As you say, not surprising. As someone who came originally from a noncommercial field of research(pure mathematics), I have long noticed that a good deal of "research" in audio comes from people either re-discovering or simply seizing ideas of other people, often long established, and re-packaging them as their own. No one much is interested in giving credit where it is due. All they want to do is to get in their with claims of things that they can sell as new. And sell is the operative word.
This is all quite outrageous if viewed from the perspective of the scientific research world--where there is plenty of skullduggery but it is usually done more subtlely. Audio research has to be its own reward because one will certainly not get credit for it from others. Robert On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Dave Malham wrote:
Really disappointed (but not too surprised) to that in the June AES in an article about Spatial Audio, which says "Spatial audio can be reprocessed for reproduction over different loudspeaker formats using upmixing and downmixing. It can even be rendered binaurally for headphones. We review the latest research in this field and consider the potential pros and cons of the technology." there is not one mention of Ambisonics, despite the really significant increase in publications in the last few years. Dave -- -- As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University. These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University Dave Malham Honorary Fellow, Department of Music The University of York York YO10 5DD UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
_______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
