Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

[Marc Lavallée]

Stefan Schreiber  a écrit :

> > Right. I was speaking of 360 horizontal.  Just to be clear, how
> > many speakers are necessary at minimum for a "full sphere 3D"
> > system? I've been told that a double twisted hex (3 in front, 3 in
> > back at ear level, and 3 in front, 3 in back up high twisted 90
> > degrees from the ear level set) would do it for a total of 12
> > speakers. Or would you need 18 speakers. I've never seen a picture
> > of what a full 3d sphere layout looks like.
> >
> > Bearcat
> 
> 
> The minimum for surround with height is 8 speakers, for Ambisonics
> 1st order. If the sphere is full-sphere (and not half-sphere), you
> probably need 12+ speakers, although I suspect there could be a
> solution with less speakers than 12. (Feeback welcome...)

A possible solution is the layout proposed by Bo-Erik Sandholm:
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/2011-May/040968.html

"It uses 10 channels, it is a hexagon in the horizontal plane with a
speakers at front back. The Z is handled by for speakers, placed where
the 4 hexagon side speakers will end up if the Hexagon is rotated 90
degrees around a axis through the front and back hexagon speakers."

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

Re: [Sursound] Opinions on the Brahma soundfield mic kit

[umashankar mantravadi]

dear all i am the person who makes brahma microphones. the photographs and 
description on the oomagamma site are of one early version. the capsules are 
cardioid 14 mm, mounted on a drilled out sphere. (it was not very successful.) 
while oomagamma sells some of the microphones i had made, brahma is not one of 
them. that is because as it stands, i am not providing calibration files or 
software, so it cannot be a truly commercial venture. for almost a year now, i 
have been making my parts using shapeways, so it is now possible for me to make 
accurate assemblies using a variety of capsules from 6 mm onwards. the capsules 
are cardioids, an the arrangement a tetrahedron. most of my recent experiments 
have been on mounting the capsule assembly inside a metal mesh sphere, now 
internallly shockmounted. this is because i realise the real limitation of many 
of the tetrahedral microphones around is their susceptibility to wind, 
electrical interference and handling noises. there is no poi
 nt making a perfect microphone if every recording i make is vitiated by 
noises! i have made half a dozen of these microphnes so far this year (all 14 
mm) along with modified zoom H2 recorders. but my next brahma microphone is 
going to use large (25 mm) capsules and is meant to be an upgrade in terms of 
audio quality. that means phantom power and balanced outputs as an option.  all 
the shapeways parts i have designed for brahma are available for purchase from 
shapeways.com. i will help which ever way i can for those who want to make 
their own. i have posted a photo essay on the zoom H 2 modification and can 
provide links. i would like to encourage people to make their own. i will of 
course build one for anyone who wants it, but as i have said before, they will 
have to figure how they will calibrate the microphone. there is brahmavolver a 
free program produced by angelo farina's group for the original 14 mm brahma 
kits i had made for aida. (there were ten of them). it is also 
 possible to buy a fuly calibrated brahma from AIDA, which is part of Angelo 
Farina's university i have posted links to files on skydrive. the folder called 
ambisonics has recordings using six mm capsules. the one called brahma 140 has 
recordings made by hector centano, who is a member of this group. he measured 
his brahma and sent the files to fons adriansen, who created calibration files 
to be used with tetraproc softare. umashankar  

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:54:27 +0100
> From: d...@db-av.co.uk
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Opinions on the Brahma soundfield mic kit
> 
> Has anyone done any A/B comparisons of the Brahma with other mics such as
> the tetra mic and the STS200?
> 
> I'd love to hear the results of a 'soundfield' mic shootout.
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/07/2011 20:00, "Eric Benjamin"  wrote:
> 
> >Dan Andrew
> >> whats the catch?
> >
> >I'm not sure that there is a catch, as such.
> >
> >It's apparent that the Brahma is an 'A-format' microphone, in which it is
> >the 
> >capsule signals that are recorded and not the Ambisonic B-format.  To get
> >B-format will require some matrix processing (sum and difference of
> >capsule 
> >signals), and some equalization to restore flat frequency response.  Not
> >only 
> >that, but the microphone array appears to be made up of omnidirectional
> >signals 
> >which means that the difference signals (B-format X, Y, and Z) will need
> >to have 
> >the low frequencies boosted substantially to give any semblance of flat
> >frequency response.
> >
> >Perhaps the Oomagamma folks can supply some commentary, and much better
> >than 
> >that, perhaps they can supply some A-format demonstration files.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >- Original Message 
> >From: Dan Andrews 
> >To: Surround Sound discussion group 
> >Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 4:36:34 AM
> >Subject: [Sursound] Opinions on the Brahma soundfield mic kit
> >
> >Im looking to buy a mic for b-format recording and wondered if anyone on
> >the
> >mailing list has had any experience with Brahma soundfield mic kit?
> >
> >http://www.oomagamma.com/brahma_kit/brahma_kit.html
> >
> >This kit includes the mic, a modified 4ch Zoom 24/96 recorder, cables, a
> >shockmount, 2 wind shields and a wooden case to put it all in, all for 729
> >euro
> >
> >This all seems far to good to be true, whats the catch?
> >
> >All the best
> >
> >Dan
> >
> >
> >-- next part --
> >An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >URL: 
> ><

[Sursound] umashankar mantravadi has shared documents with you

[umashankar mantravadi]

 umashankar mantravadi shared the folder brahma 140 with you on Windows Live.
<http://profile.live.com/cid-3aeeea022e2ad294?Bsrc=EMSHOO&Bpub=SN.Notifications>
"here are  the two recordings by hector i intended to send"
View folder
<http://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=3aeeea022e2ad294&page=browse&resid=3AEEEA022E2AD294!227&type=6&Bsrc=EMSHOO&Bpub=SN.Notifications>
Notifications preferences
<http://profile.live.com/options/notifications/>
Microsoft privacy statement
<http://g.msn.co.in/2privacy/enin>
Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110711/7f52871a/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

[Sursound] umashankar mantravadi has shared documents with you

[umashankar mantravadi]

 umashankar mantravadi shared the folder ambisonics with you on Windows Live.
<http://profile.live.com/cid-3aeeea022e2ad294?Bsrc=EMSHOO&Bpub=SN.Notifications>
"here are to B format recordings (four wave files each) recorded and processed 
by hector centano.  using the brahma 140 microphone with modified zoom H2."
View folder
<http://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=3aeeea022e2ad294&page=browse&resid=3AEEEA022E2AD294!204&type=6&authkey=9imRr2LuD0M%24&Bsrc=EMSHOO&Bpub=SN.Notifications>
Notifications preferences
<http://profile.live.com/options/notifications/>
Microsoft privacy statement
<http://g.msn.co.in/2privacy/enin>
Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110711/e5df5c12/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

[Stefan Schreiber]

Bearcat M. Sandor wrote:


On 7/11/2011 8:30 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:



However, the "12+ channel" audio system (for Ambisonics?) is a 
caricature, at best. 8 horizontal speakers would be enough for 
Ambisonics 3rd order, for home purposes. 1st order can be reproduced  
with 4 speakers, you really won't need more than 6. Everybody knows 
this...:-)


In this sense, your posting was polemic, because you also knew this. 
Right?



Best regards,

Stefan

P.S.: Unless we speak about "full sphere 3D", and Ambisonics would 
need more speakers. However, the thead topic says "360 degree sound". 
Therefore, 360º horizontal suround sound and "3D sound" has been 
mixed up in the following postings...


Prof. Choueiri's solution requires special speakers and a controlled 
environment, in my understanding. I remain sceptical if the 
peformance of this system will come close to a real surround system, 
which would have to been tested in an objective way. (I have said 
that my critic doesn't refer to Ambiophonics, which is not an 
"extreme XTC for everything" solution. Maybe I am also polemic... 
:-) )


Right. I was speaking of 360 horizontal.  Just to be clear, how many 
speakers are necessary at minimum for a "full sphere 3D" system? I've 
been told that a double twisted hex (3 in front, 3 in back at ear 
level, and 3 in front, 3 in back up high twisted 90 degrees from the 
ear level set) would do it for a total of 12 speakers. Or would you 
need 18 speakers. I've never seen a picture of what a full 3d sphere 
layout looks like.


Bearcat



The minimum for surround with height is 8 speakers, for Ambisonics 1st 
order. If the sphere is full-sphere (and not half-sphere), you probably 
need 12+ speakers, although I suspect there could be a solution with 
less speakers than 12. (Feeback welcome...)


Some have tried to reproduce "some" height information via a 7.1 layout. 
(And even 5.1, but here there are severe limitations.)



Bye!

Stefan

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

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

[Eric Benjamin]

> all of my material that was on there (plus a bit more), and all of John 
>Leonard's,
I hadn't visited your pages in a while.  I particular like the roll-over 
informational photos.

Between your material and John Leonard's material you have Early Music and 
environmental sounds fairly well covered.  Now we need some more variety!

I'll contact you off-list.

Eric



- Original Message 
From: Paul Hodges 
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 12:45:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their 
viability for actual 360 degree sound

--On 10 July 2011 22:47 +0200 Jörn Nettingsmeier  
wrote:

> the demise of ambisonia.com is lamentable,

Indeed.  But I'd like just to remind people that all of my material that was on 
there (plus a bit more), and all of John Leonard's, and Richard Lee's articles, 
are now available from my site here:  and 
here: .

I will make similar pages for anyone else's stuff if they ask me to.

Paul

-- Paul Hodges


___
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] Opinions on the Brahma soundfield mic kit

[Dan Andrews]

Has anyone done any A/B comparisons of the Brahma with other mics such as
the tetra mic and the STS200?

I'd love to hear the results of a 'soundfield' mic shootout.



On 11/07/2011 20:00, "Eric Benjamin"  wrote:

>Dan Andrew
>> whats the catch?
>
>I'm not sure that there is a catch, as such.
>
>It's apparent that the Brahma is an 'A-format' microphone, in which it is
>the 
>capsule signals that are recorded and not the Ambisonic B-format.  To get
>B-format will require some matrix processing (sum and difference of
>capsule 
>signals), and some equalization to restore flat frequency response.  Not
>only 
>that, but the microphone array appears to be made up of omnidirectional
>signals 
>which means that the difference signals (B-format X, Y, and Z) will need
>to have 
>the low frequencies boosted substantially to give any semblance of flat
>frequency response.
>
>Perhaps the Oomagamma folks can supply some commentary, and much better
>than 
>that, perhaps they can supply some A-format demonstration files.
>
>
>
>
>- Original Message 
>From: Dan Andrews 
>To: Surround Sound discussion group 
>Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 4:36:34 AM
>Subject: [Sursound] Opinions on the Brahma soundfield mic kit
>
>Im looking to buy a mic for b-format recording and wondered if anyone on
>the
>mailing list has had any experience with Brahma soundfield mic kit?
>
>http://www.oomagamma.com/brahma_kit/brahma_kit.html
>
>This kit includes the mic, a modified 4ch Zoom 24/96 recorder, cables, a
>shockmount, 2 wind shields and a wooden case to put it all in, all for 729
>euro
>
>This all seems far to good to be true, whats the catch?
>
>All the best
>
>Dan
>
>
>-- next part --
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: 
><https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110711/4
>2815fb6/attachment.html>
>
>___
>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


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

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

[Paul Hodges]

--On 10 July 2011 22:47 +0200 Jörn Nettingsmeier 
 wrote:



the demise of ambisonia.com is lamentable,


Indeed.  But I'd like just to remind people that all of my material that 
was on there (plus a bit more), and all of John Leonard's, and Richard 
Lee's articles, are now available from my site here: 
 and here: 
.


I will make similar pages for anyone else's stuff if they ask me to.

Paul

--
Paul Hodges


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

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

[Bearcat M. Sandor]

On 7/11/2011 8:30 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:


However, the "12+ channel" audio system (for Ambisonics?) is a 
caricature, at best. 8 horizontal speakers would be enough for 
Ambisonics 3rd order, for home purposes. 1st order can be reproduced  
with 4 speakers, you really won't need more than 6. Everybody knows 
this...:-)


In this sense, your posting was polemic, because you also knew this. 
Right?



Best regards,

Stefan

P.S.: Unless we speak about "full sphere 3D", and Ambisonics would 
need more speakers. However, the thead topic says "360 degree sound". 
Therefore, 360º horizontal suround sound and "3D sound" has been mixed 
up in the following postings...


Prof. Choueiri's solution requires special speakers and a controlled 
environment, in my understanding. I remain sceptical if the peformance 
of this system will come close to a real surround system, which would 
have to been tested in an objective way. (I have said that my critic 
doesn't refer to Ambiophonics, which is not an "extreme XTC for 
everything" solution. Maybe I am also polemic... :-) )
Right. I was speaking of 360 horizontal.  Just to be clear, how many 
speakers are necessary at minimum for a "full sphere 3D" system? I've 
been told that a double twisted hex (3 in front, 3 in back at ear level, 
and 3 in front, 3 in back up high twisted 90 degrees from the ear level 
set) would do it for a total of 12 speakers. Or would you need 18 
speakers. I've never seen a picture of what a full 3d sphere layout 
looks like.


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

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

[Bearcat M. Sandor]

On 7/11/2011 8:30 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:


However, the "12+ channel" audio system (for Ambisonics?) is a 
caricature, at best. 8 horizontal speakers would be enough for 
Ambisonics 3rd order, for home purposes. 1st order can be reproduced  
with 4 speakers, you really won't need more than 6. Everybody knows 
this...:-)


In this sense, your posting was polemic, because you also knew this. 
Right?



Best regards,

Stefan

P.S.: Unless we speak about "full sphere 3D", and Ambisonics would 
need more speakers. However, the thead topic says "360 degree sound". 
Therefore, 360º horizontal suround sound and "3D sound" has been mixed 
up in the following postings...


Prof. Choueiri's solution requires special speakers and a controlled 
environment, in my understanding. I remain sceptical if the peformance 
of this system will come close to a real surround system, which would 
have to been tested in an objective way. (I have said that my critic 
doesn't refer to Ambiophonics, which is not an "extreme XTC for 
everything" solution. Maybe I am also polemic... :-) )
Right. I was speaking of 360 horizontal.  Just to be clear, how many 
speakers are necessary at minimum for a "full sphere 3D" system? I've 
been told that a double twisted hex (3 in front, 3 in back at ear level, 
and 3 in front, 3 in back up high twisted 90 degrees from the ear level 
set) would do it for a total of 12 speakers. Or would you need 18 
speakers. I've never seen a picture of what a full 3d sphere layout 
looks like.


Bearcat




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

Re: [Sursound] Opinions on the Brahma soundfield mic kit

[Eric Benjamin]

Dan Andrew
> whats the catch?

I'm not sure that there is a catch, as such.  

It's apparent that the Brahma is an 'A-format' microphone, in which it is the 
capsule signals that are recorded and not the Ambisonic B-format.  To get 
B-format will require some matrix processing (sum and difference of capsule 
signals), and some equalization to restore flat frequency response.  Not only 
that, but the microphone array appears to be made up of omnidirectional signals 
which means that the difference signals (B-format X, Y, and Z) will need to 
have 
the low frequencies boosted substantially to give any semblance of flat 
frequency response.

Perhaps the Oomagamma folks can supply some commentary, and much better than 
that, perhaps they can supply some A-format demonstration files.




- Original Message 
From: Dan Andrews 
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 4:36:34 AM
Subject: [Sursound] Opinions on the Brahma soundfield mic kit

Im looking to buy a mic for b-format recording and wondered if anyone on the
mailing list has had any experience with Brahma soundfield mic kit?

http://www.oomagamma.com/brahma_kit/brahma_kit.html

This kit includes the mic, a modified 4ch Zoom 24/96 recorder, cables, a
shockmount, 2 wind shields and a wooden case to put it all in, all for 729
euro

This all seems far to good to be true, whats the catch?

All the best

Dan


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110711/42815fb6/attachment.html>

___
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] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

[Peter Lennox]

Haven't managed to follow the whole thread, but Dave Worrall's question about 
adaptation to others' pinnae: I think Fred Wightman and Doris Kistler did some 
on this, as did Hofman, Van Riswick and Van Opstal.

The interesting point is that, initially, when listening with others' ears, 
spatial performance is degraded, but over a period of a few weeks (I forget how 
long), performance comes right up to scratch and in a few rare cases, exceeds 
the performance previously demonstrated with listeners' own ears!
The other point was that, after the experiment was over, listeners could go 
right back to listening with their own pinnae, so they'd actually learned a new 
set as well as, not in replacement of, the old set. I've no idea how many sets 
one could learn - could be an important funding bid!
Cheers
ppl

Dr Peter Lennox
School of Technology 
University of Derby, UK
tel: 01332 593155
e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk  

-Original Message-
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On 
Behalf Of David Worrall
Sent: 09 July 2011 17:20
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their 
viability for actual 360 degree sound

[Hello to all - It was good 2 C some of you at ICAD Budapest - and +ve 2 C a 
deal of activity in ambisonics for auditory design.]

On 09/07/2011, at 6:40 AM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:06:37PM -0600, Bearcat M. Sandor wrote:
> 
>> The ear canal is just a tube, so there's no  
>> directionality once the waves are in there.
> 
Two words act as special alarms to me. In finance: "secret" and in 
phenomenology: "just".

The ear canal is no less than "just" a tube than is a didgeridoo at the lips of 
an experienced player.

One can certainly say "the ear canal is tubular" but it is not "just a tube" 
because, for eg,
a) "tube" cannot be assumed to be regular, but arbitrarily complex, is 
arbitrarily flanged at both ends 
b) it has a transverse piece of sound-sensitive skin  (the 'drum'), to which is 
attached other 'stuff'
c) it is part of a head which has a brain in it that is also connected other 
sense receptors, including the vestibular labyrinth etc etc and that it has 
extensive experience using it/them to perceive events in external and internal 
environs, etc etc etc. as well as efference copy-being aware that a movement is 
one's own and not the world's.

Related to (c), does anyone have any reports of empirical experiments on the 
brain's ability to learn/adapt to HRTF encoded signals encoded for 'foreign' 
ears?

David


> "Once they are in there". Which is why you can make things
> work with headphones plus head motion tracking.
> 
> When using speakers, the sound has to get 'in there' first.
> And you are allowed to turn and otherwise move your head,
> so even when e.g. seated you can (and will) explore the sound 
> field around it, and your brain will correlate your movements
> with the changes of the sound entering your ears. So getting
> the right sound 'in there' is not just a matter of recreating
> the sound field at the two points where your ear canals would
> be if your head were clamped into a vise. You have to create
> something matching the field of a real source at least in the
> near vicinity. And it turns out you can't do that without energy 
> arriving from more or less the right direction.
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> -- 
> FA
> 
> ___
> 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) 
IT Projects, 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

_
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.
The policy is available here: http://www.derby.ac.uk/LIS/Email-Policy
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

[Stefan Schreiber]

Bearcat M. Şandor wrote:


On 07/10/2011 11:10 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

 


To clarify a few basic things:

The first poster in this thread (and obviously some other people who
maybe should have known better) are claiming that you could receive a
360º representation via just two (supposedly narrow) front speakers.
   



First poster here. Just to clarify, i didn't claim anything like that. I
just asked if anyone had heard any of these recent 2-channel 3D audio
systems and wondered what they thought of them.  My main point was
whining about the expense of a 12+ channel audio system vs the
possibility of full sphere surround experience with 2 channels.  In
fact, i stated that i had not heard convincing 3D yet. Perhaps a more
forward sound stage, but i've heard good body from my speakers with no
"3D" applied.

 


Ok, fair enough. Your question is/was actually very good.

However, the "12+ channel" audio system (for Ambisonics?) is a 
caricature, at best. 8 horizontal speakers would be enough for 
Ambisonics 3rd order, for home purposes. 1st order can be reproduced  
with 4 speakers, you really won't need more than 6. Everybody knows 
this...:-)


In this sense, your posting was polemic, because you also knew this. Right?


Best regards,

Stefan

P.S.: Unless we speak about "full sphere 3D", and Ambisonics would need 
more speakers. However, the thead topic says "360 degree sound". 
Therefore, 360º horizontal suround sound and "3D sound" has been mixed 
up in the following postings...


Prof. Choueiri's solution requires special speakers and a controlled 
environment, in my understanding. I remain sceptical if the peformance 
of this system will come close to a real surround system, which would 
have to been tested in an objective way. (I have said that my critic 
doesn't refer to Ambiophonics, which is not an "extreme XTC for 
everything" solution. Maybe I am also polemic... :-) )

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

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

[Stefan Schreiber]

Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:


On 07/11/2011 12:39 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:


With all these efforts, why is actually nobody just marketing a
headphone solution with head-tracking?



smyth research makes one (called the realizer), or there's the 
beyerdynamic headzone.




We have discussed the smyth esearch solution some time ago, if I 
remember well.


Beside of this, there seems to be a certain lack of some "popular" 
solution, say "Dolby style" or whatsoever.



Best,

Stefan

P.S.: I believe that Sony did something in this aea, but they didn't 
come to market.(?)


Maybe some of the beancounters decided that this would  not run as a 
viable project... I also don't want to spread rumours, but I believe 
there was "something".


As the research is done, it is more about maketing/innovation. (Old 
style innovation, so to speak. If "content is king", you don't have to 
innovate. Unless the slogan gets out of fashion, of course. < g >)

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

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

[Stefan Schreiber]

Well, unless the amplifier encounters some of the elusive  square 
(freak) waves...  :-D


Stefan

Robert Greene wrote:



No speaker requires a "fast" amplifier,
whatever that means. ALL amplifiers that
are not defective are far faster in any reasonable
sense than any speaker is. Some amps
have a tiny roll off of the extreme top
on account of output networks or the like.
But really this is a nonissue for any serious
purposes.

Robert

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Marc Lavall?e wrote:


J?rn Nettingsmeier  a ?crit :


On 07/10/2011 03:41 AM, Marc Lavall?e wrote:


I'm waiting for a pair of
very directional speakers that should (hopefully) help me enjoy
conventional stereo.



then the manger might be for you:
http://manger-msw.de/index.php?language=en

this is a speaker that has been optimized for very good impulse
response behaviour (at the expense of almost everything else).



Then a fast amplifier is required.


in addition to its quick reaction, it's beaming like mad, which means
that it practically eliminates early reflections over a wide band (a
lot wider than conventional dome tweeters). its stereo reproduction
is stunning.



That's the idea: instead of adding tons of acoustic treatment in my
listening room, I prefer to invest in directive speakers.


if you can do with very little efficiency (sorry tube amp fans)



The sensitivity of Manger speakers is about 88dB; that's not so bad.


and don't mind around 10% THD in the low frequencies (which is not as
bad as it sounds, but also not as good as manger make it sound),



Most listeners can't detect 10% THD if the level of the distorted signal
is low compared to the non-distorted signal.


then you should try it.



I can't try Manger speakers since they are not distributed in North
America. Also, I can't afford them. I already made my choice, and it's a
horn based loudspeaker. Good enough compression drivers are cheap; the
magic (and the money) is in the horn.


which none of the above claims to do. home listeners are consumers.
there is no point in promoting something to consumers when (as you
point out) there is no product. you have to promote it to _producers_.



Right. But I'm a listener, not a consumer. I'm not a producer, but I
might become a non-professional one, when I'll have a working
ambisonics system at home.

Why is Ambisonics well known in the scientific community and not much
elsewhere? Why and how to promote Ambisonics to hobbyists and poor
students who don't have access to institutional labs and studios? Are
they a lost cause?

With Internet, we now can do things differently without the classic
producer/consumer mediation. If your target audience is only the
producers, Ambisonics will just be patented again and sold under new
names; it's just a matter of finding new tricks related to Ambisonics.
I know that's exactly what you're trying to avoid...

I will follow your tutorial to install my home system; without it, I'd
be lost. Your other tutorial (for producer) shows Ambisonics as a
spatialization tool for rendering stereo and 5.1 outputs; as a
"consumer" (I hate this word), why would I want to install a 10 speakers
periphonic system if producers just keep their amb files as masters?
There's a missing link...


If you could help me understand spherical harmonics, I'd be a "MAG
fanboy" in no time.



anyone who can grasp m/s stereo can grasp arbitrary order ambisonics.
i'm talking "understand the principle", not "grok all the
calculations and their implications to the nth degree".



I grasp it, but I don't understand it. After reading many articles, I'm
still lost, and I think it's important to understand part of the
maths. HOA sounds like a nice marketing acronym (it carries a
lot of mysticism and good vibes), but I can't just "believe"...


The best didactic resource I found is a very
strange article titled "Notes on Basic Ideas of Spherical
Harmonics". It's so good that I barely understand 10% of it.



isn't that a text by robert greene? i think i've read it. yeah, mr
greene is a mathematician, and they like it rigorous.



It's a fine text, but it reminded me how little math education I had.


but you don't need that level of understanding to use ambisonics. you
don't have to understand electronics to use an amplifier, and you
don't have to understand acoustics to use a microphone. some insight
helps, and the more you know the better, but being able to build some
piece of gear from scratch is not a prerequisite to get started.



True: there's no need to understand just to "use".
But it's always nice to know *why* to use!
There's no satisfaction in being just a "user" (or a consumer).


check out the link i posted earlier, it tries to introduce the
concept of spatial sampling to practical sound engineers. there's one
(intentional) gap in the logic, in that it starts with the
kirchhoff-helmholtz integral (which strictly speaking is the basis
for wfs, not ambisonics) and then jumps to spherical sampling. it's
not 100% kosher from

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 07/11/2011 12:39 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:


With all these efforts, why is actually nobody just marketing a
headphone solution with head-tracking?


smyth research makes one (called the realizer), or there's the 
beyerdynamic headzone.


--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487

Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT

http://stackingdwarves.net

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

[Sursound] Eigenmike decoding WAS: the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

[Joseph Anderson]

I suppose, another approach would be to take an active, parametric approach to 
decoding for the Eigenmike--upsampling to 3rd order HOA (i.e., using a 
technique like HARPEX) in the regions the mic isn't truely 3rd-order.

j


On 10 Jul 2011, at 11:02 am, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

> OTOH, high order at low F is not essential for reproduction.
> You can produce 3rd order AMB with the Eigenmike. But the
> problem is that the frequency range gets limited at both
> ends as order goes up. A normal AMB decoder expects full
> range signals at all orders, so it will produce a poor 
> result. It is possible to create a decoder adapted to the
> available frequency ranges, i.e. one that changes order in
> function of frequency and would be full high order only for
> medium frequencies. Problem with this is that there is no
> standard way - the decoder depends on the mic.
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> -- 
> FA
> 
> ___
> 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

[Sursound] Opinions on the Brahma soundfield mic kit

[Dan Andrews]

Im looking to buy a mic for b-format recording and wondered if anyone on the
mailing list has had any experience with Brahma soundfield mic kit?

http://www.oomagamma.com/brahma_kit/brahma_kit.html

This kit includes the mic, a modified 4ch Zoom 24/96 recorder, cables, a
shockmount, 2 wind shields and a wooden case to put it all in, all for 729
euro

This all seems far to good to be true, whats the catch?

All the best

Dan


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110711/42815fb6/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound