Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Peter Lennox wrote: Basically, stereo intrinsically features cross-talk; listening over headphones removes this. So putting it back in, via some kind of Blumlein shuffling, fixes that. if you want externalisation, you need some room effect (artificially generated or whatever). So you can have 'stereo-via-headphones', it's just a case of subtlety. Dr Peter Lennox School of Technology, Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology University of Derby, UK e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk t: 01332 593155 Problems of listening to stereo via headphones is not just related to crosstalk. (Which might not be some natural thing in the first place.) Binaural representation suffers because of HRTF questions, head movements, maybe other factors. In fact, aren't most problems are already discussed/solved, but awaiting commercialization? Hint: http://smyth-research.com/ We had this discussion before, at least I have some strange déjà vu feeling here... :-) Best, Stefan Schreiber To: Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA On 1 Nov 2012, at 23:07, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: The next and valid question is if stereo via headphones actually works so well at all... (Many people have problems, such as in-head effects, lack of perceived real space, etc.) If you would fix these problems, then you could probably also reproduce convincing binaural surround via headphones. Of course stereo doesn't work through headphones! That's why there's a difference between stereo and binaural, because stereo assumes speakers being IN FRONT of the listener, not perpendicularly left and right of the listener. That's why there are head phone processors which in essence transcode regular stereo into binaural stereo. Sennheiser sold such a processor for a while, I still have it somewhere. It worked rather well, except that the electronics were of inferior quality using cheap, low-power components. So then I had the choice of listening to super-clean audio from my Metric Halo headphone output, but have in head stereo, or to listen to grungy, muddy sound, with the proper sound stage. That's also EXACTLY why UHJ needs to be decoded to binaural, because being stereo compatible, without decoding it works just as well or just as badly as regular stereo works on headphones. A mobile device music player app can solve these issues for both UHJ and regular stereo by doing the proper binaural decoding/transcoding, and since it's an app and not a hardwired appliance, it's easy to let users select different HRTF in the app's preferences, or even let advanced users load personalized HRTFs. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound _ The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this email was sent to you in error, please notify the sender and delete this email. Please direct any concerns to info...@derby.ac.uk. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
--On 02 November 2012 02:30 + Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: - Windows NT is partially based on C++. I don't see based on - written in is not the same. NT was a rename of OS/2 v3, the version being re-engineered for cross-machine compatibility by MS (while IBM were making v2); hence the use throughout of a high-level language. Therefore Microsoft was earlier in the application of OOP languages then most other companies, OS/2 v2 already had a fully O-O desktop (the Workplace Shell) written by IBM - to this day Windows isn't as purely O-O on the desktop. Many people see the start of O-O going back to Simula-67 anyway. Paul -- Paul Hodges ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
On 1 Nov 2012, at 17:00, sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu wrote: i am wondering if we cannot produce HRTFs the way the first produced spectacle lenses. one needs to look at the range of variations in HRTFs and what actually varies from person to person and produce a dozen or so hrtfs. people can just try them and stick with the one they like. a real time, streaming b-format to binaural programme into which the hrtf can be plugged in is all that will be needed. umashankar That's a great idea, then you could buy +1.00 or -3.50 headphones to suit your ears. And it would give more work to audiologists! We could develop a test soundtrack like the opticians' chart. I have experience though with a soundwalk project in amsterdam where we just chose one sort of headphone (a compromise between sound quality, comfort, robustness price) and mastered all the pieces for that type of headphone and MY ears seeing I was doing the mastering. Generally we get very good reactions to the spatial quality of the sound. The artists tend to use omnis placed in the ears (soundman, DPA 4060) for recording, or synthetically panned binaural (e.g. Logic) and this is often also mixed with normal panpotted stereo and other stereo recording techniques. I've also used some binaural decodes from soundfield mics but I've never been so happy about those. see http://www.soundtrackcity.nl if you're interested. best, Justin Justin Bennett i...@justinbennett.nl http://www.justinbennett.nl NEW RELEASES AND FREE DOWNLOADS FROM http://spore.soundscaper.com ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
On 1 Nov 2012, at 06:24, Peter Lennox p.len...@derby.ac.uk wrote: Download the binaural for binaural use, and the stereo for stereo use? - in fact, instead of trying to make one format fit all - people could just download a folder and extract the ones they needed... That's an academic solution. That's like saying: who needs an ambisonic decoder, just use Bidule, or something like that. We're not talking about how some enthusiast can cobble together a solution, but how a particular technology is made accessible to the masses. It has to be automatic. People don't want to be bothered about which song to choose, just as they don't want to be bothered with selecting an SMTP port for their e-mail client. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Hi On 2 November 2012 03:54, Alexis Shaw alexis.s...@gmail.com wrote: For HRTF based sound, headphones work the best. The HRTF is the solution of the in-head effects. Actually, you simply can't guarantee that. To even get close to guaranteeing that it will work for the majority head tracking is essential, especially with generic HRTF's. Even then, invidualised HRTF's are needed to take it further and _still_ even with all this, without the correct stimulation of other sound perception mechanisms (chest cavity resonances etc) it can still fall down because this lack is a cue to the brain that there is no real external sound field - so it must be internal... Dave On 2 November 2012 14:07, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: Richard Dobson wrote: The same is true of stereo too. There are people who just don't hear stereo as stereo. If the response to lack of perfection is always do nothing, nothing will be done. Alternatively, if you use those generic HRTFs, at least ~some~ people will be happy. BTW, the AES has just announced a project AES-X212 to develop a file format for HRTF data; The format will be designed to include source materials from different HRTF databases. See: http://www.aes.org/standards/**meetings/new-projects.cfmhttp://www.aes.org/standards/meetings/new-projects.cfm Richard Dobson The next and valid question is if stereo via headphones actually works so well at all... (Many people have problems, such as in-head effects, lack of perceived real space, etc.) If you would fix these problems, then you could probably also reproduce convincing binaural surround via headphones. Best, Stefan Schreiber On 31/10/2012 16:38, Martin Leese wrote: Peter Lennox wrote: Yes but...why not simply release stuff for mobiles in a generic binaural - skip the uhj altogether? Please, what is this generic binaural? Everyone has an individual HRTF. If you release binaural recording using a generic HRTF then it will work for some and not for others. There have been attempts to systemise HRTFs, so that you set about four different parameters to produce an individual HRTF, but they never caught on. Regards, Martin __**_ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursoundhttps://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound __**_ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursoundhttps://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121102/11ca3cdc/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University, so this disclaimer is redundant These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer Dave Malham Ex-Music Research Centre Department of Music The University of York Heslington York YO10 5DD UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
On 1 Nov 2012, at 22:30, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: Object Oriented programming was available 1978/1980. It wasn't used until NeXT started pushing ObjC and SUN tried to rip it off unsuccessfully with Java (which barely qualifies because for several iterations of the language it missed key elements of a real OOP language), and despite NeXT, and even despite OS X, OOP languages became only truly mainstream with later iterations of the Java language and with the success of iOS devices and the resulting surge in ObjC programming. (And even ppl now use OOP languages, a lot of the code written is bad, and thus doesn't count as OOP.) It wasn't used until NeXT started pushing ObjC and SUN tried to rip it off unsuccessfully with Java Even if I agree with some of your opinions, this is utter nonsense. - Java is a highly successful programing language, namely for Internet and business applications. And all that happened MUCH AFTER NEXT. Remember, the WWW was invented on the NeXT, and it was invented only, because OOP gave TBL enough leverage to write a web server and client in reasonably short time. Java wasn't even conceived until well after the web had taken off. So it's very accurate to say that OOP hasn't taken off until after later iterations of the Java language, because the first few barely even qualified to be called OOP languages. The VM model in a C based language was a major innovation, now copied by JavaScript/ECMA Script etc. The VM model has NOTHING to do with OOP. - C++ existed before NeXT. C++ is NOT an OOP language, it's a class-based language, but OOP requires dynamicism and run-time message lookup and binding, which C++ does not have. OOP also requires decent reflection, which Java only gained after several iterations of language revisions (and which is still somewhat clumsy). If you want to know what OOP is, you have to use the definition of the inventor of the concept, Alan Kay, and not the definition of the people who don't understand the concept and try to peddle their language as something it is not, because it happens to be a buzz-word at the time. In case you doubt me, you may want to read e.g. this here: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AlanKaysDefinitionOfObjectOriented - Windows NT is partially based on C++. Therefore Microsoft was earlier in the application of OOP languages then most other companies, including Apple at this time. The choice of language doesn't imply the choice of a programming model, and again, C++ is not an OOPL. - NeXT lended heavily on existing stuff, such as the MACH kernel and BSD Unix. So what? Just about everything that made the NeXT unique, aside from DPS, was OOP, in particular all the frameworks which are now in their revised versions called Cocoa, Cocoa-Touch, etc. MACH is an OS kernel, it has nothing to do with OOP and OOPL. You are too sure of your theories, see above. You counter arguments go totally past the point, because they are about things I wasn't even talking about. Consumers will not ask for technical things, they will ask for a repeat of an experience they had sometime and thought was great. That's how I got introduced to Ambisonics: heard a UHJ Nimbus recording on a Meridian system. Meridian is truly a high end company, hardly consumer stuff. That's like saying Mercedes isn't a consumer company because their cars cost more than Hundays's. There are very few things, and in particular no relevant concepts, that Meridian uses that couldn't be just as well be used by Onkyo, Sony, etc. except that they choose not to implement Ambisonics decoding in their products. I wasn't sold on Ambisonics because a Meridian system sounded so much better than my own system, but because Ambisonics on a Meridian system sounded so much better than Stereo on the exactly same Meridian system in the exactly same playback environment. And that's a testament to how incredibly useful even lowly UHJ encoded Ambisonics is. Except it was so bad I never wanted to go back to Stereo again. So I want others to have similarly horrible experiences, such that they, too, don't want stereo anymore, either. UHJ is good enough for a start, a binaural decoder could easily become part of iOS and Android devices by means of a custom playback app. Instant surround sound access for the masses. And this is the point: IF a binaural system works, you can include 5.1 -- binaural (or HOA -- binaural) decoding. Both source formats are in many senses better than UHJ surround... ;-) Except that 5.1 uses a lot more storage, and if you have storage limited portable devices that's HUGE. And also most 5.1 stuff SUCKS, because it's not G-format, ambisonically mixed surround, but some pan-pot abomination that is horrible even on a perfect 5.1 setup. HOA uses even more storage. These suggestions simply prove how out of touch with the market
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
On 1 Nov 2012, at 22:47, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: You're angry at reality. I'm not making these things up, nor do they constitute my ideal world. But I'm willing to face the reality and ask which small steps can we take to get from here to there by infiltrating what actual consumers use, rather than being preoccupied with lab experiments and boutique recordings that cater to a bunch of enthusiasts. Nobody who matters (i.e. average consumer) is interested in a dorky head-tracking headphone setup that makes him/her look like a Borg from Star Trek. I think this is just half-educated. Wasn't the success of the Wii console based on some gyroscope/motion sensors, which are build in into the remote controller? Don't have even many mobile phones and laptops motion controllers? And what does that do for head-tracking? Do you want to carry your iPhone on some head-mount? Looks really stylish, will be a huge market success... NOT! Headphones are accessories that need to be fashionable, because people know they are going to be seen in public wearing them. That's reality. Get used to it. That's why stuff like Beats by Dr. Dre sells (cool DJs have them) and nobody would want to be caught dead wearing top-notch studio head phones. Thanks for the education! :-D Bayer and Sennheiser still sell more stuff than Dr. Dre. You are welcome to buy fashionble products by Dr. Dre, Apfel, or whoever is currently in fashion. It's not about me, I listen to music on my HD650, but I'm not the market, I'm an enthusiast. But unlike you, I realize that this isn't the norm, nor would I wear the HD650 while jogging or working out in the gym, and like it or not, that's where people tend to listen to music. Don't hold your breath for a fashionable Apple TV, though. (I mean the iTV, BTW. Apple didn't figure out yet what this actually is all about...:-X ) I didn't bring that up, you did, but we'll see in the future if they figured it out or not. But even their current set top box sells in the millions, because it has tangible benefits in a networked home, allowing content to be streamed all over the house. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
On 1 Nov 2012, at 23:07, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: The next and valid question is if stereo via headphones actually works so well at all... (Many people have problems, such as in-head effects, lack of perceived real space, etc.) If you would fix these problems, then you could probably also reproduce convincing binaural surround via headphones. Of course stereo doesn't work through headphones! That's why there's a difference between stereo and binaural, because stereo assumes speakers being IN FRONT of the listener, not perpendicularly left and right of the listener. That's why there are head phone processors which in essence transcode regular stereo into binaural stereo. Sennheiser sold such a processor for a while, I still have it somewhere. It worked rather well, except that the electronics were of inferior quality using cheap, low-power components. So then I had the choice of listening to super-clean audio from my Metric Halo headphone output, but have in head stereo, or to listen to grungy, muddy sound, with the proper sound stage. That's also EXACTLY why UHJ needs to be decoded to binaural, because being stereo compatible, without decoding it works just as well or just as badly as regular stereo works on headphones. A mobile device music player app can solve these issues for both UHJ and regular stereo by doing the proper binaural decoding/transcoding, and since it's an app and not a hardwired appliance, it's easy to let users select different HRTF in the app's preferences, or even let advanced users load personalized HRTFs. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: Object Oriented programming was available 1978/1980. It wasn't used until NeXT started pushing ObjC and SUN tried to rip it off unsuccessfully with Java (which barely qualifies because for several iterations of the language it missed key elements of a real OOP language), and despite NeXT, and even despite OS X, OOP languages became only truly mainstream with later iterations of the Java language and with the success of iOS devices and the resulting surge in ObjC programming. (And even ppl now use OOP languages, a lot of the code written is bad, and thus doesn't count as OOP.) It wasn't used until NeXT started pushing ObjC and SUN tried to rip it off unsuccessfully with Java Even if I agree with some of your opinions, this is utter nonsense. - Java is a highly successful programing language, namely for Internet and business applications. The VM model in a C based language was a major innovation, now copied by JavaScript/ECMA Script etc. - C++ existed before NeXT. - Windows NT is partially based on C++. Therefore Microsoft was earlier in the application of OOP languages then most other companies, including Apple at this time. - NeXT lended heavily on existing stuff, such as the MACH kernel and BSD Unix. Mach received a major boost in visibility when the Open Software Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_Foundation (OSF) announced they would be hosting future versions of OSF/1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSF/1 on Mach 2.5, and were investigating Mach 3 as well. Mach 2.5 was also selected for the NeXTSTEP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP system and a number of commercial multiprocessor vendors. Mach 3 led to a number of efforts to port other operating systems parts for the microkernel, including IBM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM's Workplace OS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_OS and several efforts by Apple Computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer to build a cross-platform version of the Mac OS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach-like So we're talking about a 30 year delay, and that's with technology that's not even targeted at end users, but at a highly technical audience one would expect to flock to a superior technology. You are too sure of your theories, see above. Consumers will not ask for technical things, they will ask for a repeat of an experience they had sometime and thought was great. That's how I got introduced to Ambisonics: heard a UHJ Nimbus recording on a Meridian system. Meridian is truly a high end company, hardly consumer stuff. Needless to say it was the intolerably bad UHJ with the intolerably horrible 1st order Ambisonics without hight, which is so bad that according to some it should be buried and never ever talked about again. No, but for cinema use they want to write a standard for 3D Audio, probably leading to a mixed approach when things will get final in 2013-2014. Except it was so bad I never wanted to go back to Stereo again. So I want others to have similarly horrible experiences, such that they, too, don't want stereo anymore, either. UHJ is good enough for a start, a binaural decoder could easily become part of iOS and Android devices by means of a custom playback app. Instant surround sound access for the masses. And this is the point: IF a binaural system works, you can include 5.1 -- binaural (or HOA -- binaural) decoding. Both source formats are in many senses better than UHJ surround... ;-) I wasn't at the concert, and 99.99% of listeners weren't there either, and nobody knows or cares if the first violin was indeed 2 feet to the left of where we think it is. But that is not the point or sense of surround. Reveals several wrong assumptions from your part. (A surround recording can sound way more realistic than any stereo recording. The question of exact localization within the recording is for musicians - I am one - probably not the most important issue. It is still utmost important to have a credible soundstage at all, because it helps to separate instruments/voices.) You make my point. UHJ, at least for traditional music that's stage oriented, provides a credible sound stage and realistic ambience. Could it be better, by ditching the matrixing, by going to HOA, etc.? Of course! But that's not the point. The point is, that the infrastructure for UHJ-stereo distribution is here RIGHT NOW, while for anything else it may be there at some indefinite point in the future, provided there is perceived consumer demand for it. WHY are you so keen to hide the surround version in a AAC/UHJ file? I already wrote a long time ago that you would have to check if the combination of lossy compression and a matrix will work well, BTW. (You could have artifacts trough combination of lossy compression and an underspecified channel count.
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: On 29 Oct 2012, at 20:56, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: Oh yes, go to Apple and look if they listen to your ideas, and let others do their stuff instead of doing some promotion for some stylish, fahionable campany offering super slim products. You make my point: they won't listen, at least not at this point in the game. But that's exactly why it's futile to advocate lab type stuff, and stick with what's available to the mass market now. The mass market right now offers exactly two things: a) stereo audio b) custom apps though the various app stores. And that means that any mass market solution must at this point be stereo compatible and may employ a custom playback app made available through the various app store channels. (Samsung and Amazon sell also a lot of smartphones and tablets, by the way. If it i just about numbers, Samsungs sells actually more mobile phones...) I use Apple as an example, because it's the dominant company in this field, while the rest are imitators and followers; not leaders. Who sells more devices also doesn't matter, what matters which devices are used. And if you e.g. look at the web traffic statistics you'll see how clearly Apple dominates that field. Apple is also the company with the bargaining power. So if they see surround as the future, they can make that future happen. Therefore, getting surround sound into their platform by means of a Trojan horse (like e.g. putting UHJ-encoded material into the iTunes store) is a start on that path. I am really angry about these postings. Look for surround in your local Apple store, and if you find somen give us some news about. Otherwise, Apple and their fashionable products are offtopic. (I don't see any relationship to this thread, and even not to this audio list.) You're angry at reality. I'm not making these things up, nor do they constitute my ideal world. But I'm willing to face the reality and ask which small steps can we take to get from here to there by infiltrating what actual consumers use, rather than being preoccupied with lab experiments and boutique recordings that cater to a bunch of enthusiasts. Nobody who matters (i.e. average consumer) is interested in a dorky head-tracking headphone setup that makes him/her look like a Borg from Star Trek. I think this is just half-educated. Wasn't the success of the Wii console based on some gyroscope/motion sensors, which are build in into the remote controller? Don't have even many mobile phones and laptops motion controllers? Headphones are accessories that need to be fashionable, because people know they are going to be seen in public wearing them. That's reality. Get used to it. That's why stuff like Beats by Dr. Dre sells (cool DJs have them) and nobody would want to be caught dead wearing top-notch studio head phones. Ronald Thanks for the education! :-D Bayer and Sennheiser still sell more stuff than Dr. Dre. You are welcome to buy fashionble products by Dr. Dre, Apfel, or whoever is currently in fashion. Don't hold your breath for a fashionable Apple TV, though. (I mean the iTV, BTW. Apple didn't figure out yet what this actually is all about...:-X ) Best, Stefan ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Peter Lennox wrote: Am I missing something? - for mobile use, wouldn't B-format to binaural be better than UHJ? Dr Peter Lennox Yes, but then you didn't need a solution requiring the participation of mighty Apple... ;-) Best, Stefan ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Peter Lennox wrote: Download the binaural for binaural use, and the stereo for stereo use? - in fact, instead of trying to make one format fit all - people could just download a folder and extract the ones they needed... Dr. Peter Lennox I already wrote this. Of course, you put this into a wonderful simple form... :-) +1 Stefan Schreiber P.S.: And if we are already here, many online movies include a stereo and 5.1 version. (So not just DVDs or BDs, also online distribution.) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Richard Dobson wrote: The same is true of stereo too. There are people who just don't hear stereo as stereo. If the response to lack of perfection is always do nothing, nothing will be done. Alternatively, if you use those generic HRTFs, at least ~some~ people will be happy. BTW, the AES has just announced a project AES-X212 to develop a file format for HRTF data; The format will be designed to include source materials from different HRTF databases. See: http://www.aes.org/standards/meetings/new-projects.cfm Richard Dobson The next and valid question is if stereo via headphones actually works so well at all... (Many people have problems, such as in-head effects, lack of perceived real space, etc.) If you would fix these problems, then you could probably also reproduce convincing binaural surround via headphones. Best, Stefan Schreiber On 31/10/2012 16:38, Martin Leese wrote: Peter Lennox wrote: Yes but...why not simply release stuff for mobiles in a generic binaural - skip the uhj altogether? Please, what is this generic binaural? Everyone has an individual HRTF. If you release binaural recording using a generic HRTF then it will work for some and not for others. There have been attempts to systemise HRTFs, so that you set about four different parameters to produce an individual HRTF, but they never caught on. Regards, Martin ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
For HRTF based sound, headphones work the best. The HRTF is the solution of the in-head effects. On 2 November 2012 14:07, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: Richard Dobson wrote: The same is true of stereo too. There are people who just don't hear stereo as stereo. If the response to lack of perfection is always do nothing, nothing will be done. Alternatively, if you use those generic HRTFs, at least ~some~ people will be happy. BTW, the AES has just announced a project AES-X212 to develop a file format for HRTF data; The format will be designed to include source materials from different HRTF databases. See: http://www.aes.org/standards/**meetings/new-projects.cfmhttp://www.aes.org/standards/meetings/new-projects.cfm Richard Dobson The next and valid question is if stereo via headphones actually works so well at all... (Many people have problems, such as in-head effects, lack of perceived real space, etc.) If you would fix these problems, then you could probably also reproduce convincing binaural surround via headphones. Best, Stefan Schreiber On 31/10/2012 16:38, Martin Leese wrote: Peter Lennox wrote: Yes but...why not simply release stuff for mobiles in a generic binaural - skip the uhj altogether? Please, what is this generic binaural? Everyone has an individual HRTF. If you release binaural recording using a generic HRTF then it will work for some and not for others. There have been attempts to systemise HRTFs, so that you set about four different parameters to produce an individual HRTF, but they never caught on. Regards, Martin __**_ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursoundhttps://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound __**_ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursoundhttps://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121102/11ca3cdc/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Yes but...why not simply release stuff for mobiles in a generic binaural - skip the uhj altogether? Dr. Peter Lennox School of Technology, Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology University of Derby, UK e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk t: 01332 593155 -Original Message- From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Ronald C.F. Antony Sent: 30 October 2012 18:14 To: Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA On 30 Oct 2012, at 06:24, Peter Lennox p.len...@derby.ac.uk wrote: Am I missing something? - for mobile use, wouldn't B-format to binaural be better than UHJ? Dr Peter Lennox Of course it would. Do you know of a mobile playback device with multi-channel audio support, multi-channel audio market place, and a binaural decoder? Lacking that, putting UHJ encoded stereo into iTunes, Amazon, CD-Baby, etc. is easy. And an audio playback app with UHJ-to-binaural is easy to place in to the Apple/Android app stores. It's not about technical superiority, but about what can be done in the main stream market place. I'm not interested in lab solutions and technology demonstrations, I'm interested in what works for millions of iOS/Android users RIGHT NOW. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound _ The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this email was sent to you in error, please notify the sender and delete this email. Please direct any concerns to info...@derby.ac.uk. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Peter Lennox wrote: Yes but...why not simply release stuff for mobiles in a generic binaural - skip the uhj altogether? Please, what is this generic binaural? Everyone has an individual HRTF. If you release binaural recording using a generic HRTF then it will work for some and not for others. There have been attempts to systemise HRTFs, so that you set about four different parameters to produce an individual HRTF, but they never caught on. Regards, Martin -- Martin J Leese E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
This is absolutely true. My late first wife heard stereo as two separate speakers no matter how well the speakers worked for others. She liked mono a lot better. Surround sound was a n ightmare from her viewpoint-- all those speakers playing from different directions each on heard individually. She was a person of almost uncanny hearing acuity and resolution for lack of a better word, able to recognize concert halls on recordings in seconds, and hear inner parts of orchestral music amazingly. Conductors would consult her on balance questions when she came to rehearsals of events where I was playing. Audio manufacturers and makers of recordings may have respected my published judgments--but they were terrified of hers made in private though often I quoted her in my reviews, and the makers were duly gratified if she liked something. It might have been that her unusual acuity was in action in her hearing what is of course really there in stereo--two speakers. Anyway, it is really true that if you wait for something that works for everyone, you will wait a very long time! Robert On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Richard Dobson wrote: The same is true of stereo too. There are people who just don't hear stereo as stereo. If the response to lack of perfection is always do nothing, nothing will be done. Alternatively, if you use those generic HRTFs, at least ~some~ people will be happy. BTW, the AES has just announced a project AES-X212 to develop a file format for HRTF data; The format will be designed to include source materials from different HRTF databases. See: http://www.aes.org/standards/meetings/new-projects.cfm Richard Dobson On 31/10/2012 16:38, Martin Leese wrote: Peter Lennox wrote: Yes but...why not simply release stuff for mobiles in a generic binaural - skip the uhj altogether? Please, what is this generic binaural? Everyone has an individual HRTF. If you release binaural recording using a generic HRTF then it will work for some and not for others. There have been attempts to systemise HRTFs, so that you set about four different parameters to produce an individual HRTF, but they never caught on. Regards, Martin ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
If the response to lack of perfection is always do nothing, nothing will be done. Which perfectly explains why we don't have an accepted ambisonic file format. No one is willing to accept limitations... and it is so easy to find limitations in formats. I firmly believe that a successful ambisonic file format can only be achieved with CONSENSUS. The contents of the format itself is irrelevant. So the real challenge is how to *engineer* consensus. BTW, the AES has just announced a project AES-X212 to develop a file format for HRTF data; The format will be designed to include source materials from different HRTF databases. See: ... there's one way to engineer consensus, get a respected institution to take on the responsibility... AES says: If you have information on other standards, or standards projects, with similar scopes to these projects, please contact the AES Standards secretariat. Of course ... all that said ... once such technologies as Google glasses take hold, or Apple starts putting gyroscopes in their ear buds (anyone want to put money on it?) ... ambisonic file formats will either become irrelevant (apps can do things in their own way) or will be standardised by these commercial bodies (which is _not_ a bad thing, because open-source doesn't do consensus, it fractures ... and the sursound community will benefit from a standard, _any_ standard). BTW ... isn't there research that says that the human cognitive systems quickly adapts to non-individualised HRTFs? In other words, just as long as one uses the same HRTFs constantly, then the results will start approaching the effects of individualised HRTFs (I remember reading that somewhere). Etienne ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Sent from my mobile phone On 31 Oct 2012, at 07:08, Peter Lennox p.len...@derby.ac.uk wrote: Yes but...why not simply release stuff for mobiles in a generic binaural - skip the uhj altogether? Because you also want to listen to the same piece on your home and car stereo? Ronald -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5863 bytes Desc: not available URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121031/3acb9662/attachment.bin ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
i am wondering if we cannot produce HRTFs the way the first produced spectacle lenses. one needs to look at the range of variations in HRTFs and what actually varies from person to person and produce a dozen or so hrtfs. people can just try them and stick with the one they like. a real time, streaming b-format to binaural programme into which the hrtf can be plugged in is all that will be needed. umashankar i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:57:53 -0700 From: gre...@math.ucla.edu To: sursound@music.vt.edu Subject: Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA This is absolutely true. My late first wife heard stereo as two separate speakers no matter how well the speakers worked for others. She liked mono a lot better. Surround sound was a n ightmare from her viewpoint-- all those speakers playing from different directions each on heard individually. She was a person of almost uncanny hearing acuity and resolution for lack of a better word, able to recognize concert halls on recordings in seconds, and hear inner parts of orchestral music amazingly. Conductors would consult her on balance questions when she came to rehearsals of events where I was playing. Audio manufacturers and makers of recordings may have respected my published judgments--but they were terrified of hers made in private though often I quoted her in my reviews, and the makers were duly gratified if she liked something. It might have been that her unusual acuity was in action in her hearing what is of course really there in stereo--two speakers. Anyway, it is really true that if you wait for something that works for everyone, you will wait a very long time! Robert On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Richard Dobson wrote: The same is true of stereo too. There are people who just don't hear stereo as stereo. If the response to lack of perfection is always do nothing, nothing will be done. Alternatively, if you use those generic HRTFs, at least ~some~ people will be happy. BTW, the AES has just announced a project AES-X212 to develop a file format for HRTF data; The format will be designed to include source materials from different HRTF databases. See: http://www.aes.org/standards/meetings/new-projects.cfm Richard Dobson On 31/10/2012 16:38, Martin Leese wrote: Peter Lennox wrote: Yes but...why not simply release stuff for mobiles in a generic binaural - skip the uhj altogether? Please, what is this generic binaural? Everyone has an individual HRTF. If you release binaural recording using a generic HRTF then it will work for some and not for others. There have been attempts to systemise HRTFs, so that you set about four different parameters to produce an individual HRTF, but they never caught on. Regards, Martin ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121101/cdb9d789/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Unless things have changed a lot, last I checked lossy compression messes up phase relationships, and that would be an issue for things like UHJ, which as long as portable stereo players with limited battery life (and thus limited CPUs), is the only viable, because stereo compatible, distribution format. At this point in time, not only is most music listened on mobile devices, most music is even purchased on mobile devices, and that's strictly a stereo (or maybe binaural) world. Try this simple experiment. Take your favourite Nimbus UHJ CD and rip it using the most evil MP3 encoder you can find .. probably the one built into the latest Windoz Media Player. Do this at 256kB/s and also (shock! horror!) at 128kB/s. Now listen to the resultant files on a mobile device. Then you can pontificate to us on how the musicality has all escaped and no one is going to find these acceptable. You can also rip to a WAV file if your mobile device will play these and compare the MP3s with the 'original'. This is just testing Ronald's assertion about compressed UHJ on stereo mobile devices. I dunno about full UHJ surround decode cos there don't seem to be any good ones in the public domain. PS I expect you to hear ve.eery slight differenes with one MP3 and probably none with the other. I won't insist on Double Blind bla bla but you might find that educational. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Am I missing something? - for mobile use, wouldn't B-format to binaural be better than UHJ? Dr Peter Lennox School of Technology, Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology University of Derby, UK e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk t: 01332 593155 From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Lee [rica...@justnet.com.au] Sent: 30 October 2012 19:51 To: 'Surround Sound discussion group' Subject: Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA Unless things have changed a lot, last I checked lossy compression messes up phase relationships, and that would be an issue for things like UHJ, which as long as portable stereo players with limited battery life (and thus limited CPUs), is the only viable, because stereo compatible, distribution format. At this point in time, not only is most music listened on mobile devices, most music is even purchased on mobile devices, and that's strictly a stereo (or maybe binaural) world. Try this simple experiment. Take your favourite Nimbus UHJ CD and rip it using the most evil MP3 encoder you can find .. probably the one built into the latest Windoz Media Player. Do this at 256kB/s and also (shock! horror!) at 128kB/s. Now listen to the resultant files on a mobile device. Then you can pontificate to us on how the musicality has all escaped and no one is going to find these acceptable. You can also rip to a WAV file if your mobile device will play these and compare the MP3s with the 'original'. This is just testing Ronald's assertion about compressed UHJ on stereo mobile devices. I dunno about full UHJ surround decode cos there don't seem to be any good ones in the public domain. PS I expect you to hear ve.eery slight differenes with one MP3 and probably none with the other. I won't insist on Double Blind bla bla but you might find that educational. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound _ The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this email was sent to you in error, please notify the sender and delete this email. Please direct any concerns to info...@derby.ac.uk. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
From: Richard Lee rica...@justnet.com.au To: 'Surround Sound discussion group' sursound@music.vt.edu Sent: Tuesday, 30 October 2012, 19:51 Subject: Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA Unless things have changed a lot, last I checked lossy compression messes up phase relationships, and that would be an issue for things like UHJ, which as long as portable stereo players with limited battery life (and thus limited CPUs), is the only viable, because stereo compatible, distribution format. At this point in time, not only is most music listened on mobile devices, most music is even purchased on mobile devices, and that's strictly a stereo (or maybe binaural) world. Try this simple experiment. Take your favourite Nimbus UHJ CD and rip it using the most evil MP3 encoder you can find .. probably the one built into the latest Windoz Media Player. Do this at 256kB/s and also (shock! horror!) at 128kB/s. Now listen to the resultant files on a mobile device. Then you can pontificate to us on how the musicality has all escaped and no one is going to find these acceptable. You can also rip to a WAV file if your mobile device will play these and compare the MP3s with the 'original'. This is just testing Ronald's assertion about compressed UHJ on stereo mobile devices. I dunno about full UHJ surround decode cos there don't seem to be any good ones in the public domain. PS I expect you to hear ve.eery slight differenes with one MP3 and probably none with the other. I won't insist on Double Blind bla bla but you might find that educational. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121030/2451f92c/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Richard Lee wrote: Take your favourite Nimbus UHJ CD and rip it using the most evil MP3 encoder you can find Sorry, slightly off-topic, but still: Some people have done terrible data reduction to UHJ recordings already: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnvRtM5WDsc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDo3Hn35xEo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfrsjU05S8A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4NXILz29dE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S4ozLfK2zU Having said that, back in the years I tested between different data reduction systems and UHJ and Dolby Surround. UHJ is much more robust against data reduction than Dolby Surround, as many data reduction algorithms wipe out all such content that has large phase differences betwen the stereo channels. Thus Dolby Surround recordings tend to turn into plain mono for example in DAB transmissions that use low bitrates. Eero ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
On 29 Oct 2012, at 20:42, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: Ronald, most if not all (classical) recordings where I am participating are done in a way that they could be issued in 5.1 (or say 5.0) surround, namely several Pentatone recordings, and even the more recent television/radio stuff. I would guess that every good orchestra recording is done in this way (which means could be issued in 2.0/stereo, 5.1 or other formats). Yes, that may be true, but the vast majority of these recordings is done in a way of the one microphone per speaker mentality, not in the let's record a sound field mentality. So while it may be surround, it's not Ambisonics, and it's the latter that I'm interested in, and not some hare-brained system like traditional 5.1 recording. The only interest I have in 5.1 is as a delivery format for G-format predecoded Ambisonics. But 5.1 outside of movies pretty much is dead in the water for music, a handful of boutique recordings aside, which really don't matter. What we need is a catalog in the 10s or 100s of thousands of recordings, and recordings with the artists the general public wants to hear, not a few boutique recordings that a few surround sound fanatics are interested in mostly due to the fact that they are surround recordings, not because they crave the music and artists who were recorded. These boutique recordings are more or less nothing but technology demonstrations, and thus are mostly only of technical interest. My hint to Dolby Surround was ironic (as many guys on this list oppose anything from Dolby), but you have to admit that there exist many (matrixed) Dolby surround mixes for film use. (And also and very obviously discrete 5.1 surround mixes, which are superior.) I don't oppose anything from Dolby, but I dislike the company because they have more than once sunk good technology because it didn't fit their specific business interests, and have thus been a major roadblock for progress. If they were to pick up the baton and would advocate the right changes, I'd be all for them. Likely that would only happen if they could hold a ton of key patents and charge everyone massive licensing fees for them; otherwise they don't seem to be interested. They rather go and invent an octagon wheel, patent it and use their influence to peddle it, than use the round wheel they can't charge royalties for. UHJ works, but it is also a matrixed format and arguably not a complete surround format, because 2 cannels are not enough. (I would say 5.1 is better, this doesn't seem to be an opinion.) Secondly, the UHJ system should have some issues even in stereo, because of the matrix. Of course, 5.1 (as G-format) would be better than UHJ, but 5.1 isn't widely used for music, while stereo is. So unless that changes, we can either ship RIGHT NOW UHJ into the stereo music channel, or we can bitch and whine that there is no surround recordings on the market, because there's no proper distribution channel for the format that would be ideal. My approach is: use what's available. If it's available, more and more people have an opportunity to discover what good surround sound that's more than an SFX button on a receiver can do, and with that demand can build up. The more demand, the bigger the catalog, the bigger the catalog, the more commercial interest to make things better, i.e. to eventually provide a better delivery format than a stereo container. That's what I mean with baby steps. Start with what's available now, instead of waiting for the glorious future that never comes, because people try to skip a few steps at the beginning. Also, UHJ opens the door for guerrilla tactics, i.e. sound engineers with a passion for surround can make UHJ mixes for people who ask for a stereo mix, because UHJ is stereo compatible. So surround mixes can slide into popular items without explicitly being asked for by the producers or artists. If they like the mix in stereo, they won't care/notice that it's actually UHJ. Write to Apple that they should publish 5.1 (and maybe .AMB files etc.), and forget about old compromises. No, because there's no interest in pushing something without perceived demand, particularly if it's something that's too complicated to explain to a non-technical audience in a sound bite. (You can continue to promote UHJ, but I am sure this won't fly because you say people ideally would have to record via soundfield mics. If you mix a UHJ recording from spot mics, you also could mix to 5.1 ...) UHJ, 5.1 are delivery formats. What matters is the recording and mixing technique. If the 5.1 mix is done with an ambisonic panner, then the resulting product is G-Format, and thus acceptable. If it's done with pan-potting, it's an abomination, or if one's friendly, just an SFX, but certainly not proper surround sound. Frankly, who cares about the 3 dozen high-end surround recordings being made? This is
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
On 30 Oct 2012, at 06:24, Peter Lennox p.len...@derby.ac.uk wrote: Am I missing something? - for mobile use, wouldn't B-format to binaural be better than UHJ? Dr Peter Lennox Of course it would. Do you know of a mobile playback device with multi-channel audio support, multi-channel audio market place, and a binaural decoder? Lacking that, putting UHJ encoded stereo into iTunes, Amazon, CD-Baby, etc. is easy. And an audio playback app with UHJ-to-binaural is easy to place in to the Apple/Android app stores. It's not about technical superiority, but about what can be done in the main stream market place. I'm not interested in lab solutions and technology demonstrations, I'm interested in what works for millions of iOS/Android users RIGHT NOW. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
On 29 Oct 2012, at 20:56, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: Oh yes, go to Apple and look if they listen to your ideas, and let others do their stuff instead of doing some promotion for some stylish, fahionable campany offering super slim products. You make my point: they won't listen, at least not at this point in the game. But that's exactly why it's futile to advocate lab type stuff, and stick with what's available to the mass market now. The mass market right now offers exactly two things: a) stereo audio b) custom apps though the various app stores. And that means that any mass market solution must at this point be stereo compatible and may employ a custom playback app made available through the various app store channels. (Samsung and Amazon sell also a lot of smartphones and tablets, by the way. If it i just about numbers, Samsungs sells actually more mobile phones...) I use Apple as an example, because it's the dominant company in this field, while the rest are imitators and followers; not leaders. Who sells more devices also doesn't matter, what matters which devices are used. And if you e.g. look at the web traffic statistics you'll see how clearly Apple dominates that field. Apple is also the company with the bargaining power. So if they see surround as the future, they can make that future happen. Therefore, getting surround sound into their platform by means of a Trojan horse (like e.g. putting UHJ-encoded material into the iTunes store) is a start on that path. I am really angry about these postings. Look for surround in your local Apple store, and if you find somen give us some news about. Otherwise, Apple and their fashionable products are offtopic. (I don't see any relationship to this thread, and even not to this audio list.) You're angry at reality. I'm not making these things up, nor do they constitute my ideal world. But I'm willing to face the reality and ask which small steps can we take to get from here to there by infiltrating what actual consumers use, rather than being preoccupied with lab experiments and boutique recordings that cater to a bunch of enthusiasts. Nobody who matters (i.e. average consumer) is interested in a dorky head-tracking headphone setup that makes him/her look like a Borg from Star Trek. Headphones are accessories that need to be fashionable, because people know they are going to be seen in public wearing them. That's reality. Get used to it. That's why stuff like Beats by Dr. Dre sells (cool DJs have them) and nobody would want to be caught dead wearing top-notch studio head phones. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
--On 28 October 2012 20:00 -0700 Robert Greene gre...@math.ucla.edu wrote: I think compressed surround stuff is a nonstarter in the real world. You would be looking for a person who cared a lot about surround but did not give a darn about sound quality. I doubt that there are many such! DTS is still by far the easiest way to get decoded ambisonic content out there. As for compression... decently applied compression isn't that bad, really. And since I consider the reduction of surround to stereo another form of damaging compression, it may be a matter of swings and roundabouts. In time, all compression will go away, but we're not quite there yet. Paul -- Paul Hodges ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
On 28 Oct 2012, at 22:34, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: When Ambi VLC happens, I predict the re-surrection of UHJ. Simple 2 channels will remain the most important distribution format in the forseable future. This is real surround sound? Why not Dolby Surround...:-D Despite a lot of stupid badmouthing, UHJ works, Dolby Surround does not; and things like SACD, DVD-Audio etc. have been sunk effectively by the cost of playback systems and the greed of the record industry which was unable to read the signs of the times (more things competing for the same little bit of disposable income) and thus insisted on premium pricing rather than at price levels that would have pitched the new formats as CD replacements. As I said countless times before it's about REALISTIC AMBIENCE, I'm not trying to train my sniper rifle on any musician while listening to music, so I could care less if the localization isn't as accurate as some full B-format or HOA recording as compared to the real layout of the people. I wasn't at the concert, and 99.99% of listeners weren't there either, and nobody knows or cares if the first violin was indeed 2 feet to the left of where we think it is. What realistic people care about, that there's a distribution channel for stereo, and that UHJ is stereo compatible, meaning that the audience is bigger, and the few people who are interested in surround sound actually have a chance of getting a reasonably sized catalog of stereo recordings that are also surround compatible; and for the foreseeable future, that's as good as it's going to get, because the music industry doesn't produce music for less than 1% of the market. So you get some stereo compatible music, or you get nothing. Frankly, who cares about the 3 dozen high-end surround recordings being made? For the most part they are esoteric pieces, and rarely do they have the type of world-class musicians that major labels attract, and even if they did, I don't care to listen to the same 50 recordings over and over again. Surround sound will not progress as long as the people involved refuse to be part of a process that on the commercial side takes baby steps, and instead insist on certain minimal standards that constitute too big of a leap of ever being considered by commercial interests, both in the music industry and in consumer electronics. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
On 28 Oct 2012, at 03:11, Richard Lee rica...@justnet.com.au wrote: This will be a lossy compressed format probably based on the public domain Vorbis. Unless things have changed a lot, last I checked lossy compression messes up phase relationships, and that would be an issue for things like UHJ, which as long as portable stereo players with limited battery life (and thus limited CPUs), is the only viable, because stereo compatible, distribution format. At this point in time, not only is most music listened on mobile devices, most music is even purchased on mobile devices, and that's strictly a stereo (or maybe binaural) world. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Here! Here! (Goes back under stone. Now, where's my old Minim and my relatively uncompressed CD's?) On 29 Oct 2012, at 14:28, Ronald C.F. Antony r...@cubiculum.com wrote: On 28 Oct 2012, at 22:34, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: When Ambi VLC happens, I predict the re-surrection of UHJ. Simple 2 channels will remain the most important distribution format in the forseable future. This is real surround sound? Why not Dolby Surround...:-D Despite a lot of stupid badmouthing, UHJ works, Dolby Surround does not; and things like SACD, DVD-Audio etc. have been sunk effectively by the cost of playback systems and the greed of the record industry which was unable to read the signs of the times (more things competing for the same little bit of disposable income) and thus insisted on premium pricing rather than at price levels that would have pitched the new formats as CD replacements. As I said countless times before it's about REALISTIC AMBIENCE, I'm not trying to train my sniper rifle on any musician while listening to music, so I could care less if the localization isn't as accurate as some full B-format or HOA recording as compared to the real layout of the people. I wasn't at the concert, and 99.99% of listeners weren't there either, and nobody knows or cares if the first violin was indeed 2 feet to the left of where we think it is. What realistic people care about, that there's a distribution channel for stereo, and that UHJ is stereo compatible, meaning that the audience is bigger, and the few people who are interested in surround sound actually have a chance of getting a reasonably sized catalog of stereo recordings that are also surround compatible; and for the foreseeable future, that's as good as it's going to get, because the music industry doesn't produce music for less than 1% of the market. So you get some stereo compatible music, or you get nothing. Frankly, who cares about the 3 dozen high-end surround recordings being made? For the most part they are esoteric pieces, and rarely do they have the type of world-class musicians that major labels attract, and even if they did, I don't care to listen to the same 50 recordings over and over again. Surround sound will not progress as long as the people involved refuse to be part of a process that on the commercial side takes baby steps, and instead insist on certain minimal standards that constitute too big of a leap of ever being considered by commercial interests, both in the music industry and in consumer electronics. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
At this point in time, not only is most music listened on mobile devices, most music is even purchased on mobile devices, and that's strictly a stereo (or maybe binaural) world. With a custom iPhone/Android app that employs headtracking (+ headsets) on iPhone/Android devices ... you have a *huge* market capable of accessing a quality spatial audio experience. Better yet ... the quality of experience is consistent. No stuffing around with speaker positions, different decodes, file formats, or even higher order ambisonics (there's a paper by n.mariette that shows that with head tracking listeners are just as capable of pinpointing sound sources with b-format as they are with higher res spatialisations). B-format is enough. Etienne ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: On 28 Oct 2012, at 22:34, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: When Ambi VLC happens, I predict the re-surrection of UHJ. Simple 2 channels will remain the most important distribution format in the forseable future. This is real surround sound? Why not Dolby Surround...:-D Despite a lot of stupid badmouthing, UHJ works, Dolby Surround does not; and things like SACD, DVD-Audio etc. have been sunk effectively by the cost of playback systems and the greed of the record industry which was unable to read the signs of the times (more things competing for the same little bit of disposable income) and thus insisted on premium pricing rather than at price levels that would have pitched the new formats as CD replacements. As I said countless times before it's about REALISTIC AMBIENCE, I'm not trying to train my sniper rifle on any musician while listening to music, so I could care less if the localization isn't as accurate as some full B-format or HOA recording as compared to the real layout of the people. I wasn't at the concert, and 99.99% of listeners weren't there either, and nobody knows or cares if the first violin was indeed 2 feet to the left of where we think it is. What realistic people care about, that there's a distribution channel for stereo, and that UHJ is stereo compatible, meaning that the audience is bigger, and the few people who are interested in surround sound actually have a chance of getting a reasonably sized catalog of stereo recordings that are also surround compatible; and for the foreseeable future, that's as good as it's going to get, because the music industry doesn't produce music for less than 1% of the market. So you get some stereo compatible music, or you get nothing. Frankly, who cares about the 3 dozen high-end surround recordings being made? For the most part they are esoteric pieces, and rarely do they have the type of world-class musicians that major labels attract, and even if they did, I don't care to listen to the same 50 recordings over and over again. Surround sound will not progress as long as the people involved refuse to be part of a process that on the commercial side takes baby steps, and instead insist on certain minimal standards that constitute too big of a leap of ever being considered by commercial interests, both in the music industry and in consumer electronics. Ronald Ronald, most if not all (classical) recordings where I am participating are done in a way that they could be issued in 5.1 (or say 5.0) surround, namely several Pentatone recordings, and even the more recent television/radio stuff. I would guess that every good orchestra recording is done in this way (which means could be issued in 2.0/stereo, 5.1 or other formats). My hint to Dolby Surround was ironic (as many guys on this list oppose anything from Dolby), but you have to admit that there exist many (matrixed) Dolby surround mixes for film use. (And also and very obviously discrete 5.1 surround mixes, which are superior.) UHJ works, but it is also a matrixed format and arguably not a complete surround format, because 2 cannels are not enough. (I would say 5.1 is better, this doesn't seem to be an opinion.) Secondly, the UHJ system should have some issues even in stereo, because of the matrix. Write to Apple that they should publish 5.1 (and maybe .AMB files etc.), and forget about old compromises. (You can continue to promote UHJ, but I am sure this won't fly because you say people ideally would have to record via soundfield mics. If you mix a UHJ recording from spot mics, you also could mix to 5.1 ...) Frankly, who cares about the 3 dozen high-end surround recordings being made? This is exactly the attitude which is the road to nowhere. There are real progresses in surround sound/audio, a 3D Audio codec (codecs) should be part of MPEG-H by 2013 or 2014. (At least cinema use, I gave them my opinion that there should be more areas.) I wasn't at the concert, and 99.99% of listeners weren't there either, and nobody knows or cares if the first violin was indeed 2 feet to the left of where we think it is. But that is not the point or sense of surround. Reveals several wrong assumptions from your part. (A surround recording can sound way more realistic than any stereo recording. The question of exact localization within the recording is for musicians - I am one - probably not the most important issue. It is still utmost important to have a credible soundstage at all, because it helps to separate instruments/voices.) Surround sound will not progress as long as the people involved refuse to be part of a process that on the commercial side takes baby steps, and instead insist on certain minimal standards that constitute too big of a leap of ever being considered by commercial interests, both in the music industry and in consumer electronics. Ronald
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: On 29 Oct 2012, at 18:47, etienne deleflie edelef...@gmail.com wrote: At this point in time, not only is most music listened on mobile devices, most music is even purchased on mobile devices, and that's strictly a stereo (or maybe binaural) world. With a custom iPhone/Android app that employs headtracking (+ headsets) on iPhone/Android devices ... you have a *huge* market capable of accessing a quality spatial audio experience. No, you don't have a huge market, because nobody want's to LOOK LIKE A DORK when wearing headphones. Unless you can convince Apple to make a special headphone cable, or adopt a special BT protocol, and have a super-slim, stylish, fashionable head set that is available in every Apple Store, your market is just as small as for any other decent system: the tiny fan base of decent surround sound. Oh yes, go to Apple and look if they listen to your ideas, and let others do their stuff instead of doing some promotion for some stylish, fahionable campany offering super slim products. (Samsung and Amazon sell also a lot of smartphones and tablets, by the way. If it i just about numbers, Samsungs sells actually more mobile phones...) I am really angry about these postings. Look for surround in your local Apple store, and if you find somen give us some news about. Otherwise, Apple and their fashionable products are offtopic. (I don't see any relationship to this thread, and even not to this audio list.) Good night, Stefan Schreiber ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA [RANT]
Hi Richard, Yes, what it does, it does very well. However, as described, you are asked to first create an n-channel interleaved WAVE file containing all those uncompressed silent channels, and pass that to wavpack. Which is fine in principle, except that with a possibly large number of channels, the 4GB limit of WAVE will get exhausted very easily. Wavpack ~only~ recognises a standard WAVE file (i.e it does not make any use of libsndfile etc), it knows nothing of CAF, w64, etc (to say nothing of AIFF files). I have already had emails from otherwise happy toolkit users hitting the 4GB limit; which will of course have to be the next not so incremental update - implies making a 64bit version of AMB too :-). The 4GB limit has been considered within UA. The wavpack format itself has the limit of 2^32 samples, which translates to 27 hours at 44 kHz (or 1 hour of 27 channels at 44kHz). In 2009/2010 when I was in discussions with David Bryant (the wavpack author), he said that the next version of wavpack (4.70) would be designed to circumvent the 4GB file limit (either as mono channels or via W64). That version still hasn't come out yet. My understanding is that David is very busy with 'paid' work. So don't use UA right now if you need to use files larger than 4GB (I still havn't hit that limit in my 16 channel 3rd order compositions). But the point is that the 4GB limit is not a function of the UA spec, it is a function of wavpack. So UA remains a future-proof format ... albeit one dependent on another technology. Really, UA is more about fixed channel positions. Perhaps WavPack will never come out in version 4.70 . and UA will thus have that problem. Perhaps no one uses UA. Perhaps people stay away from soundOfSpace.com *because* of UA and its channel ordering and limitations. The thing that is really annoying, really frustrating, is that the community that I am trying to serve (which includes me) keeps shooting itself in the foot, incessantly, year after year, by arguing over the same details, over and over and over. It doesn't matter *what* an ambisonic format looks like, as long as there is consensus. Consensus will drive any format far far far beyond its own limitations. That's why I don't really care if UA goes nowhere. Perhaps Furse-Malham AMB should be the default format. Fine. Lets get on with it. I designed UA to try and make people's lives easier, mainly in authoring environments, by having fixed channel positions. If no one uses it then it clearly doesn't make people's lives easier (probably because there are still lots of missing command-line apps required as pointed out). I don't think any patent for a file format that is overly complex will hold any value at all. I wouldn't worry about it. That said, if a commercial enterprise comes up with an ambisonic format that reaches consensus ... I'll be adopting it. (open source constantly fails us, as the surround sound community ... notice that the only browser that CANNOT playback multi-channel audio files in HTML5 is Firefox!). In any case, all inclinations are that file formats are an old-world thing. Notice how Apple's iPad and iPhone and iWhateverelse have no concept of files? Notice how people download apps, as much as they download content? Someone could easily create an album of spatial music, and offer it as an app ... which includes the speaker-feed decoding implemented with whatever channel scheme they wish. You could do that *today*. The file format is irrelevant. Etienne ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA [RANT]
On 28/10/2012 23:12, etienne deleflie wrote: Hi Richard, .. The 4GB limit has been considered within UA. The wavpack format itself has the limit of 2^32 samples, which translates to 27 hours at 44 kHz (or 1 hour of 27 channels at 44kHz). The users who have been emailing me are all working at 24/96. I think the conclusion must be that nobody working in surround has any reason at all to be targetting CD, in which case they have no reason at all to use 44.1KHz. That is no longer the relevant basis on which to evaluate a soundfile format. .. But the point is that the 4GB limit is not a function of the UA spec, it is a function of wavpack. So UA remains a future-proof format ... albeit one dependent on another technology. Really, UA is more about fixed channel positions. The trouble is that in a sense UA isn't a file format at all, in the meaning of something defined formally and rigorously. It is a described procedure. It relies on the (external) definition of WAVE, plus the (private) definition of a wv file. In the end, any binary file format has to be defined literally byte by byte in terms of the type and meaning of each distinct field; 4 bytes for a magic name, 2 bytes for a bitfield, 4 bytes for size in sample or frames or whatever. And then there are further rules about higher levels of organisation: chunked? Order of frames in each chunk? variable-size chunks? chunks in any order, or in strict strict sequence? Available range of chunks? User-defined chunks? Endianness? Multiple instances of chunks? And so on. In the end the issue resolves to whether that byte by byte spec is fully public or not. If not, it is a private or proprietary format, which only authorised applications may read and write; e.g. by the developer signing an NDA with the company owning the format and maybe being required to use their API to deal with it. The WAVE format is still as valid now as it was when it was defined however many decade ago that was. In that sense it was already future-proof, except insofar as needs have changed and the initially fantastical 4GB limit is now no longer sufficient; in much the same way that a computer with 64K of RAM is no longer sufficient. In effect, the only aspect that disambiguates UA from any other wavpack-wrapped file is the text name required to be added to the wv header. By contrast, in a way the rules dealing with encoding coefficients etc are just a local detail. ... In any case, all inclinations are that file formats are an old-world thing. Notice how Apple's iPad and iPhone and iWhateverelse have no concept of files? ?? they do, behind the scenes. In the case of the iDevices, apps can be declared by the programmers to support shared files which are visible via iTunes; and any app can arrange to at least export files via the net. This is how all those music synth apps etc enable users to transfer files from their iPad to the host machine. Each app sits in its own sandbox, and can see only its own files. Of course the user interface does not provides anything recognisable as a system-wide file manager - apps do have a concept of files, but that is mostly (but not 100%) hidden from the user. Notice how people download apps, as much as they download content? Someone could easily create an album of spatial music, and offer it as an app ... which includes the speaker-feed decoding implemented with whatever channel scheme they wish. You could do that *today*. The file format is irrelevant. I am not aware that any mobile devices support more than stereo output with native hardware; but you could always send Apple or whoever a feature request. But you do make my point, that the details of a file format are in the end relevant to application developers; the more transparent (and simple) the process is to the user the better! Richard Dobson ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
I think no serious person in audio wants anything to do with lossy compression which is a commercial compromise for no real reason(uncompressed audio no longer looks like that big a file). Since probably no one is interested in exotic surround items except people who are serious about audio, I think compressed surround stuff is a nonstarter in the real world. You would be looking for a person who cared a lot about surround but did not give a darn about sound quality. I doubt that there are many such! on the contrary, I think there are many ... even far more than the audiophiles. Surround sound used to be the domain of those interested in fidelity ... now it is the domain of those interested in virtual reality. Quality of sound is not important in virtual reality ... it is the quality of the illusion that is important. (you might argue that the first supports the second, but there is also evidence that such non-quality related things as sound loudness supports the second) Perhaps 'virtual reality' isn't the right term ... augmented reality has more currency today, but that's not quite right either ... how about this: the development of consciousness in mediated environments. OK, that's getting silly ... how about just 'magic'. Etienne ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
I received a message back from Jan-Mark Batke, to the effect they will pass my comments on to the patent authorities. It is classified at this stage as a disclosure. The four inventors are members of Technicolor, and the new system is briefly featured here: http://community.calrec.com/?p=8268 It does seem expressly targetted at cinema applications, so it remains to be seen how relevant it may be for musicians etc. I have (at last) updated by description page for AMB**, and have indeed added a link to the UA description. Now the attention in previous posts was very much on the phrase most sophisticated format, which was guaranteed to wind people up; whereas the key word is really available. The UA format is not really available to ~composers~ to use. The description is very much one for prospective developers - acquiring wavpack, and one way or another implementing all those equations (and apparently creating a WAVE file with a large number of silent channels!). The clue is for example in the observation on that website that no player is currently available; and when someone comments positively on a piece of yours, you are obliged to suggest they decode the file themselves, but Unfortunately, getting the software to decode ambisonic stuff is kinda annoyingly painful In short, for any file format to be deemed available there ~must~ be some associated application or set of applications that can be used to create, process and render a file. This means also that there must be no political or cultural platform aversions - to be available the format must have support not merely in Linux but, arguably much more importantly, in Windows and OS X. Users really do not need, or want, to deal with mathematics or complex configuration steps drenched in jargon. Reasonable defaults must be available, so a composer can launch an app, pan a sound as intuitively as possible, and write the file. And then automatically play it back. And send it to a friend who can also automatically play it back. To me this is obvious, which is why the publication of the AMB format (1999/2000) coincided with its incorporation in the CDP Multi-Channel Toolkit, which many people have used subsequently to make and publish AMB files. So until this situation materially changes, while AMB is clearly not the most sophisticated file format ~published~ it may still be the most sophisticated one ~available~. Whatever objections people here may have to AMB (and clearly they are legion), the one thing the Toolkit programs can justifiably claim is that they are not annoyingly painful to use. The only challenge, indeed, that they represent to the user is the basic ability to use a command line. I get a nice trickle of emails from people thanking me for their availability; sadly not so many of then go the extra mile and click my Paypal button :-(. So updates and extensions will be infrequent at best. So for those new file formats to become available is is down to those who can afford the time; university departments, etc. Richard Dobson **http://dream.cs.bath.ac.uk/researchdev/wave-ex/bformat.html On 25/10/2012 01:16, etienne deleflie wrote: So is this, in fact, the ultimate file format that folk on this list have been arguing for (and over) for so long? I dont know about ultimate formats ... but one existing format is Universal Ambisonic (UA). It is documented Here: http://soundofspace.com/static/make_ua_file And there is lots of material in this format available on http://soundofspace.com This format is my attempt to *conclude* on the many discussions we had here and on other lists. I don't pretend that it is better than other formats ... nor that it satisfies everyone's needs (even though it tries pretty hard). The point is ... other ambisonic formats exist ... and UA is one of them! ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
As I've said ad nauseum, the guy who first integrates an Ambi decoder into VLC, getting around the evil Windoz mixer etc. gets to choose the data structure for next important Ambi format. This will be a lossy compressed format probably based on the public domain Vorbis. Ambisonia was the 1st major breakthrough, source material. I hope everyone is aware and thankful for Etienne's huge amount of effort work. We are lucky that York have taken over this and hope it will continue to increase and prosper. The 2nd is the ongoing decoder work by BLaH and others on this forum. At least the theory of how to design a good decoder is available. Sadly, only Fons' Happy Days decoder is flexible enough to take advantage of the new work. This isn't descrying the decoders available from D McGriffy, Richard Dobson, the York Mafia others; just pointing out that they are 'fixed'. But none of these will conveniently play MP3s ripped from CDs or youTube, surround videos etc .. no nice database for music .. so will remain niche interests. Happy Days doesn't even run on evil Windoz and probably never will if its inventor has any say in it .. 8D I finally managed to compile VLC this year but can't seem to do it again. 8( When Ambi VLC happens, I predict the re-surrection of UHJ. Simple 2 channels will remain the most important distribution format in the forseable future. But it will pave the way for HOA and other exotics. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 2770 bytes Desc: not available URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121028/48dac521/attachment.bin ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Please not! He who is happy with lossy compression is hardly a candidate to have a properly set up surround system, much less one suitable to Ambisonics. Lossless compression is OK, even desired, as an option, preferably something that's freely licensed and enjoys commercial support e.g. ALAC Sent from my mobile phone On 28 Oct 2012, at 03:11, Richard Lee rica...@justnet.com.au wrote: This will be a lossy compressed format probably based on the public domain Vorbis. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5863 bytes Desc: not available URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121027/4ff2ef7c/attachment.bin ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Hi Richard, Now the attention in previous posts was very much on the phrase most sophisticated format, which was guaranteed to wind people up; whereas the key word is really available. The UA format is not really available to ~composers~ to use. The description is very much one for prospective developers - acquiring wavpack, and one way or another implementing all those equations (and apparently creating a WAVE file with a large number of silent channels!). I really didn't want to get pulled into a defence or argument about ambisonic formats ... but, just to clarify ... the choice to include some empty channels in UA is intentionally designed so that authoring environments don't need to change all the channel routing when working at different orders. The choice of Wavepack was determined on its ability to compress empty channels to take up no space. Wavepack also efficiently losslessly compresses all sound data. Already on these two points UA is far more practical for composers. You only need one setup to work at different orders. UA was actually designed *for* composers. I agree that there are many remaining tools required for it to be *actually* practical for *listeners*. But there's the grab ... I think the ultimate mistake is to think that ambisonics should be a consumer oriented format. (both ambisonia.com and soundOfSpace.com distribute the files as already decoded speaker feeds) That's where so many issues start to creep in. When a consumer gets an ambisonic file then: - the audio player needs to be smart, it needs to do work far beyond what audio players are used to doing - speaker agnosticism is a false benefit ... in reality, ambisonic order choice is largely determined by the targeted speaker array. Note there ... targeted speaker array is the opposite of speaker agnosticism The way I see it Ambisonics is a production format. Etienne ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
I suspect that - any file format that has any level of sophistication (read: complexity) will likely not get take-up (maybe even UA is too complex. Straight old B-format is fine). Its not what features are included that counts that's the engineer's mistake. - any file format which can't relatively-easily be output by a DAW will likely fail (Both UA and AMB require an encoding step after DAW output) - any file format that takes control away from the composer will be rejected by the composer. Abstracted formats which force the spatial composer to think in certain ways will only see takeup by those unaware... eg: thinking of spatial audio as mono-channels of sound which are then 'spatialised' in a cartesian coordinate system. In such formats, although the engineers may not realise it, they become as much a composer of the results as the composer themselves (see papers by Agostino Di Scipio on 'techne') Etienne On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 9:27 AM, etienne deleflie edelef...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Richard, Now the attention in previous posts was very much on the phrase most sophisticated format, which was guaranteed to wind people up; whereas the key word is really available. The UA format is not really available to ~composers~ to use. The description is very much one for prospective developers - acquiring wavpack, and one way or another implementing all those equations (and apparently creating a WAVE file with a large number of silent channels!). I really didn't want to get pulled into a defence or argument about ambisonic formats ... but, just to clarify ... the choice to include some empty channels in UA is intentionally designed so that authoring environments don't need to change all the channel routing when working at different orders. The choice of Wavepack was determined on its ability to compress empty channels to take up no space. Wavepack also efficiently losslessly compresses all sound data. Already on these two points UA is far more practical for composers. You only need one setup to work at different orders. UA was actually designed *for* composers. I agree that there are many remaining tools required for it to be *actually* practical for *listeners*. But there's the grab ... I think the ultimate mistake is to think that ambisonics should be a consumer oriented format. (both ambisonia.com and soundOfSpace.com distribute the files as already decoded speaker feeds) That's where so many issues start to creep in. When a consumer gets an ambisonic file then: - the audio player needs to be smart, it needs to do work far beyond what audio players are used to doing - speaker agnosticism is a false benefit ... in reality, ambisonic order choice is largely determined by the targeted speaker array. Note there ... targeted speaker array is the opposite of speaker agnosticism The way I see it Ambisonics is a production format. Etienne -- http://etiennedeleflie.net ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Hi, Just noticed this the other day: WO2012059385 DATA STRUCTURE FOR HIGHER ORDER AMBISONICS AUDIO DATA http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012059385 I haven't read all the 75 pages, mostly looking at the pictures :-) Who is/are the applicant(s) ? But it looks like it's about combining different streams of HOA content with mono streams to be spatialized on the fly (sound objects). Haven't looked, but 'prior art' (2009): One example that occurred during development has been the addition of ‘position’ files. These allow test files (of the “Up Left Front, Up Front, . . . ” variety) to be distributed as four channel files (mono, ux , uy , uz ), which can then be ‘inflated’ by the user to a normal file of any ambisonic order. may (or may not) be relevant ... Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Hi On 24 October 2012 09:37, Michael Chapman s...@mchapman.com wrote: Hi, Just noticed this the other day: WO2012059385 DATA STRUCTURE FOR HIGHER ORDER AMBISONICS AUDIO DATA Who is/are the applicant(s) ? Well it's Thomson and the inventors include people like Johann-Markus Batke and others who have had papers at one or more Ambisonics Symposia. Dave ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University, so this disclaimer is redundant These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer Dave Malham Ex-Music Research Centre Department of Music The University of York Heslington York YO10 5DD UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Hi On 24 October 2012 09:37, Michael Chapman s...@mchapman.com wrote: Hi, Just noticed this the other day: WO2012059385 DATA STRUCTURE FOR HIGHER ORDER AMBISONICS AUDIO DATA Who is/are the applicant(s) ? Well it's Thomson and the inventors include people like Johann-Markus Batke and others ? ? ? M ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Interesting (in its way), looks like a combo of HOA Ambisonic scene description (using multiple HOA streams possibly of different orders) and bandwidth compression; i.e. there is an encoding and decoding device as part of the application, as there would need to be, given that patents ultimately have to describe a device. It is indeed also a file format, which I would not have thought was patentable as such, but maybe anything is possible these days. The description includes in the first paragraph: The B-Format (based on the extensible ^iff/wav' structure) with its *.amb file format realisation as described as of 30 March 2009 for example in Martin Leese, File Format for B-Format , http://www. ambisonia.com/Members/etienne/Members/mleese/file-format-for-b-format, is the most sophisticated format available today. I guess I haven't played the system well enough - as the person who first published the amb format (not in 2009 but in 2000, in my paper for ICMC Berlin) it would have been a nice addition to my meagre CV to have been mentioned in a patent application. Perhaps I should write to them. The authors I think are probably known here, their names appear regularly at conferences etc: KEILER, Florian; (DE). KORDON, Sven; (DE). BOEHM, Johannes; (DE). KROPP, Holger; (DE). BATKE, Johann-Markus; (DE) So is this, in fact, the ultimate file format that folk on this list have been arguing for (and over) for so long? Richard Dobson On 24/10/2012 09:27, Roger Klaveness wrote: Hi, Just noticed this the other day: WO2012059385 DATA STRUCTURE FOR HIGHER ORDER AMBISONICS AUDIO DATA http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012059385 I haven't read all the 75 pages, mostly looking at the pictures :-) But it looks like it's about combining different streams of HOA content with mono streams to be spatialized on the fly (sound objects). 1. Is data structures patentable? 2. If you exchange HOA with 5.1/7.1/9.1 beds it's looks a little like Dolby Atmos, combining prerendered surround with sound objects to be rendered on the fly Roger ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
The B-Format (based on the extensible ^iff/wav' structure) with its *.amb file format realisation as described as of 30 March 2009 for example in Martin Leese, File Format for B-Format , http://www. ambisonia.com/Members/etienne/Members/mleese/file-format-for-b-format, is the most sophisticated format available today. With due deference to your work of 2000, Martin, in 2012 one might question whether that important work, is the most sophisticated format available today (?). Patents, patents, M ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Hmm, well, that rather proves my point, and I will write to them. I have every confidence that that sentence was written ironically rather than hagiographically. Suffice it to say, I, Richard Dobson, did that work in 2000; and it appears the title to even that very modest piece of IP (embodied as it is in the free CDP multi-channel toolkit, which ensures the file format is available to composers) has been magically reassigned, such is the significance of a name written in a patent application, and the ineluctable power of a web page over a mere published conference paper. And yes one might very well question it, and the answer then must be the list of the other sophisticated Ambisonic file formats that are available today... Richard Dobson On 24/10/2012 12:15, Michael Chapman wrote: The B-Format (based on the extensible ^iff/wav' structure) with its *.amb file format realisation as described as of 30 March 2009 for example in Martin Leese, File Format for B-Format , http://www. ambisonia.com/Members/etienne/Members/mleese/file-format-for-b-format, is the most sophisticated format available today. With due deference to your work of 2000, Martin, in 2012 one might question whether that important work, is the most sophisticated format available today (?). Patents, patents, M ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Hi, Richard Dobson wrote: I guess I haven't played the system well enough - as the person who first published the amb format (not in 2009 but in 2000, in my paper for ICMC Berlin) it would have been a nice addition to my meagre CV to have been mentioned in a patent application. Perhaps I should write to them. It would be greatly appreciated if you write to them. In the patent system, it is possible to file third party observations. Instead of saying that it is obvious on this list, you can use the link already provided by Roger: WO2012059385 DATA STRUCTURE FOR HIGHER ORDER AMBISONICS AUDIO DATA http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012059385 On the web page there, at the top, you can find the following: Latest bibliographic data on file with the International Bureau ⇨ Submit observation In order to submit observations, you have to create an account. It is not a cumbersome procedure in my opinion. Then, you can submit references to documents which have been made available to the public before the filing date, October 24th 2011 (or rather the priority date, November 05th 2010) of the application. If you are able to find posts in this list which already disclose such data structure, you can also make reference to the corresponding messages. However, it is questionable whether this list is made available to the public... It is a pity that you have to subscribe in order to see the archives, and that the archives are not searchable without such a subscription, or am I mistaken? It may be so that the examiner which has been entrusted with the search of the application is not aware of your ICMC paper in Berlin. But you can also imagine that examiners are not omniscient. If you believe that everything has been described in your article, submit a third party observation and you will be cited in the patent application. Indicate the title of the scientific article, the conference, the date, and it will be retrieved. If you want to invest more time, you can even further specify the passages of the article which are relevant for the invention, and why in your opinion, your article already discloses everything. After, I am not aware of the details of the procedure, but I guess that the document will be taken into account in the prosecution of the procedure. Some further important details : It is only a WO patent, namely an international patent. In fact, a WO is not a patent. It is only the starting point of a patent. The application goes after in a regional procedure (US, Europe, Japan, China, etc.) in order to be converted into a patent (if it is new and inventive). Taking account of the search report associated with the application, available here: http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id0017329648.pdf there are only A documents cited by the search examiner, meaning that the preliminary opinion is that it contains subject-matter which is new and inventive. So, definitely, if you are able to provide some evidence that it already exists, you would help the community, don't you? Best regards, Mathieu Guillaume ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Richard Dobson wrote: ... So is this, in fact, the ultimate file format that folk on this list have been arguing for (and over) for so long? No, absolutely not. The fact that it has been patented means that it should not be used. The situation is similar the the GIF image file format. When the patent holders of the compression technique it used started to want licensing payments, the community invented PNG to replace it. (The patent behind GIF has now expired, so this is no longer a consideration.) Regards, Martin -- Martin J Leese E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
So is this, in fact, the ultimate file format that folk on this list have been arguing for (and over) for so long? I dont know about ultimate formats ... but one existing format is Universal Ambisonic (UA). It is documented Here: http://soundofspace.com/static/make_ua_file And there is lots of material in this format available on http://soundofspace.com This format is my attempt to *conclude* on the many discussions we had here and on other lists. I don't pretend that it is better than other formats ... nor that it satisfies everyone's needs (even though it tries pretty hard). The point is ... other ambisonic formats exist ... and UA is one of them! Etienne Richard Dobson On 24/10/2012 09:27, Roger Klaveness wrote: Hi, Just noticed this the other day: WO2012059385 DATA STRUCTURE FOR HIGHER ORDER AMBISONICS AUDIO DATA http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2012059385 I haven't read all the 75 pages, mostly looking at the pictures :-) But it looks like it's about combining different streams of HOA content with mono streams to be spatialized on the fly (sound objects). 1. Is data structures patentable? 2. If you exchange HOA with 5.1/7.1/9.1 beds it's looks a little like Dolby Atmos, combining prerendered surround with sound objects to be rendered on the fly Roger ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- http://etiennedeleflie.net ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
