Dave Hunt
From: Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt>
Date: 31 March 2016 17:20:20 BDT
To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT Stereo stage width - Was: Static stereo
source in rotating soundfield, possible?
Aaron Heller wrote:
Marc L
Aaron Heller wrote
> Marc Lavall, Eric Benjamin, and I put together a Trifield (three speaker
> stereo) plugin and demo'ed it a Burning Amp last fall. It is hosted at
https://bitbucket.org/ajheller/trifield/overview
> There are also some plots that use Gerzon velocity and energy localization
Hi,
I'll not copy what has already been said, as this discussion has got
fairly lengthy.
Perhaps "normal" stereo with speakers at plus and minus 30 degrees
came about from a variety of things.
The preponderance of control rooms that are rectangular, with
speakers mounted near the
Aaron Heller wrote:
Marc Lavallée, Eric Benjamin, and I put together a Trifield (three speaker
stereo) plugin and demo'ed it a Burning Amp last fall. It is hosted at
https://bitbucket.org/ajheller/trifield/overview
It is written in Faust so can be compiled for a number of different hosts,
Marc Lavallée, Eric Benjamin, and I put together a Trifield (three speaker
stereo) plugin and demo'ed it a Burning Amp last fall. It is hosted at
https://bitbucket.org/ajheller/trifield/overview
It is written in Faust so can be compiled for a number of different hosts,
but we provide
David Pickett wrote:
Michael Gerzon, "Three Channels. The Future of Stereo?", Studio
Sound, vol. 32
no. 6, pp. 112, 114, 117, 118, 120, 123 & 125 (1990 June) (An account of
Ambisonic ideas applied to 3-speaker frontal stereo.)
http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Resources/Three_channels_A4.pdf
David Pickett wrote:
At 14:27 30-03-16, Peter Lennox wrote:
>
>At the back of my mind, the4re's something nagging me - I'm sure I've
>read of someone advocating 3 speaker stereo (is that similar to
>trifield?) and finding that a wider spacing of LR speakers was
>desirable? - makes sense.
I believe the first effort to work around this with loudspeaker design
called was the BBC dip.
In sweden the stereo error compensation in speaker design is a well known
factor, at least the readers of the forum www.faktiskt.as :-)
and I believe not many of the better loudspeakers in the world are
93155
From: Sursound [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Eero Aro
[eero@dlc.fi]
Sent: 30 March 2016 20:09
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT Stereo stage width - Was: Static stereo source in
rotating soundfield, possible?
Thank you Eric. That sums it gre
At 20:44 30-03-16, Eric Benjamin wrote:
>I have two observations from my own research. The first is that the
>ear signals resulting from equal signals at the loudspeakers is not
>the same as for a real source located between the loudspeakers. The
>second is that, if I measure the ear signals for
Thank you Eric. That sums it great up, and you give the sources of the
researches.
Finally some facts to the table.
Some of those papers are in the Motherlode, but by which names?
Eero
30.3.2016, 21:44, Eric Benjamin kirjoitti:
There are several classic papers on 2-channel stereo
The interesting case here is panned sources between the speakers; where
'equal power" implies the sound follows an arc of a circle centred on
the listener (constant distance = constant power etc). However, the
intuitive/vernacular understanding of panning is a linear path between
the speakers
At 14:27 30-03-16, Peter Lennox wrote:
>
>At the back of my mind, the4re's something nagging me - I'm sure I've
>read of someone advocating 3 speaker stereo (is that similar to
>trifield?) and finding that a wider spacing of LR speakers was
>desirable? - makes sense.
Michael Gerzon, "Three
@dlc.fi; Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT Stereo stage width - Was: Static stereo source in
rotating soundfield, possible?
At 11:54 30-03-16, Eero Aro wrote:
>If 90 degrees between the speakers works for you, fine. Most likely the
&g
At 11:54 30-03-16, Eero Aro wrote:
If 90 degrees between the speakers works for you, fine. Most likely
the commercial
recordings you are listening to, have been monitored with an 60
degrees angle, as
that has been the "standard" setup in studios for more than 60
years. It didn't happen
when
David Pickett wrote:
Somebody else said that he has encountered people who have difficulties
with stereo.
I said that I have met during the three decades or so, students who perceive
a stereo image reproduced by two loudpeakers in different ways.
Most people seem to integrate a stereo sound
"normal stereo" is still
> a mystery to me.
>
> Ciao,
>
> Dave Hunt
>
> > From: Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt>
> > Date: 28 March 2016 19:07:14 BDT
> > To: eero@dlc.fi, Surround Sound discussion group
> > <sursound@music.vt
At 20:51 29-03-16, Peter Lennox wrote:
>wasn't the original conception for stereo = 90 degrees, but 'hole in
>the middle' effects led to standardising on the narrower figure?
There seemd to be an echo in here!
Running down the email and deleting as I go, I come to:
>> From: David Pickett
From: Sursound [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Hunt
[davehuntau...@btinternet.com]
Sent: 29 March 2016 19:02
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT Stereo stage width - Was: Static stereo source in
rotating soundfield, possible?
Hi
on group
<sursound@music.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT Stereo stage width - Was: Static stereo
source in rotating soundfield, possible?
Eero Aro wrote:
Hi Dave
I have a feeling that this subject has been discussed in Sursound
many times
before.
The point in my reply was that when yo
The problem with speakers at +/- 45 degrees is that one needs a wide
room if one is to sit at a decent distance from them. However, it
can be impressive. I have found the effect even better if a centre
speaker of the same typeis added. Gerzon gave the ratios necessary
for matrixing 2
Eero Aro wrote:
Hi Dave
I have a feeling that this subject has been discussed in Sursound many
times
before.
The point in my reply was that when you use two channel stereo in the
surround sound field, a wide angle between the virtual loudspeakers
doesn't
work too well.
I don't know where
Hi Dave
I have a feeling that this subject has been discussed in Sursound many times
before.
The point in my reply was that when you use two channel stereo in the
surround sound field, a wide angle between the virtual loudspeakers doesn't
work too well.
I don't know where the 60 degrees angle
23 matches
Mail list logo
