discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] What does a mic with more than 4 channels give you?
I would appreciate an explanation of this. If I may say so, I do not
believe it. There are not enough degrees of freedom to record the transient
arrival times. One only has four degrees of freedom from
Indeed(to SS's message) And real analytic systems
do not exist in the real world. Unless you believe
in complete pre-destination in the religious sense,
that God planned everything infinitely long ago
and arranged that things were then what they would
have to be so that their analytic
Sorry--turns out that that link lets
you read the whole thing(as opposed to the
first page) only if you are a Jstor subscriber.
(Eventually the academic world will
figure out that all information ought
to be public access--but not yet apparently)_
Anyone who finds the first page interesting
can
Actually take my crack back--you can read it
for free. You just cannot download it for free
(exotic yes? Tree in forest etc)
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2695796?uid=3739560uid=2134uid=2129uid=2uid=70uid=4uid=3739256sid=21102208957307
Have fun , if you like it!
Robert
On Sat, 27 Apr
You can publish a final draft of your article on your personal web site.
Consult these links for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_archive
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?issn=0002-9890
http://www.ams.org/publications/authors/ctp
http://www.ams.org/authors/ctp.pdf
--
: [Sursound] What does a mic with more than 4 channels give you?
I would appreciate an explanation of this. If I may say so, I do not believe
it. There are not enough degrees of freedom to record the transient arrival
times. One only has four degrees of freedom from the four microphone pickups
On 26/04/2013 02:33, Robert Greene wrote:
..
No relatively simple physical process produces exactly a correct answer
over a small interval and then suddenly does not over a large interval.
What is a relatively simple physical process in this context?
Optical focus? Tuning of multiple
[mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On
Behalf Of Augustine Leudar
Sent: 26 April 2013 01:41
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] What does a mic with more than 4 channels give you?
no, no its interesting - so you dont want room modes etc . I ask because
although its
...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On
Behalf Of Bo-Erik Sandholm
Sent: 26 April 2013 08:10
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] What does a mic with more than 4 channels give you?
I would like to make the comment that is this part of the discussion we are
well
On 26/04/2013 00:28, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2013-04-25, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
For first order the 'extrapolation' works well up to a distance of
around 1/4 to 1/3 of a wavelength.
So, in English, what your subwoofer plays back is usually cut off at 80
or 120Hz. There the wavelength would
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Sampo Syreeni de...@iki.fi wrote:
On 2013-04-25, Robert Greene wrote
How does anyone think that this is enough to record a soundfield in the
neighborhodd of a point?
It necessarily is if you think purely about the pressure field. There the
pointwise
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 06:33:47PM -0700, Robert Greene wrote:
To my mind it makes not much sense to suppose that the first order
reconstruction is correct in a neighborhood of the listener
but higher order is correct in a larger neighborhood--not literally
correct. This seems
On 2013-04-26, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
(Okay, this one is long and filled with intuition-beyond-verified-math.
Take it with a grain of salt, even if I think there's a point or two
there..)
Nobody claims there's a hard border between the 'correctly
reconstructed' area and the rest. If you're
OK this part I believe! As I recall the original
statement was that in a small area it was correct,
and then it was not. That I found incomprehensible.
But this makes perfect sense of course.
Thanks for the clarification
Robert
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013
On 2013-04-27, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
(And actually doesn't even get solved properly unless you impose such
a cutoff. In most papers that cutoff is imposed by accident by
restricting the analysis to the order of the spherical harmonical
decomposition that the system aims at; bit mistake: in the
On 2013-04-25, Bearcat M. Şándor wrote:
If the 4 channels of a b-format mic give you all you need for the
mathematical computations for 3-D space, why do we have Ambisonic mics
with more than 4 channels and orders with 8, 16 and more channels?
What does having a 4 channel (w, x, y and z) mic
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:50:24PM -0600, Bearcat M. Şándor wrote:
As i'm still learning about Ambisonics (mostly trying to wrap my fuzzy head
around the math), there's something i don't understand.
If the 4 channels of a b-format mic give you all you need for the
mathematical computations
On 2013-04-25, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
For first order the 'extrapolation' works well up to a distance of
around 1/4 to 1/3 of a wavelength.
So, in English, what your subwoofer plays back is usually cut off at 80
or 120Hz. There the wavelength would be a bit over 4 metres to under 3.
The
Thank you both for your answers! That helps a lot. So, what i'm
understanding is that more speakers will give you less 'holes' in the sound
field and more channels will give you a more realistic sound field in a
larger room with more people. So 4-channels would suffice for a few people
in a
On 2013-04-25, Bearcat Şándor wrote:
So, what i'm understanding is that more speakers will give you less
'holes' in the sound field and more channels will give you a more
realistic sound field in a larger room with more people.
Precisely so. There is a bit of funkiness going on with
are there any permanently setup examples of ambisonics anywhere that you
consider well set up - Id be interested in hearing it - genuinely curious
On 26 April 2013 01:47, Sampo Syreeni de...@iki.fi wrote:
A well executed four speaker setup will blow your mind away as far as
surround sound
On 2013-04-26, Augustine Leudar wrote:
are there any permanently setup examples of ambisonics anywhere that
you consider well set up - Id be interested in hearing it - genuinely
curious
Unfortunately I've only ever heard two, and neither was what I'd call a
permanent setup. The first was
On 2013-04-26, Augustine Leudar wrote:
what would be your ideal room shape ?
Something near to but not exactly a reflectionless room. All flat
surfaces (if there are any) at high ratios to each other, plus some
damping (not too much), so that the room response decays naturally, but
very
All flat surfaces (if there are any) at high ratios to each other, -- do
you mean very irregular sort of walls ? I guess domes are bad right ?
On 26 April 2013 02:16, Sampo Syreeni de...@iki.fi wrote:
On 2013-04-26, Augustine Leudar wrote:
what would be your ideal room shape ?
Something
On 2013-04-26, Augustine Leudar wrote:
All flat surfaces (if there are any) at high ratios to each other, -- do
you mean very irregular sort of walls ? I guess domes are bad right ?
A fully reflectionless room has all of the flat surfaces at irrational
ratios towards each other, so that no
no, no its interesting - so you dont want room modes etc . I ask because
although its ridiculous tor try and build anything in the west - in Peru
the opportunity exists of building almost any shaped room you like for
under a 500 euro - they use adobe with a nice finish. I always though I
might
On 2013-04-26, Augustine Leudar wrote:
no, no its interesting - so you dont want room modes etc .
I want them, but I want them controlled. Not controlled as in we just
sort of mitigated something somewhere. I want them controlled like
blood, and guts, and the Final Solution.
I ask because
I think one can figure out something here without too much mathematical
analysis about what is missing in first order.
It is similar to what is missing in Blumlein stereo.
Namely if a hard transient occurs say 30 degrees left of center,
the associated wavefront arrives at the left ear before
it
On 2013-04-25, Robert Greene wrote:
Namely if a hard transient occurs say 30 degrees left of center, the
associated wavefront arrives at the left ear before it arrives at the
right ear.
Except that what arrives at your ears at first order has absolutely
nothing to do with a planar
At 18:28 25-04-13, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
At middle C, 440Hz, you're down to under 20 centimetres. At 1kHz
which is about at the center of our most acute hearing, it's only
8-9 centimetres.
Just for the record 440Hz is nearer to the A above middle C, and the
centre of our most acute hearing
I would appreciate an explanation of this. If I may say so, I do
not believe it. There are not enough degrees of freedom to record
the transient arrival times. One only has four degrees of freedom
from the four microphone pickups.
How does anyone think that this is enough to record a soundfield
At 20:35 25-04-13, Robert Greene wrote:
Not nearer--exactly! 440 A is the standard pitch in the Western world,
though orchestra often shade this up a bit. Middle C is around 261.6 Hz
I wrote that tongue in cheek... Most orchestras in Europe are
considerably sharper and sound to my ears
On 2013-04-25, Robert Greene wrote:
I would appreciate an explanation of this. If I may say so, I do not
believe it. There are not enough degrees of freedom to record the
transient arrival times. One only has four degrees of freedom from the
four microphone pickups.
One has only four
On 2013-04-26, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
One has only four degrees. However they are fully independent from
each other. In a planewave you know they will always arrive at
quadrature. At the same time first order reproduction always mixes in
a standing wave component in addition to the propagating
34 matches
Mail list logo
