Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-14 Thread Daniel Courville
Le 2012-07-10 08:53, Garth Paine a écrit : >So I guess as you suggest I could use one instance of Harpex for my main >horizontal layout and then another instance with 2 or more shotguns >raised in elevation to manage the height, depending on the available >speakers Certainly worth a try! - Danie

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-10 Thread Garth Paine
ahh thanks Daniel I had not seen that. Would be cool if the speaker layout GUI could be rotated so one could see the 3D layout more clearly. So I guess as you suggest I could use one instance of Harpex for my main horizontal layout and then another instance with 2 or more shotguns raised in el

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-10 Thread Jörn Nettingsmeier
On 07/09/2012 03:17 PM, GP wrote: I did wonder about using Daniel Courville's plugins to do decoding for the height info separate to HARPEX. The HARPEX decoding does sound good ( how can I confirm it is 3rd order over 8 speakers?) and so if I could add height using another approach that would be

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-10 Thread Dave Malham
ge From: Fons Adriaensen To: sursound@music.vt.edu Sent: Mon, July 9, 2012 6:48:40 AM Subject: Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:13:04PM +1000, GP wrote: If the min is (N+1)². Surely for 3rd order that is (3+1)² = 16 speakers? The minimu

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-09 Thread Eric Benjamin
:40 AM Subject: Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:13:04PM +1000, GP wrote: > If the min is (N+1)². > Surely for 3rd order that is > (3+1)² = 16 speakers? The minimum is (M + 1)^2 for 3D, and (2 * M) + 1 for 2D, but - You bett

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-09 Thread Daniel Courville
Le 2012-07-09 09:17, GP a écrit : >I did wonder about using Daniel Courville's plugins to do decoding for >the height info separate to HARPEX. The HARPEX decoding does sound good ( >how can I confirm it is 3rd order over 8 speakers?) and so if I could add >height using another approach that would

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-09 Thread Dave Malham
s, --Richard -Original Message- From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Augustine Leudar Sent: 09 July 2012 12:32 To: Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers I cant remember the formula o

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-09 Thread Richard Furse
lightly veiled plug for the Rapture3D decoder ;-) Best wishes, --Richard -Original Message- From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Augustine Leudar Sent: 09 July 2012 12:32 To: Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] hi

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-09 Thread Michael Chapman
> Thank for all this guidance. > > If the min is (N+1)². > Surely for 3rd order that is > (3+1)² = 16 speakers? > > This is what has been confusing me as I see reports of third order over 8 > speakers which seems to go against the rules. > > Cheers Garth Eight 'is' a cube, the classic first order

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-09 Thread Fons Adriaensen
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:13:04PM +1000, GP wrote: > If the min is (N+1)². > Surely for 3rd order that is > (3+1)² = 16 speakers? The minimum is (M + 1)^2 for 3D, and (2 * M) + 1 for 2D, but - You better use at least on more, - For 3D, the minimum is 8, even for first order. That is because

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-09 Thread GP
I did wonder about using Daniel Courville's plugins to do decoding for the height info separate to HARPEX. The HARPEX decoding does sound good ( how can I confirm it is 3rd order over 8 speakers?) and so if I could add height using another approach that would be good. I need to look at how to ge

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-09 Thread GP
Thank for all this guidance. If the min is (N+1)². Surely for 3rd order that is (3+1)² = 16 speakers? This is what has been confusing me as I see reports of third order over 8 speakers which seems to go against the rules. Cheers Garth Sent on the Move On 09/07/2012, at 22:07, Jörn Netting

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-09 Thread Jörn Nettingsmeier
On 07/09/2012 01:32 PM, Augustine Leudar wrote: that is for 3d by the way but not sure ... anyone ? there are no hard upper limits. the absolute lower limit is (N+1)². in horizontal layouts, i find 8 too much for first order, and 12 too much for third order. the issue is that additional

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-09 Thread Jörn Nettingsmeier
On 07/09/2012 01:57 PM, Garth Paine wrote: Thanks for that feedback - I have HARPEX, but did not realise it does third-order horizontal? One drawback with Harpex is it does not do height you could do HARPEX on the 8 horizontal speakers, then take two virtual microphones, aim them into the up

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-09 Thread Garth Paine
Thanks for that feedback - I have HARPEX, but did not realise it does third-order horizontal? One drawback with Harpex is it does not do height Cheers Garth http://www.activatedspace.com http://www.syncsonics.com On 09/07/2012, at 9:27 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > On 07/09/2012 01:17 PM

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-09 Thread Augustine Leudar
that is for 3d by the way but not sure ... anyone ? On 9 July 2012 12:31, Augustine Leudar wrote: > I cant remember the formula off hand but it important ,I am told, to use > the correct number of speakers for the order you are using - so if you use > too many speakers for the order that ca

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-09 Thread Augustine Leudar
I cant remember the formula off hand but it important ,I am told, to use the correct number of speakers for the order you are using - so if you use too many speakers for the order that can also muddy up the localisation. Someone will enlighten us Im sure but is it : the order number + 1 squared ?

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-09 Thread Jörn Nettingsmeier
On 07/09/2012 01:17 PM, Garth Paine wrote: Hi everyone I have been gathering lots of ambient field recordings in A-Format for a few years using my SPS200 Soundfiled mike and a 788T. I have experimented with playback over an 8 channel circle, and also with 3 circles of 8 at different heights (ro

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

2012-07-09 Thread Garth Paine
Hi everyone I have been gathering lots of ambient field recordings in A-Format for a few years using my SPS200 Soundfiled mike and a 788T. I have experimented with playback over an 8 channel circle, and also with 3 circles of 8 at different heights (roof, 3M, 1M), and some other arrangements.