Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
< Talking about 3rd order is just castles in the air Not to be confrontational, but... 3rd order Ambisonics may be uncommon, but it just so happens that I intend to spend the next several days listening to 3rd order Ambisonics, at the Linux Audio Conference: http://lac.linuxaudio.org/2012/ Compositions by Jan Jacob Hoffman http://lac.linuxaudio.org/2012/speakers?uid=51 on this system: https://ccrma.stanford.edu/room-guides/listening-room And other programs. Certainly Ambisonics isn't in the mainstream, and 3rd-order may not be in the mainstream of Ambisonics. But that doesn't stop us from trying, or from enjoying the results. Eric - Original Message From: Robert Greene To: Surround Sound discussion group Sent: Thu, April 12, 2012 6:49:53 PM Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music While the mode of expression is even more emphatic than my own, RCFA is to my mind right all up and down the line. Talking about 3rd order is just castles in the air. As a theoretical mathematician, I spend most of my life building castles in the air. But one ought to know that that is what they are! Robert On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: > > On 12 Apr 2012, at 23:05, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:47:04PM +0200, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: >>> On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:27, Fons Adriaensen wrote: >>> First order definitely isn't good enough. As long a you insist that one can't go up in order, just forget about it all. >>> >>> Tell that Meridian, and all their customers who have enjoyed immensely not >>> only >>>listening to horizontal-only 1st order Ambisonics, but also to 1st order >>>horizontal-only Ambisonics crippled by UHJ matrix-encoding constraints. >> >> First order is certainly fine for classical orchestral music, >> and I enjoy that as well even without Meridian's help. > > It works also for all sorts of other music that wants to create swirling > sound >scapes, etc. > > We're not trying to help blind people to target shoot by sound, we're >essentially looking for artificial musical sound effects and natural sounding >ambience. > >> But that will reach a minoriy classical music lovers audience >> only. And first order fails rather miserably for anything else >> compared to 5.1 which is what people already have and can compare >> with. > > Essentially nobody listens to music in surround format, particularly not in a >mass market. Also, I rather have less precise spatial resolution than what >might >be achievable with 5.1, but have it sound natural, not the sound out of >speakers >that most 5.1 productions end up having. > > Besides, G-Format would also end up being 5.1. > >> It won't produce a stable front channel for movie sound, >> nor has it the the required spatial definition for effects that >> work outside a very small sweet spot. > > Movies have no reason to switch to Ambisonics. The visual dominates the ear, >and so there's no need for "natural" sound, because we're absorbed by the >movie, >and the movie studios are not going to change their production workflow or >their >love affair with DTS/Dolby anytime soon. > So Ambisonics for movies is utterly irrelevant, at least until such point > that >it has proven to be a resounding success in music. > >> And what's the problem with >> five or seven channels anyway ? > > Three things: cost, cost, and cost. > > The cardboard speakers that ship with affordable 5.1 systems are not suitable >for music, and anything halfway acceptable is on a good sale at least >$250/speaker, which means with four speakers you're at or above $1k, add a >decent four channel amp, cables, speaker stands, etc. and you're well above >the >typical consumer price level already. > > This isn't about what grant money can buy in a computer lab, this is what a >waiter, someone making $1500/month, etc. i.e. the typical iPad/AppleTV buyer >could afford, not what a doctor or lawyer would buy if only they had a clue >about technology. > >> This has nothing to do with 'elitism'. Try selling 256-color >> computer displays to today's consumers. Won't work even if they >> would do fine for 99% of all practical computer applications. >> It's too late for that. Technology has moved on, and people >> know it. > > Technology hasn't moved on. 5.1 is 4.0 plus a crappy center speaker that has > a >totally different tonal quality and never blends with the other four lousy >speakers, plus a subwoofer to make up for the fact that the other speakers are >lousy. Four full-range speakers in a 4.0 configuration is better than what 99% >of people have in their homes, and cost near what they could possibly afford. >To >talk about higher channel count is totally disregarding economic realities. > > Further, it's also not about Madonna or some stars who have the budget and >access to engineers who might actually understand what they are doing. This is >about the majority of musicians who record themselves, or who g
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: Technology hasn't moved on. 5.1 is 4.0 plus a crappy center speaker that has a totally different tonal quality and never blends with the other four lousy speakers, plus a subwoofer to make up for the fact that the other speakers are lousy. Four full-range speakers in a 4.0 configuration is better than what 99% of people have in their homes, and cost near what they could possibly afford. This is utter nonsense. How would you listen to any surround with less than 4 speakers, as long as we don't speak about heaphones? (Even Ambiophonics will need a front and back pair, otherwise you have a 180º representation.) This talk about "crappy center speakers" is fuzzy logic, at best. (How should 5.1 work in practice if you are using one or several "crappy" speakers? Should I bang my head? I am very close to...) To talk about higher channel count is totally disregarding economic realities. Further, it's also not about Madonna or some stars who have the budget and access to engineers who might actually understand what they are doing. There is plenty of pop/rock music available in 5.1, in the market, or in the archives. This is not the point, IMO. This is about the majority of musicians who record themselves, or who go to some local dude with a computer and analog mixing desk that sounds horrible but looks impressive to have their music produced. No serious musician does this, even if you seem to think so. These people are not going to ever understand spherical harmonics, nth order something or another. They can intuitively grasp front-back, left-right and mono. They will be able to make a stereo CD (UHJ), and have an extra gimmick to sell: now you can listen to your CD in surround sound. As a musician, I don't care for so-called gimmicks. And your listeners ain't be stupid, as well. Nobody is talking about stable images, just as little as The Beatles stereo recordings were Blumlein stereo. But they can make sounds swirl around, and people who do location recording can get a decent ambience. But you can hear such details as "a stable image". If a surround recording is offering an unstable impression, stick with stereo - hopefully well-done stereo. Someone throwing a speaker in each corner of the room and enjoying some spaciousness in the sound they didn't have with stereo before, that is realistic. Who cares about how precise the sounds can be localized, how big the sweet spot is, as long as it has some ambience all over. It will sound spacious, regardless of whether or not it sounds like things are where they were when it was recorded (or intended to be during the mix). All it has to be is pleasant, not more, not less. Ronald Well, this is exactly what a bad 5.1 mix is about. Or what "killed" 5.1, BTW... :-) Did I miss anything? This "who cares" attitude doesn't work for a musician. If you like the music you are recording, don't present it in such a horrible way. Really! Best, Stefan ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Steven Dive wrote: IMHO I can't see how FOA isn't clearly worth promoting along with up to 3rd order G-format decodes for 5.1/7.1 setups for home users. Basically, get UHJ and, while we are at it, superstereo into people's homes, then get on with full 1st and higher orders. Steve Steve, Anthony: In which sense is UHJ and "superstereo" a viable alternative to 5.1 surround, if 5.1 is clearly better than any 2-channel system can be? You should introduce something which exceeds the existing solutions, not going back to something which fits into the "stereo distribution chain". We already had this. I have written that you could decode a 3rd order .AMB file on a 4 or 6 speaker home installation, for example ignoring the 2nd and 3rd order components. 8 speakers would be even better, but less is still possible. (You can watch a 1080p movie on an "underspecified" SD television, or a 720 line TV. The loudspeaker number above is just the equivalent. Downsizing a format to a device with lower resolution is mostly not an issue. You also can watch a photo on a computer screen, even if the resolution of a current digital camera is certainly much higher than any computer monitor can show.) Anthony: You should read what people (this means: me! :-) ) say, not what you would like to read. For example, I never said anywhere that music should be distributed on BD discs. (Have been here a long time before. This is probably just history. IMO the distribution of surround music via UHJ stereo tracks belongs into the same category. Listen to UHJ if available and if you can decode this, but don't promote this for the "future practical distribution of surround", because 5.1 already exists.) I said that Apple doesn't support BD < movies > on any Mac OS version. I don't buy into the excuse that the Blu-ray DRM (AACA/BD+ support) would "break" the Mac OS architecture, which would be a longer discussion. But I have actually more important things to do than to discuss these issues here, honestly. (Historically: Apple had pretended they would "finally" support Blu-Ray, in 2005/2006. They didn't tell it would not be possible. The "bag of hurt" story was invented way later. ) I don't have to promote Ambisonics, specifically I don't have any plans to replace 5.1 with FOA. What is the huge deal about? (Both formats have advantages and disadvantages, compared to each other. You also have to consider that 5.1 can be mixed or recorded in very different ways, and some or actually pretty convincing. For film, 5.1 is probably superior. You could say that FOA has been unfaily neglected which is probably right.) If you promote G format, 99% would see and listen to this as a 5.1 surround file. (An 99% would listen to an UHJ as a "stereo file", cos there are really very few decoders around. In fact, 5.1 seems to be way more mainstream than decoded UHJ.) Therefore, don't push for stereo-matrixed (UHJ) or "pre-encoded" (G format, 5.1) Ambisonics variants in 2012. In fact, Apple (or Microsoft, "Google Music" (?), Sony Music Unlimited or whoever sells movies/music) should firstly offer 5.1 surround files. It doesn't cost anything to offer another surround format in an online shop, if music/audio is available in this format. The consumer could chose. But if you offer something beside 5.1 surround, I believe this should be something better. Not something reduced. Try to find solutions which are viable for the next 10 or 20 years, and don't go back 20 years. (Sorry for being slightly polemic, but I think this is a valid argument.) Surround tracks are sold via the Internet, there are plenty of existing online shops. The problem is that you would have to sell 5.1 (or FOA...) tracks of well-known music, which means "the hits". The Majors are missing this opportunity. (Plenty of recordings ae available, which means many thousands.) As a musician, I am participating in plenty recordings which are done also in 5.1. In this sense, don't call me "elitist", or whatever. But FOA probably won't make it. The time of UHJ has been. I am not sure that any form of surround will make it into the home, but I think there is still a real chance that it will happen. The iTunes shop is currently irrelevant for surround music, and there are more companies around than Apple. Best, Stefan Schreiber On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:05, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:47:04PM +0200, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:27, Fons Adriaensen wrote: First order definitely isn't good enough. As long a you insist that one can't go up in order, just forget about it all. Tell that Meridian, and all their customers who have enjoyed immensely not only listening to horizontal-only 1st order Ambisonics, but also to 1st order horizontal-only Ambisonics crippled by UHJ matrix-encoding constraints. First order is certainly fine for classical orchestral music, an
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
While the mode of expression is even more emphatic than my own, RCFA is to my mind right all up and down the line. Talking about 3rd order is just castles in the air. As a theoretical mathematician, I spend most of my life building castles in the air. But one ought to know that that is what they are! Robert On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: On 12 Apr 2012, at 23:05, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:47:04PM +0200, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:27, Fons Adriaensen wrote: First order definitely isn't good enough. As long a you insist that one can't go up in order, just forget about it all. Tell that Meridian, and all their customers who have enjoyed immensely not only listening to horizontal-only 1st order Ambisonics, but also to 1st order horizontal-only Ambisonics crippled by UHJ matrix-encoding constraints. First order is certainly fine for classical orchestral music, and I enjoy that as well even without Meridian's help. It works also for all sorts of other music that wants to create swirling sound scapes, etc. We're not trying to help blind people to target shoot by sound, we're essentially looking for artificial musical sound effects and natural sounding ambience. But that will reach a minoriy classical music lovers audience only. And first order fails rather miserably for anything else compared to 5.1 which is what people already have and can compare with. Essentially nobody listens to music in surround format, particularly not in a mass market. Also, I rather have less precise spatial resolution than what might be achievable with 5.1, but have it sound natural, not the sound out of speakers that most 5.1 productions end up having. Besides, G-Format would also end up being 5.1. It won't produce a stable front channel for movie sound, nor has it the the required spatial definition for effects that work outside a very small sweet spot. Movies have no reason to switch to Ambisonics. The visual dominates the ear, and so there's no need for "natural" sound, because we're absorbed by the movie, and the movie studios are not going to change their production workflow or their love affair with DTS/Dolby anytime soon. So Ambisonics for movies is utterly irrelevant, at least until such point that it has proven to be a resounding success in music. And what's the problem with five or seven channels anyway ? Three things: cost, cost, and cost. The cardboard speakers that ship with affordable 5.1 systems are not suitable for music, and anything halfway acceptable is on a good sale at least $250/speaker, which means with four speakers you're at or above $1k, add a decent four channel amp, cables, speaker stands, etc. and you're well above the typical consumer price level already. This isn't about what grant money can buy in a computer lab, this is what a waiter, someone making $1500/month, etc. i.e. the typical iPad/AppleTV buyer could afford, not what a doctor or lawyer would buy if only they had a clue about technology. This has nothing to do with 'elitism'. Try selling 256-color computer displays to today's consumers. Won't work even if they would do fine for 99% of all practical computer applications. It's too late for that. Technology has moved on, and people know it. Technology hasn't moved on. 5.1 is 4.0 plus a crappy center speaker that has a totally different tonal quality and never blends with the other four lousy speakers, plus a subwoofer to make up for the fact that the other speakers are lousy. Four full-range speakers in a 4.0 configuration is better than what 99% of people have in their homes, and cost near what they could possibly afford. To talk about higher channel count is totally disregarding economic realities. Further, it's also not about Madonna or some stars who have the budget and access to engineers who might actually understand what they are doing. This is about the majority of musicians who record themselves, or who go to some local dude with a computer and analog mixing desk that sounds horrible but looks impressive to have their music produced. These people are not going to ever understand spherical harmonics, nth order something or another. They can intuitively grasp front-back, left-right and mono. They will be able to make a stereo CD (UHJ), and have an extra gimmick to sell: now you can listen to your CD in surround sound. Nobody is talking about stable images, just as little as The Beatles stereo recordings were Blumlein stereo. But they can make sounds swirl around, and people who do location recording can get a decent ambience. All of that is better than what is accessible to most consumers, musicians, and recording studios today. It is breadth that will get something like this going. It's not the best that is winning, but the most accessible. Once limited Ambisonics is sufficiently adopted, then it's time to show that there's more to this. You're not go
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
On 13 Apr 2012, at 00:53, Steven Dive wrote: > IMHO I can't see how FOA isn't clearly worth promoting [...] Basically, get > UHJ and, while we are at it, superstereo into people's homes, then get on > with full 1st and higher orders. Amen. Can't feed a baby with a steak. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
On 12 Apr 2012, at 23:05, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:47:04PM +0200, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: >> On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:27, Fons Adriaensen wrote: >> >>> First order definitely isn't good enough. As long a you insist that >>> one can't go up in order, just forget about it all. >> >> Tell that Meridian, and all their customers who have enjoyed immensely not >> only listening to horizontal-only 1st order Ambisonics, but also to 1st >> order horizontal-only Ambisonics crippled by UHJ matrix-encoding constraints. > > First order is certainly fine for classical orchestral music, > and I enjoy that as well even without Meridian's help. It works also for all sorts of other music that wants to create swirling sound scapes, etc. We're not trying to help blind people to target shoot by sound, we're essentially looking for artificial musical sound effects and natural sounding ambience. > But that will reach a minoriy classical music lovers audience > only. And first order fails rather miserably for anything else > compared to 5.1 which is what people already have and can compare > with. Essentially nobody listens to music in surround format, particularly not in a mass market. Also, I rather have less precise spatial resolution than what might be achievable with 5.1, but have it sound natural, not the sound out of speakers that most 5.1 productions end up having. Besides, G-Format would also end up being 5.1. > It won't produce a stable front channel for movie sound, > nor has it the the required spatial definition for effects that > work outside a very small sweet spot. Movies have no reason to switch to Ambisonics. The visual dominates the ear, and so there's no need for "natural" sound, because we're absorbed by the movie, and the movie studios are not going to change their production workflow or their love affair with DTS/Dolby anytime soon. So Ambisonics for movies is utterly irrelevant, at least until such point that it has proven to be a resounding success in music. > And what's the problem with > five or seven channels anyway ? Three things: cost, cost, and cost. The cardboard speakers that ship with affordable 5.1 systems are not suitable for music, and anything halfway acceptable is on a good sale at least $250/speaker, which means with four speakers you're at or above $1k, add a decent four channel amp, cables, speaker stands, etc. and you're well above the typical consumer price level already. This isn't about what grant money can buy in a computer lab, this is what a waiter, someone making $1500/month, etc. i.e. the typical iPad/AppleTV buyer could afford, not what a doctor or lawyer would buy if only they had a clue about technology. > This has nothing to do with 'elitism'. Try selling 256-color > computer displays to today's consumers. Won't work even if they > would do fine for 99% of all practical computer applications. > It's too late for that. Technology has moved on, and people > know it. Technology hasn't moved on. 5.1 is 4.0 plus a crappy center speaker that has a totally different tonal quality and never blends with the other four lousy speakers, plus a subwoofer to make up for the fact that the other speakers are lousy. Four full-range speakers in a 4.0 configuration is better than what 99% of people have in their homes, and cost near what they could possibly afford. To talk about higher channel count is totally disregarding economic realities. Further, it's also not about Madonna or some stars who have the budget and access to engineers who might actually understand what they are doing. This is about the majority of musicians who record themselves, or who go to some local dude with a computer and analog mixing desk that sounds horrible but looks impressive to have their music produced. These people are not going to ever understand spherical harmonics, nth order something or another. They can intuitively grasp front-back, left-right and mono. They will be able to make a stereo CD (UHJ), and have an extra gimmick to sell: now you can listen to your CD in surround sound. Nobody is talking about stable images, just as little as The Beatles stereo recordings were Blumlein stereo. But they can make sounds swirl around, and people who do location recording can get a decent ambience. All of that is better than what is accessible to most consumers, musicians, and recording studios today. It is breadth that will get something like this going. It's not the best that is winning, but the most accessible. Once limited Ambisonics is sufficiently adopted, then it's time to show that there's more to this. You're not going to get people to mix single tracks with the channel count that e.g. 2nd order requires unless there's already established demand for surround music. There are also no decent tools around, no DAWs with built-in support for 2nd or 3rd order Ambisonic production, and they won't be, because nobody is going
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Meridian may be expensive, too, but at least they are sticking with Ambisonics. Full horizontal 1st order B-format is now included in their decoders, as well as UHJ, superstereo and Trifield. Oh, and I'm a Meridian customer enjoying one of the few (only?) current domestic ambisonic decoders. Still damned expensive, so I've not replaced mine for nearly 15 years. I could just about cope with full 2nd order horizontal (6 speakers) but not 3rd with eight speakers in my typically small UK sitting room. Height is out of the question, People clearly put 5 and sometimes 7 speakers in their listening/entertainment rooms (in all sorts of odd places, though), so G-format should be possible, too (up to 3rd order?). For home use, I use superstereo with the TV and, as long as the width control is kept narrow-ish, centrally based sounds tie in well with what's happening on-screen. Sounds-off, such as doors closing and people speaking about to come into the image from left or right, can give a nicely widened perspective on a performance. I've only really been used to UHJ as a home user so I'm looking forward to full 1st order for music, classical and otherwise. I'd love to try UHJ with the TV. I suspect the dominance of a large TV image will tend to direct (sharpen?) perception of sound source positions on a TV screen, as happens anyway with TV speakers placed well off centre. Cinema may be a non-starter but not home use. IMHO I can't see how FOA isn't clearly worth promoting along with up to 3rd order G-format decodes for 5.1/7.1 setups for home users. Basically, get UHJ and, while we are at it, superstereo into people's homes, then get on with full 1st and higher orders. Steve On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:05, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:47:04PM +0200, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:27, Fons Adriaensen wrote: First order definitely isn't good enough. As long a you insist that one can't go up in order, just forget about it all. Tell that Meridian, and all their customers who have enjoyed immensely not only listening to horizontal-only 1st order Ambisonics, but also to 1st order horizontal-only Ambisonics crippled by UHJ matrix-encoding constraints. First order is certainly fine for classical orchestral music, and I enjoy that as well even without Meridian's help. But that will reach a minoriy classical music lovers audience only. And first order fails rather miserably for anything else compared to 5.1 which is what people already have and can compare with. It won't produce a stable front channel for movie sound, nor has it the the required spatial definition for effects that work outside a very small sweet spot. And what's the problem with five or seven channels anyway ? This has nothing to do with 'elitism'. Try selling 256-color computer displays to today's consumers. Won't work even if they would do fine for 99% of all practical computer applications. It's too late for that. Technology has moved on, and people know it. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) ___ 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] OT: Spatial music
On 13/04/2012 12:13 AM, seva wrote: but for me, i'd really like some tools to use in film mixing (even with the distributed Ls and Rs speakers). anyone on the list care to tell me what tools might be best, or "why it just won't work"? the idea is to simply improve location and immersive aspects of film sound, whether played in a theatre or in home theatre. Have you tried SPAT from IRCAM? It's pretty good and has sped up workflow for film mixing. Cheers, Haig ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:47:04PM +0200, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: > On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:27, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > > > First order definitely isn't good enough. As long a you insist that > > one can't go up in order, just forget about it all. > > Tell that Meridian, and all their customers who have enjoyed immensely not > only listening to horizontal-only 1st order Ambisonics, but also to 1st order > horizontal-only Ambisonics crippled by UHJ matrix-encoding constraints. First order is certainly fine for classical orchestral music, and I enjoy that as well even without Meridian's help. But that will reach a minoriy classical music lovers audience only. And first order fails rather miserably for anything else compared to 5.1 which is what people already have and can compare with. It won't produce a stable front channel for movie sound, nor has it the the required spatial definition for effects that work outside a very small sweet spot. And what's the problem with five or seven channels anyway ? This has nothing to do with 'elitism'. Try selling 256-color computer displays to today's consumers. Won't work even if they would do fine for 99% of all practical computer applications. It's too late for that. Technology has moved on, and people know it. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:27, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > First order definitely isn't good enough. As long a you insist that > one can't go up in order, just forget about it all. Tell that Meridian, and all their customers who have enjoyed immensely not only listening to horizontal-only 1st order Ambisonics, but also to 1st order horizontal-only Ambisonics crippled by UHJ matrix-encoding constraints. So maybe you should forget about it all, because there are plenty of people who enjoy that which you claim one should forget about. It's these sort of phrases that killed the potential adoption of Ambisonics a few years ago. The nice thing, people keep outing themselves... It's exactly this elitist attitude that keeps the ball from moving. 1st order is thoroughly enjoyable, and were it not for the not-so-smooth DACs maybe some other digital sins that Onkyo did in it's 808 receiver, I'd be a happy camper with that setup, but the sound quality of that device can't compete with a clean stereo amp, so it's surround vs. good sound. Some day, I'll fix that by using an old computer as a processor, and some high-end DAC as converter, and then I'll have the best of both. And I'll still massively prefer UHJ-1st-order-Ambisonics on four speakers over plain stereo. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:14:28PM +0200, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: > On 9 Apr 2012, at 02:25, Stefan Schreiber wrote: > > 1. 3rd order .AMB format can be decoded to a 5.1 ITU/Dolby setup. > > (Results would be clearly superior than a decoding from Ambionics > > 1st order to 5.1 ITU. This is because the resolution of 3rd order > > .AMB fits better to the - relatively detailled- front resolution of 5.1.) > > Completely and utterly irrelevant. It doesn't matter what is better, > what matters is what's good enough. First order definitely isn't good enough. As long a you insist that one can't go up in order, just forget about it all. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? New Title and questions...
On 12 Apr 2012, at 19:57, Martin Leese wrote: > seva > >> was it not true that the UK did not, or would not, help to support >> the ambisonic fledgling business due to some frustrating legal >> restriction? this was a major point in the killing of the launch. > > I assume by "the UK" you mean the UK > Government. The UK Government, through the > National Research Development Corporation, > strongly supported the development of > Ambisonics; they paid for it. While the NRDC > had strange ideas on how to market > Ambisonics, there were no legal restrictions on > them doing so. I heard that there were some effects of Thatcher era privatization efforts that directly or indirectly hurt Ambisonics... ...can't remember the details, though, except that the research had some bad luck with timing, i.e. it was ready to be marketed when the conditions for government funded research were the worst. Maybe someone can elaborate on that? Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Sorry for the late answer, I was away for several days... On 9 Apr 2012, at 02:25, Stefan Schreiber wrote: > Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: > >> >> There was once a slim chance of getting Apple to move on Ambisonics, as both >> some fundamental interest by some of Apple's CoreAudio group and relentless >> lobbying by an unnamed list member in an unnamed Apple product beta test >> group produced a slight opening of maybe getting 1st order B-Format adopted, >> when all the perfectionist zealots on this list more or less undermined it >> all by screaming that anything below 2nd or 3rd order is worthless, at which >> point pretty much all interest at Apple evaporated. Some people still don't >> get that I rather have imperfect 1st order Ambisonics which is perfectly >> adequate at producing realistic sounding ambiance, than wait until 50 years >> after my death to have a perfect 5th order system adopted by whoever is then >> a dominant player in audio technology. >> >> There's a reason why there's the old phrase "Shoot the engineer, start >> production"... >> > > I get tired of discussions we already have had on this list, several times at > least... :-) So do I. > 1. 3rd order .AMB format can be decoded to a 5.1 ITU/Dolby setup. (Results > would be clearly superior than a decoding from Ambionics 1st order to 5.1 > ITU. This is because the resolution of 3rd order .AMB fits better to the - > relatively detailled- front resolution of 5.1.) Completely and utterly irrelevant. It doesn't matter what is better, what matters is what's good enough and simple enough that for any reasonably company shipping a product it's cost effective to implement. Nobody is going to go 3rd order, make massive investments in technology, time, and man power, just to have a potential flop on their hand. 1st order is already close to too complex to be realistic. 2nd and 3rd order have no business outside the lab at this stage of commercial utilization of Ambisonics. > 2. You also can decode 3rd order .AMB to (just) 4 speakers. (Even if 3rd > order Ambisonics is "overspecified" if decoded to just 4 or 6 speakers, I > personally don't see any fundamental or even practical problems. This needs > probably some further discussion, but at least this is something < > practically relevant > ... Just a hint for the > "overspecification/underspecification" purists: A 1st order soundfield > recording can be reduced to plain old stereo, or say UHJ stereo. And > Ambisonics 1st order fans usually don't complain if Ambisonics is presented > on an underspecified loudspeaker array of just 2 speakers... ) On can also drill a hole in one's knee cap and pour raspberry sirup into that hole. But why would anyone want to do so? 1st order horizontal-only is about the only thing that has a reasonable chance, it's only one track count more than a regular stereo recording, it looks somewhat familiar to advanced recording engineers who may (if one's lucky) be familiar with MS Stereo or Blumlein setups, and for the rest one can somewhat intuitively explain a mono signal, and left-right differentials and front-back differentials, where already the concept of a differential signal is generally well above the head of just about almost everyone doing recordings. No, the majority of people recording, the people who make it a profitable business that things like ProTools, Logic, Garageband, Cubase, etc. are being sold are NOT people who are familiar with advanced recording concepts. They are neither Tonmeister nor are they Audio engineers. They may be music students who run screaming when they even see something that resembles an equation. These are the people who must adopt Ambisonics, if we want content since without content, there is no market for anything else. So step number one for Ambisonics to get off the ground is that creating content must be a no-brainer. That means something like GarageBand must be able to do 1st-order horizontal-only Ambisonics and spit out UHJ-Stereo mixes. THAT is achievable. Someone's drivel about what one can do with third order Ambisonics not only interests nobody except a sub-set of the people on this utterly tiny and irrelevant mailing list, it drives away just about everyone who might be willing to give Ambisonics a try. > 3. Any realistic 3rd order decoder could also handle 1st order Ambisonics. > This is important, because real-world Ambisonics recordings are > mostly/next-to-always 1st order. Irrelevant, because nobody is going to write, ship, sell, adopt a 3rd order decoder, if they haven't first thought of 1st order to be convincing and worth their while. If Apple had adopted 1st order Ambisonics on their platform, and now you'd ask for a 3rd order decoder, because it's also compatible with 1st order content, then you'd have a point, but we're about 4 decades away from that situation. > The concept of UHJ and G formats is from the 80s/90s, respectively. So
Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? New Title and questions...
I take it this refers to quadraphonic stuff, rather than to the high-end Hi-Fi company? John On 12 Apr 2012, at 15:18, seva wrote: > the Quad stuff ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
On 12/04/2012 18:31, Martin Leese wrote: seva wrote: ... but for me, i'd really like some tools to use in film mixing (even with the distributed Ls and Rs speakers). anyone on the list care to tell me what tools might be best, or "why it just won't work"? the idea is to simply improve location and immersive aspects of film sound, whether played in a theatre or in home theatre. Cinemas are hostile environments for Ambisonics. ... Possibly I simply haven't been to enough high-spec cinemas, but I tend to the opinion that cinemas are fairly hostile environments for audio generally. Too often, dialogue + foley + sfx + music = a mess, immersive or otherwise. A person may see a film once in the cinema, but maybe many times at home, so strategically, at least, the latter should arguably be the priority. Richard Dobson ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? New Title and questions...
seva > was it not true that the UK did not, or would not, help to support > the ambisonic fledgling business due to some frustrating legal > restriction? this was a major point in the killing of the launch. I assume by "the UK" you mean the UK Government. The UK Government, through the National Research Development Corporation, strongly supported the development of Ambisonics; they paid for it. While the NRDC had strange ideas on how to market Ambisonics, there were no legal restrictions on them doing so. > in addition, when MAG openly criticized (and mathematically gutted) > the Quad stuff, he did not make friends with many in the industry and > they made sure he was sidelined. This looks like a reference to the obituary of MAG by Barry Fox, visit: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/Ambisonic/faq_latest.html#SECTION26 Most of MAG's criticisms were targeted at the SQ system. My impression is that it was CBS who made enemies inside the industry, not MAG. For a different perspective on this, read the comments by Peter Scheiber at the end of a 1986 article in MultiChannelSound by William Sommerwerck. This article is available on my Google Site under "Ambisonic stuff"; visit: https://sites.google.com/site/mytemporarydownloads/ 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] OT: Spatial music
seva wrote: ... > but for me, i'd really like some tools to use in film mixing (even > with the distributed Ls and Rs speakers). anyone on the list care to > tell me what tools might be best, or "why it just won't work"? the > idea is to simply improve location and immersive aspects of film > sound, whether played in a theatre or in home theatre. Cinemas are hostile environments for Ambisonics. Theatre managers want to cram in as many paying punters as possible so, inevitably, some of them end up close to a surround speaker. Low order Ambisonics has trouble with this. While we happily denigrate 5.1, it is always worth remembering that it was designed to work in these hostile environments. Chris Travis expressed this succinctly in a post in October 2008: || Surround sound in cinemas is less ambitious || than many people assume. This is a matter || of practicality, given the number/spread of || the seats. 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] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? New Title and questions...
was it not true that the UK did not, or would not, help to support the ambisonic fledgling business due to some frustrating legal restriction? this was a major point in the killing of the launch. in addition, when MAG openly criticized (and mathematically gutted) the Quad stuff, he did not make friends with many in the industry and they made sure he was sidelined. At 2:26 +0100 4/11/12, Cara Gleeson wrote: To all, I've emailed a few of you individually and am in the process of writing to others (although I couldn't establish everyones email address' unfortunately due to a few different names appearing under the same post). To those that haven't received such an email, thank you for your links and audio, I have a few more questions... Absolutely agree my original dissertation question completley lacked focused and clarity. Taking onboard what all of you have said my dissertation question is: *'Given ambisonic's lack of commercial success and lack of* context/content (?), *why has it persisted for so many years?' OR: 'Given ambisonic's lack of commercial success, why has it persisted for so many years?' To also emphasise what is currently being done and what improvements could be possibly implemented in ambisonic technology for the future?* *** My literary review* I also wonder, other than Michael Gerzons biography and a few online articles as to why ambisonics didn't take off and its now 'coming of age', would I just explain for the literature review that there really isn't much literature available for my question, however I have read around the subject and finding out from the BBC's research department and the experts (yourselves) and AES conferences and papers as to what has been done over the years and what is currently being researched? A friend of mine kindly gave me some literature on social theory (taking political agendas with a 'pinch of salt'!) and postmodernism. Would this be useful literature to relate to consumerism and some of the general publics disinterest in new technolgogy and lack of means?? *Once again am I off target there for putting that in my literary review? * *How do I structure my main text, any suggestions of appropriate subtitles?* I've read a few books on 'how to write a dissertation' and looked at some online resources, ive written out the structure below but what I'm asking for is ideas/subtitles (worded better) for 'the main body of text' which is in bold. *Title page *Acknowledgements *Abstract *Introduction *Methodology *Literary review Main body of text - Few chapters on why ambisonics didn't take off as a commercial household product...and in other ways.. -Perhaps start with a chapter on what is ambisonics and Blumlein history or not bother?? I've been given the impression when you write a dissertation the reader may have no or little knowledge of the subject so a few areas need to be explained to the reader. Im not sure can anyone help? I've never been shown how to write a dissertation, believe me I've been asking people but the answers are rather vague. All I seem to get told is what common sense would say that every 10,000 word essay has a beginning, middle and end, would appreciate further elaboration greatly please! I'm used to writing shorter essays, 10,000 words must seem so short to you all but it's a new challenge for me! ...Back to early subchapters: -The failure of quad tarnishing the reputation of surround sound formatting in the 1970's -? -? - From reading your articles...'Lack of funding backed into ambisonic technology twenty plus years ago? Pragmatism? Practicalities.. - Make a point that do we really need ambisonics for household use and all genres of music? Perhaps though great for the enthusiast hearing a B format recording recreating through listening in ambisonic format the acoustics of the original room. Unpractical and not interesting to many of public. Impracticle for consumer households until technolgy adapted or fused with other technolgies, using less speakers, compatible software/hardware. So leading to ambisonics failure in 'household sound system sense' HOWEVER! Not in these ways -Few chapters on what has kept ambisonics in existance... -The enthusiasts have helped creating... Wigware plugins, MAXmsp... -? -? -Looking at current technologies... -Reasearch (the vast amount..) -3D cinema -Military training technology - The implications on medicine such as audio technologies -The implications on how surround sound formats can have on music itself? -Binaural 3D sound through headphones (particularly to use for training, gaming, medicine (?) applications)perhaps for gaming and training in accordance with J Dome (visual dome for gaming and training giving the participant 110 degrees of visual information rather than the typical forty degree view with a usual flat monitor most of us use). -? -What could be improved/implemented on in the future**... *-? -? *Conclusion/discussions - *inc. as a success as a domestic
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
yes indeed. perfect example. and easily applied to gaming (i use that adjective with tongue approaching cheek). imagine the laser quest with HUD in a room, with virtual fighters, and true sound placement around you. kids would (of all ages) pony up large money for such an experience. but for me, i'd really like some tools to use in film mixing (even with the distributed Ls and Rs speakers). anyone on the list care to tell me what tools might be best, or "why it just won't work"? the idea is to simply improve location and immersive aspects of film sound, whether played in a theatre or in home theatre. (yes, assume the home has a decent home theatre playback, and by decent, i include something like a Bose-qulality system with 5 small satellites --not full range-- and appropriate sub, such as the one bob ludwig uses at Gateway for clients to listen on as a real world "living room"). would G format *not* benefit this type of setup at all? (yes! assume the speakers are in the right places, ITU layout). At 8:38 -0400 4/11/12, Neil Waterman wrote: We have been using ambisonics for several years now to provide immersive soundfields for use within the flight simulation and training environments. Prior to this we were using gain panning that was restrictive and highly coupled to each installation. The use of ambi allows us to port a model from one implementation to another with little modification to the underlying sound simulation model. Cheers, Neil ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
