) current domestic
ambisonic
On 12 Apr 2012, at 23:05, Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:47:04PM +0200, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:27, Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.org wrote:
First order definitely isn't good enough. As long a you insist that
one can't go up
On 13 Apr 2012, at 00:53, Steven Dive stevend...@mac.com wrote:
IMHO I can't see how FOA isn't clearly worth promoting [...] Basically, get
UHJ and, while we are at it, superstereo into people's homes, then get on
with full 1st and higher orders.
Amen. Can't feed a baby with a steak.
Steven Dive wrote:
IMHO I can't see how FOA isn't clearly worth promoting along with up
to 3rd order G-format decodes for 5.1/7.1 setups for home users.
Basically, get UHJ and, while we are at it, superstereo into people's
homes, then get on with full 1st and higher orders.
Steve
]
On Behalf Of Dave Malham
Sent: 03 April 2012 09:49
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Hi Robert,
Umm - I was making exactly the opposite point - invented in the
16th century makes it, as far as music is concerned, a very new
concept. On the other hand
...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu]
On Behalf Of Dave Malham
Sent: 03 April 2012 09:49
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Hi Robert,
Umm - I was making exactly the opposite point - invented in the
16th century makes it, as far
Stefan/Robert/et al:
Right on! Apple clearly wants to take over the world.
Not quite. Apple is in fact very pleased to be a *minority* market-share
holder -- as it is in everything except iTunes and iPads (for the moment)
-- just as long as it gets UNNATURAL margins from its products.
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
There was once a slim chance of getting Apple to move on Ambisonics, as both
some fundamental interest by some of Apple's CoreAudio group and relentless
lobbying by an unnamed list member in an unnamed Apple product beta test group
produced a slight opening of
newme...@aol.com wrote:
Ronald:
Whiz-bang demos won't make any difference, but
adoption by Apple's iTunes Store, or something like
that would make a difference.
Very interesting! Does iTunes currently support multi-channel audio
(other than on purchased movies)?
As best I can
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
The Ambisonic community keeps shooting itself in the foot, because they can't
accept that OK is better than nothing, and that once OK is the accepted
standard, one can then incrementally push for higher-order extensions to an
already existing infrastructure.
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
The problem is: who still needs hardware? Unless it's incorporated into
something like an Oppo DVD/BD player, which hooks up directly to a power amp,
the hardware of choice is something like an AppleTV that gets its data stream
from a computer server, i.e. iTunes.
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
Again, it's FUD when people think Apple is needlessly proprietary. As
a matter of fact, when it comes to standards Apple does more to push
them than just about any other force in the market. Others push things
like Flash,
Think again of Blu-Ray (movie) support
Unless of course they publish a file format for it
Want a minimal and purposely highly (even overtly) extensible one? That
I can design. In fact I've meant to do something like this from teenage
up. :)
Please do!
A group of us proposed a CAF based file format at Graz (in 2009)
The 2011 paper by Nachbar, et al, ambiX - A Suggested Ambisonics
Format, specifies SN3D as the normalization scheme. (see eqn 3 in
section 2.1, The normalization that seems most agreeable is SN3D...)
The papers are here
http://ambisonics.iem.at/proceedings-of-the-ambisonics-symposium-2011
--
Thanks the correction.
Yes, the move was N3D _to_ SN3D.
Three years on from the original proposal and one on from
the improvements, hopefully this is stable ( ... unless there
any seismic improvemnts at York ???).
Michael
The 2011 paper by Nachbar, et al, ambiX - A Suggested Ambisonics
Ten days ago, I made an archive recording of Birmingham Opera's presentation of
Jonathan Dove's new work, Life Is A Dream at a disused factory: the orchestra
were in a fixed position, but the performers, including a 100-strong amateur
chorus, and the audience, moved around the space. I was very
Hi Robert,
Umm - I was making exactly the opposite point - invented in the
16th century makes it, as far as music is concerned, a very new
concept. On the other hand,when talking about acoustic _concert_
music, it's almost tautologous that they are frontally presented,
because the whole
On 2 Apr 2012, at 23:48, newme...@aol.com wrote:
No whiz-bang demos will make any difference! Ambisonics is what people
are doing on this list and that's just as it should be -- PLAYING with
*sound* with our friends!
Whiz-bang demos won't make any difference, but adoption by Apple's
09:49
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Hi Robert,
Umm - I was making exactly the opposite point - invented in the
16th century makes it, as far as music is concerned, a very new
concept. On the other hand,when talking about acoustic _concert_
music
Ronald:
Whiz-bang demos won't make any difference, but
adoption by Apple's iTunes Store, or something like
that would make a difference.
Very interesting! Does iTunes currently support multi-channel audio
(other than on purchased movies)?
As best I can tell, they do not. Why would
On 3 Apr 2012, at 16:52, newme...@aol.com wrote:
Ronald:
Whiz-bang demos won't make any difference, but
adoption by Apple's iTunes Store, or something like
that would make a difference.
Very interesting! Does iTunes currently support multi-channel audio
(other than on purchased
[mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu]
On Behalf Of Dave Malham
Sent: 03 April 2012 09:49
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Hi Robert,
Umm - I was making exactly the opposite point - invented in the
16th century makes it, as far as music is concerned
I would fear an applelization of ambisonics. Apple could impose its
own ok format (probably as a CAF chunk specification) with patents
and lock-ins, because it's a common practice in the audio industry. Not
everything in this world needs to be mainstream (but that's just my
opinion).
Ronald C.F.
group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Hi Robert,
Umm - I was making exactly the opposite point - invented in the
16th century makes it, as far as music is concerned, a very new
concept. On the other hand,when talking about acoustic _concert_
music, it's almost tautologous
I agree. My appeal for material to listen to
was not intended as a call to get Apple to take
over. The blood curdles.
Robert
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012, Marc Lavall?e wrote:
I would fear an applelization of ambisonics. Apple could impose its
own ok format (probably as a CAF chunk specification) with
On 3 Apr 2012, at 18:03, Marc Lavallée m...@hacklava.net wrote:
I would fear an applelization of ambisonics. Apple could impose its
own ok format (probably as a CAF chunk specification) with patents
and lock-ins, because it's a common practice in the audio industry. Not
everything in this
] OT: Spatial music
Apple has no history of pushing proprietary file formats, except for DRM.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Well, we don't need to get hyper-paranoid about it. Apple have defined
channel IDs for WXYZ, which goes no further than make it possible to
create a 1st-order CAF file. CAF is not closed, the spec is fully open
and documented. It is supported in libsndfile (along with AMB), among
other things.
]
On
Behalf Of Ronald C.F. Antony
Sent: 03 April 2012 20:06
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Apple has no history of pushing proprietary file formats, except for DRM.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound
On 3 Apr 2012, at 21:26, Rev Tony Newnham revtonynewn...@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
What about Apple lossless compression, Quicktime - and so on?
Apple has no history of pushing proprietary file formats, except for DRM.
Apple Lossless is fully published:
http://alac.macosforge.org/
It's
On 3 Apr 2012, at 22:15, Richard Dobson richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
The Apple lossless codec was made open-source last year.
Some people might as: why was it not published earlier?
To that I'd answer:
- legal issues: a company like Apple has huge potential legal liabilities.
On 2012-04-03, Richard Dobson wrote:
Well, we don't need to get hyper-paranoid about it. Apple have defined
channel IDs for WXYZ, which goes no further than make it possible to
create a 1st-order CAF file.
Agreed. And whatever ambisonic related patents there are for first
order, they will
On 04/04/2012 00:13, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2012-04-03, Richard Dobson wrote:
Well, we don't need to get hyper-paranoid about it. Apple have defined
channel IDs for WXYZ, which goes no further than make it possible to
create a 1st-order CAF file.
Agreed. And whatever ambisonic related
At 08:49 03/04/2012, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
Frankly, I have ZERO interest in 2nd and higher-order Ambisonics,
because anything beyond a 5.1/4.0 setup is impractical in any home
listening environment for 90%+ of consumers, particularly if the
speakers and amps are supposed to be of a quality
On 04/04/2012 00:13, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
..
So why *not* do it, since it's really, really good even on the minimum
four speakers?
Good question. The answer is always given that first order is not good
enough. The perfect really is the enemy of the good, or the better. You
could call it
On 04/04/2012 00:54, Marc Lavallée wrote:
The CAF format is not patented, but there are patented file formats
like GIF, ASF or PDF.
Ah yes, I suppose those are the exceptions that prove the rule.
The general issue arises when a file format pretends to be a container
format but in fact
On 4 Apr 2012, at 01:13, Sampo Syreeni de...@iki.fi wrote:
Eric, could you tell us a little bit about the patent status of the CAF
implementation within libsndfile? And while we're at it, what would be tha
chance of getting some newer, purely open source format into the library, if
coded
Right on - as I've said before, frontal music is largely a development of 16th century Western
civilisation and is not universal, even now.
By the way, be careful about the Gabrielli's in St. Marks - there is at least some evidence that
separate choirs singing antiphonally were _not _used at
It may be old but it is still all but universal
in acoustic concert music.
I think it is disingenuous to say that it is not.
How many symphony concerts have you been to
recently where the orchestra surrounded the audience.
The other way around, sure.
But I think this is just not true, that music
The orchestra may not be around the audience, but the ambience around the
audience counts for quite a bit. If we heard a flat, frontal only image in
concert, I would guess that even people without any surround sound exposure
would find this acceptable. Just because a body isn't behind you, it
THis is of course exactly what I said! That surround is good
for ambience. That was my whole point in fact--that
if ambience is what you want and of course for concert
music it is what you want, then Ambisonics with its
emphasis on homogeneity is going to a lot of trouble
for something that can
On 02/04/2012 16:34, Robert Greene wrote:
It may be old but it is still all but universal
in acoustic concert music.
Maybe; but acoustic concert music is not the universe. But I can well
see that the prevailing assumption on this list is that Ambisonics is
only relevant to the reproduction
Part of the point must surely be to reach the public
eventually? Or is that somehow sort of declasse?
Robert
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Richard Dobson wrote:
On 02/04/2012 16:34, Robert Greene wrote:
It may be old but it is still all but universal
in acoustic concert music.
Maybe; but acoustic
Incidentally, I may come across as interested
only in classical music(true) but popular
music is the same way. Anyone watch the Country Music
awards show(you cannot get more grass roots popular than that).
See a lot of country music singers doing antiphonal calling
from all over the auditorium?
Richard:
So, what ~is~ the point of this list, exactly?
To discuss the opportunity to PLAY with *sound* with our friends in a
DIGITAL world!
Mass-markets (i.e. programming large numbers of people who you will
never know) come from a different era -- the electric media era *before*
This sounds plausible except that it is clearly completely
wrong. Hunger Games has grossed about one quarter billion
dollars in a few weeks worldwide. Don't talk about small
taking over!
Small is there, all right. But large is still there, too.
Taylor Swift's Speak Now sold over a million in the
On 2 Apr 2012, at 20:53, newme...@aol.com wrote:
But, in the context of this list and this thread, these larger forces
must also be taken into account -- which, ultimately, lead to the perfectly
understandable reasons why Ambisonics could never and should never become a
mass-market
Ronald:
I tend to disagree, because there is a difference between technology and
content.
Ah but we AGREE! Sorry to be (partly) cliched here but consider the
*full* statement -- the medium is the message . . . and the USER is the
content!
That second part is almost always left off --
At 10:34 02/04/2012, Robert Greene wrote:
It may be old but it is still all but universal
in acoustic concert music.
I think it is disingenuous to say that it is not.
How many symphony concerts have you been to
recently where the orchestra surrounded the audience.
The other way around, sure.
But
Two weeks ago, I saw a performance of Répons by Boulez. It was a
canadian première, 30 years after its creation. The audience surrounded
the orchestra, and six percussion instruments surrounded the audience,
along with 6 speakers. It was happening in a very large room (an old
boat factory), so
--On 31 March 2012 18:34 -0700 Robert Greene gre...@math.ucla.edu wrote:
Of course music exists that is not in front. But the vast bulk of
concert music is not like that.
Sure; but what proportion of music are we happy to be unable to reproduce
properly? My organ music (admittedly as much
On Sun, April 1, 2012 5:20 am, Paul Hodges wrote:
Sure; but what proportion of music are we happy to be unable to reproduce
properly? My organ music (admittedly as much as 20% of my listening) was a
trivial example - and it's only in combination with other things that it
becomes spatially
Hi
A pity the website is not easier to navigate
Yes, they have made it as difficult as possible..
Here is a more clear site of the Immortal Nysted record:
http://www.2l.musiconline.no/shop/displayAlbum.asp?id=29968
The last track, Immortal Bach is one of the best 5.0 recordings I have
ever
89 matches
Mail list logo
