[Sursound] [OT] Experimental Computer Music Producers Wanted

[Oli Larkin]

Apologies for cross posting / advertisement...

Experimental Computer Music Producers Wanted

The Music Research Centre, University of York (UK) is looking for highly 
motivated producers of computer music and sound art for a one-year MA in Music 
Technology. The centre has outstanding production facilities and one of the 
best performance/listening spaces for electronic music in the world. It is well 
known for its active research programme and external engagement with practising 
artists and labels.
The course covers many aspects of music technology including both the technical 
and creative sides of computer music. We are particularly looking for students 
with a desire to create radical work that challenges both mainstream and 
academic conventions. This includes the production of experimental/extreme 
computer music, installation sound art and computer audio-video work.
If you are interested in being part of an active community of researchers and 
artists, with a genuine desire to explore and redefine notions of computer 
music and sound art, please get in touch. We evaluate all candidates on an 
individual basis and can accept students from various academic backgrounds.

www.york.ac.uk/music/mrc/courses/advert
www.york.ac.uk/music/postgraduate
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] HOA standards

[Richard Dobson]

On 06/05/2011 01:26, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:

...

i was mentioning this 3rd vs. 4th thing because bruce wiggins examined
the use of HO components for the "steering" of a 5.1 decode (which in
principle is not capable of more than 2nd order precision, but HO can
help mend the irregularities iiuc). he seems to have found that 4th
order signals can be steered even better than 3rd order ones. so there
is some benefit of really high orders as production and archival format,
even if all your customers ever get to see are 5.1 speaker feeds.



If it is third order, they can (possibly) use .AMB as a dedicated 
archival and exchange medium. If it is fourth order, they will need 
whatever the new file format is/will be, or just use multiple mono WAVE 
files Pro Tools style. So there are potential consequences logistically, 
arising from that choice. These are rarely purely "artistic" decisions; 
more often than not there are practical aspects to address as well.



..

the pure-audio bluray may offer some fresh perspective on this (it does
8 channels of pcm uncompressed and allows for several such streams in
parallel).
i guess it might eventually become interesting for a small market of
ambisonic enthusiasts (go, nimbus, go!), and you can cater to the mass
market with discrete multichannel stereo on the same disk.



That does indeed sound like a promising way forward; apart from anything 
else, there are some classic e/a works composed over eight discrete 
channels waiting for a viable no-compromise distribution format.



..


no. that is a rig which i feel is kind of a "sweet zone" in terms of
practicablity and price/performance, but it's not something i'm
advocating as a standard. why do so? the beauty of ambisonics is that we
have this amazing flexibility, so why do you keep insisting on setting
this in stone?




Just to be clear - I asm as delighted as anyone else with the 
flexibility Ambisonics affords. But I think there is a need for a clear 
definition of what we might call the "entry-level" system - or, if you 
like, of the lower limit on that flexibility while retaining the 
surround nature (i.e. we exclude decoding HOA to stereo). For horizontal 
surround, that seems to be 2nd-order decoded to 5.1. It has been 
vehemently argued that first-order over a square is not good enough - 
too retro.  For with-height, it would seem from recent descriptions that 
a reasonable entry-level system would be the bi-rectangle layout (with 
just the two "high" speakers). It appears to be classroom-friendly, and 
an arrangement I have a sporting chance of setting up myself and 
employing as a mobile rig (where screwing speakers to the ceiling is not 
an option!).




..
again, the producers don't care, that's the whole point of it.
the audiophiles will readily embrace the endless new ways for tweaking
and tuning (as will the sales guys).
whole new publications will spring up like dandelions ("the 100 best
ambisonic layouts for home use", "rouse your spouse - minimally
intrusive multichannel systems for your bedroom", "kindertotenlieder
resurrected - 45 surefire decoder tweaks for a mahler like you've never
heard it before").



I don't doubt it for an instant, but of course it implies they have 
something to decode flexibly - which might be whatever formats can be 
printed to that 8-channel BluRay disc. Software of course is infinitely 
flexible, and decisions depend mainly on the quality of the coffee; but 
in practice we are usually limited at some point in the chain by 
hardware, one way or another.


Richard Dobson
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Question regarding UHJ Encoding - Decoding

[Geoffrey Barton]

> 
> Message: 14
> Date: 06 May 2011 07:12:21 +0100
> From: dave.mal...@york.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Question regarding UHJ Encoding - Decoding
> To: Surround Sound discussion group 
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> On May 5 2011, Richard Lee wrote:
> 
>>> This sqrt(2) factor is an endless source of confusion. It seems silly 
>>> that W should be divided by sqrt(2) in recoding to restore its value, 
>>> which was multiplied by this in the encode to UHJ.
>> 
>> This sqrt(2) factor is WRONG.  Where do people come up with such myths?
>> 
> 
> I think the problem stems from the early material on Ambisonics in that 
> sometimes the pragmatic engineering decision to use -3dB on W to equalise 
> average channel levels on a recording of a reverberant environment with a 
> large number of distributed sources was rolled into the en/decoding 
> equations and sometimes (in the more "correct", theoretical discussions) it 
> wasn't. I remember being thoroughly confused by that way back in the days 
> of my youth...


I think it more likely comes from there being two versions of the equations, 
one encoding from b-format and the other in kernel form. The casual reader 
tends to confuse the direction cosines with the x and y of b-format, MAG 
usually gave both versions in internal documentation as he worked using the 
kernel form himself.

Geoffrey


-- next part ------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110506/03a2a192/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Question regarding UHJ Encoding - Decoding

[Dave Hunt]

Hi,


Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 03:15:51 -
From: Richard Lee 



The Encoding eqns on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
Ambisonic_UHJ_format are correct and come from Gerzon himself.


"Ambisonics in Multichannel Broadcasting and Video". JAES nov85, 33  
(11): 859-871.




Snip



[1]   The optimum 2 channel decode is tied in with the design of  
the speaker decoder which derives the signals to feed the speakers.


BLaH3 ...  "Is my decoder Ambisonic?" Heller et al, AES San  
Francisco 2008   is the definitive reference for design of  
Classic B-format decoders.


However, 2 channel UHJ decode has other complexities which are yet  
to be explained clearly and accurately.  Expect a BLaH encyclical  
on the subject before the end of the millenium.


One of these complexities is presumably indicated by the phrase "Note  
that two-channel UHJ requires the player to use different shelf  
filters than for three- and four-channel UHJ (and B-Format)" at  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonic_UHJ_format.


Any clues as to why this should be so ?? If we get back something  
close to three-channel B-Format, why should it be filtered  
differently from  a straight three-channel B-Format ?? The encoding/ 
decoding has no frequency conscious components. Admittedly, the gains  
of the filters may need to differ between 2D and 3D decoding.


Ciao,

Dave Hunt
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Ambisonic Speakers what type to buy for 8 speaker setup

[thomaschen]

I use two octagons with one above the other.  The decoding is much 
simpler for Z with the angles the same.  My decoder is based on the 
angle from zero in front.


ThomasChen


-Original Message-
From: Pedro Lopes 
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Sent: Thu, May 5, 2011 10:46 am
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Ambisonic Speakers what type to buy for 8 
speaker setup



Hi everyone,Impressive setup you have there.I'm also building an 8 
speaker ambisonic setup, although budget limitationswill force me to 
buy something like YamahaHs50, KRK rokit, or Mackies...something in the 
150€ price range per speaker.ThomasChen do you use two octagons one 
above the other?I'm researching about my speaker positioning, and 
considering two quads(rectangles), one vertical and one horizontal. The 
goal is to provide asmall space (3 by 3 meters) with 3D sound with 
ambisonics. Whats the generalthough on 8 speaker positioning?I attached 
an idea of the placing, for illustration purposes.best regards,PedroOn 
Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:38 PM,  wrote:> Darren>> I am 
using a dual octagon setup with ambisonic plus stereo playback.   I> 
have custom decoder implemented in Scope--Soniccore.  I am using 
Genelec> speakers with larger for the front and small for the rear.  
The addition of> powered speakers is that the addition gives much 
greater sound pressure.> The> advantage of distributed sound sources is 
that the sound level is more> tolerable than from two.  They are in a 
1000 sq. ft. room>> ThomasChen>>> In a message dated 5/5/2011 6:07:32 
A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,> i...@sacredresonance.com.au writes:>> Hi  
Darren here,>> I am doing a surround sound / octagon (8 speakers) setup 
 using ambisonic> software to create immersive sound running out of 
"M-aduio  firewire 410">> I am wanting to do 30-80 people in a room I 
want to do  testing in house> and use for live setup as well ->> what 
you think is  the cheapest option being 8 speakers.>> 1. What speakers 
should: (to  buy)>> a) Monitors (near field) powered - would these work 
? being near  field.>> b) or just powered speakers.>> Please any ideas 
of what to  buy with this setup>> thanks> Darren>> -- next 
part  --> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...> URL:> <> 
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110505/48da4d92/attachment.html> 
>> ___> 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/20110505/6e4a7dcf/attachment.html> 
>> ___> Sursound mailing 
list> Sursound@music.vt.edu> 
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound>-- Pedro Lopes 
(MSc)contact: pedro.lo...@ist.utl.ptwebsite: 
http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes 
/http://pedrolopesresearch.wordpress.com/ | 
http://twitter.com/plopesresearch-- next part 
--An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: 
-- next part --A 
non-text attachment was scrubbed...Name: doublequadSetup.pngType: 
image/pngSize: 42473 bytesDesc: not availableURL: 
___Su
rsound mailing 
listsurso...@music.vt.eduhttps://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/surso

und
 
___

Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Question regarding UHJ Encoding - Decoding

[Richard]

I didn't think decoding UHJ (as used by Nimbus, Unicorn etc. on their releases) 
required the use of shelf filters, Am I wrong again   LOL


  One of these complexities is presumably indicated by the phrase "Note  
  that two-channel UHJ requires the player to use different shelf  
  filters than for three- and four-channel UHJ (and B-Format)" at  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110506/132ff200/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 06:17:40PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> On 05/03/2011 08:03 PM, Aaron Heller wrote:
>> Contact me
>> off list if you want the Ambdec config files I used.
>
> i'd love to see them. any chance of you making them publicly available  
> (such as in a "contributions" folder in the ambdec tarball)?
> i haven't spoken to fons about it, but it might be worthwhile.

I made the birectangular configs some time ago for user who
requested them. They will be included in all next Ambdec 
releases.

Aaron, I'd certainly want to have yours for reference.

Ciao from Paris,

-- 
FA

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Question regarding UHJ Encoding - Decoding

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 06:06:15PM +0100, Richard wrote:
 
>   Working with the numbers given and using W' as W*sqrt(2), I get  
>   (though I may have made the odd error)
> 
>   W'' = W (1.442)  + X( 0.0986)  +  j*Y(0.1075)
>   X'' = W( 0.133)  +X(0.43) - j*Y(0.543)
>   Y'' = j* W(0.143) + j*X(0.461)  +  Y(0.5)
> 
> ...
>  
>   W"" = W (1.019)  + X( 0.0986)  +  j*Y(0.1075)
>   X"" = W( 0.094)  +X(0.43) - j*Y(0.543)
>   Y"" = j* W(0.101) + j*X(0.461)  +  Y(0.5)
> 
>   which looks a bit better, though still not a perfect reconstruction.

It is *not possible* to reconstruct the original W,X,Y from just two
signals (L,R). Whatever reconstruction will be a compromise with the
paramters (hopefully) determined by psycho-acoustic considerations.

-- 
FA

 
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Question regarding UHJ Encoding - Decoding

[David Worrall]

Given the almost universal acceptance of WP as the font of all information, it 
might be worth someone(s) from this group putting a 'watch for changes on this 
page' tag on the Amb. pages.

drw

On 06/05/2011, at 7:15 AM, Paul Hodges wrote:

> --On 06 May 2011 03:15 + Richard Lee  wrote:
> 
>> The Decoding eqns however, though supposedly coming from the same source,
>> add an erroneous 1/sqrt(2) factor.
> 
> I have corrected these equations on Wikipedia.
> 
> Paul
> 
> -- 
> Paul Hodges
> 
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

_
Dr David Worrall
Adjunct Research Fellow, Australian National University
david.worr...@anu.edu.au
Board Member, International Community for Auditory Display
Regional Editor, Organised Sound (CUP) 
Projects Officer, Music Council of Australia 
worrall.avatar.com.au   sonification.com.au
mca.org.au  musicforum.org.au


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Question regarding UHJ Encoding - Decoding

[Martin Leese]

"Richard"  wrote:

> Phew!!! Firstly, many thanks for the detailed response. I'll admit I find
> the math's related to UHJ & Ambisonics somewhat confusing at times, but 'm
> persevering.

Ignore Wikipedia.  Instead, stick with the
Gerzon 1985 paper (which yoiu now have).

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] Question regarding UHJ Encoding - Decoding

[Richard]

Will do  :-)


   Ignore Wikipedia.  Instead, stick with the
  Gerzon 1985 paper (which yoiu now have).

  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


  -
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3618 - Release Date: 05/05/11
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110506/2973944c/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Ambisonic Speakers what type to buy for 8 speaker setup

[thomaschen]

I believe that angle between speakers are important.  We will fuse 
angles of 60 degrees or less.  I have found that 45 degrees fuse well 
and most people are unable to locate speakers.  I also found that with 
height helps fuse the image.  I use B+ which adds a stereo front 
earlier in time plus B format.  The early time of arrival from the 
stereo front helps in both richness and localization.


ThomasChen


-Original Message-
From: Anthony Palomba 
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Sent: Thu, May 5, 2011 12:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Ambisonic Speakers what type to buy for 8 
speaker setup



I am very interested in this as well. I have been thinking abouttaking 
the 3d audio plunge and would like to figure outwhat kind of setup I 
would need.I would also be interested in knowing what you guys areusing 
to do the encoding of the audio streams.AnthonyOn Thu, May 5, 2011 at 
12:46 PM, Pedro Lopes  wrote:> Hi everyone,>> 
Impressive setup you have there.> I'm also building an 8 speaker 
ambisonic setup, although budget limitations> will force me to buy 
something like YamahaHs50, KRK rokit, or Mackies...> something in the 
150€ price range per speaker.>> ThomasChen do you use two octagons one 
above the other?>> I'm researching about my speaker positioning, and 
considering two quads> (rectangles), one vertical and one horizontal. 
The goal is to provide a> small space (3 by 3 meters) with 3D sound 
with ambisonics. Whats the> general> though on 8 speaker positioning?>> 
I attached an idea of the placing, for illustration purposes.>> best 
regards,> Pedro>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:38 PM,  
wrote:>> > Darren> >> > I am using a dual octagon setup with ambisonic 
plus stereo playback.   I> > have custom decoder implemented in 
Scope--Soniccore.  I am using Genelec> > speakers with larger for the 
front and small for the rear.  The addition> of> > powered speakers is 
that the addition gives much greater sound pressure.> > The> > 
advantage of distributed sound sources is that the sound level is more> 
> tolerable than from two.  They are in a 1000 sq. ft. room> >> > 
ThomasChen> >> >> > In a message dated 5/5/2011 6:07:32 A.M. Pacific 
Daylight Time,> > i...@sacredresonance.com.au writes:> >> > Hi  Darren 
here,> >> > I am doing a surround sound / octagon (8 speakers) setup  
using ambisonic> > software to create immersive sound running out of 
"M-aduio  firewire 410"> >> > I am wanting to do 30-80 people in a room 
I want to do  testing in house> > and use for live setup as well -> >> 
> what you think is  the cheapest option being 8 speakers.> >> > 1. 
What speakers should: (to  buy)> >> > a) Monitors (near field) powered 
- would these work ? being near  field.> >> > b) or just powered 
speakers.> >> > Please any ideas of what to  buy with this setup> >> > 
thanks> > Darren> >> > -- next part  --> > An 
HTML attachment was scrubbed...> > URL:> > <> >> 
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110505/48da4d92/attachment.html> 
> >> > ___> > 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/20110505/6e4a7dcf/attachment.html> 
> >> > ___> > Sursound 
mailing list> > Sursound@music.vt.edu> > 
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> > --> Pedro 
Lopes (MSc)> contact: pedro.lo...@ist.utl.pt> website: 
http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes /> 
http://pedrolopesresearch.wordpress.com/ |> 
http://twitter.com/plopesresearch> -- next part 
--> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...> URL: <> 
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110505/99221fdb/attachment.html> 
>> -- next part --> A non-text attachment was 
scrubbed...> Name: doublequadSetup.png> Type: image/png> Size: 42473 
bytes> Desc: not available> URL: <> 
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110505/99221fdb/attachment.png> 
>> ___> Sursound mailing 
list> Sursound@music.vt.edu> 
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound>-- next 
part --An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: 
___S
ursound mailing 
listsurso...@music.vt.eduhttps://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/surso

und
 
___

Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound