Re: [Sursound] Surround sound for CI

[HAIGELBAGEL PRODUCTIONS]

On 6/04/2012 4:28 AM, Eric Carmichel wrote:

Greetings All,
I'm glad the topic of Blumlein, ORTF, etc. came up. I've been doing a lot of 
music recording (in contrast to my usual cochlear implant research).
Eric, I keep meaning to mention the concert I recorded of music written 
specifically for cochlear implant folk. It was a little over a year ago 
and was funded by the Bionic Ear Institute.


The composer Robin Fox wrote a work with the 22 "notes" that CI people 
hear best. In fact that work is now going to the Paris Rostrum this year.


Here is a very good short doco on the whole concept 
http://www.abc.net.au/arts/stories/s3051873.htm


As this research continues, it may of course be possible for CI folk to 
actually have remarkably good surround sound experiences. But I do 
accept that the reality of that is still a little way off.


Best regards,

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

[Sursound] ORTF, Blumlein, and HRTF files for download

[Eric Carmichel]

Greetings All,
I'm glad the topic of Blumlein, ORTF, etc. came up. I've been doing a lot of 
music recording (in contrast to my usual cochlear implant research). Included 
in my arsenal is an SSL console, Neumann U149 mics, an AEA R44 ribbon mic (plus 
several Royer ribbon ics), superb musicians, and more.

Because of a recent article ("The Science and Art of Ambisonics") that appeared 
in the April 2012 issue of Recording magazine, I have received questions from 
students regarding my TetraMic and the Harpex software downloads (free player 
and trial version of their VST). I use the VST (along with Nuendo) because it 
provides the HRTF conversions. The HRTF reference that best matches my head 
seems to be number 1051.

The Blumlein and ORTF settings give very different results when playing back a 
walk-around-the-mic dialog. To make the sample recording, my girlfiriend 
(Janice) and I read from a script and we rotated positions while the other was 
reading. To be clearer: We initially mapped out eight positions (0, 45, 90, 
135, 180, 225, 270, and 315 degrees) with 0 being straight ahead. The rotation 
was counterclockwise, and a TetraMic was used along with a TASCAM DR-680. An 
Earthworks measurement mic was also used to measure levels (a cal file was 
created using an acoustical calibrator). The A-format files were converted to 
B-format using VVMic and the IIR files supplied with my TetraMic.

Next I used the Harpex VST (in Steinberg's Nuendo DAW) to create stereo and 
binaural files. One file was created using the stereo/Blumlein setting, another 
was stereo/ORTF, and a third was binaural/1051 ("1051" works best for my head).

The walk-around gives quite different spatial impressions using the difference 
mic simulations. You can download the files (dummied down to mp3) and see 
photos of my mic arrays by going to cochlearconcepts.com/music_page/

(Note: I don't have a link from the cochlearconcept front page, so you have to 
manually enter www.cochlearconcepts.com/music_page/ in your browser.)

With the Blumlein setting and listening under headphones, voices that 
originated from the back left appear to come from the right. Similarly, voices 
from the back right appear to the left. For sounds originating from the front, 
everything is natural and isn't too different sounding from the HRTF setting. 
But in a "surround" of sound (to include naturally-occuring reverberation), 
sounds from the rear are "off" (laterally crossed).

The ORTF gives what one might expect: Strong signals, left and right, for 
sounds originating from the front L and R, respectively, while sounds from 
behind are mostly rejected. Placement of sounds is correct (through headphones 
it's more lateralization than localization, but no contralateral errors) 
despite levels being weaker for rearward sounds. I'm actually a proponent of 
ORTF for music recording, especially when isolating other musicians playing 
simultaneously in a session.

The HRTF setting works quite nicely. The sense of placement and level is what 
we'd expect: Sound from the right rear appear to originate from this location 
when listening under my Sennheiser HDA 200 headphones. AKG 214 phones work ok, 
too, but not as well as the Sennheiser's. Note: All of the files come from the 
same B-format file. L-R errors aren't because the B-format files were in the 
wrong order (W thru Z).

Anyway, listening to the surround recording of a live source might shed light 
on what the software is doing. I welcome you to take a listen (link provided 
above).

For those who may be curious, the photos on the same link are briefly described 
below:
a_001: Janice and my array of mics while video taping a live music performance. 
The group being recorded, Turning Point, used to open for the popular 
jazz-fusion band SpyroGyra in L.V. I haven't processed all the files (yet).
a_002: TetraMic setup for making recordings that I uploaded (ORTF, HRTF, 
Blumlein)
a_003: Neumann U149 tube condenser mic and sax
a_004: Another Neuman U149 being used to mic upright bass
a_005: AEA R44 awaiting yours truly for some truly awful vocals
a_006: Pair of vintage Neumann KM 84s for drum overheads (mics in X-Y 
configuration)
a_007: Student seated at an SSL 4000E/G console (console previoiusly belonged 
to Turner Broadcasting)
b_001: Turning Point (jazz band)
b_001: AKG mics in "mini" ORTF config to close-mic a piano (lid almost closed 
in order to isolate piano)

Happy listening,
Eric
Eric L. Carmichel
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120405/e1ce2d04/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] DTS files (was Re: Can anyone ...)

[Aaron Heller]

Glad to hear it.  I fixed the permissions on the Beethoven files, and
checked the others.

Best regards... Aaron

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:14 AM, David Pickett  wrote:
> This works perfectly with Samplitude Pro X.  I will find time to play these
> over the weekend...
>
> Thanks, Aaron, Dave and Paul!
>
> David
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? (Robert Greene)

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 04/04/2012 10:09 AM, Scott Wilson wrote:



why do people still fall for the BEAST?

jörn (with apologies to the birmingham crew ;)


Ahem...


;-D


http://scottwilson.ca/scottwilson.ca/News_and_Events/Entries/2010/10/27_Rethinking_the_BEAST.html


interesting food for thought, thanks for this link.


So I'd say stereo diffusion is rather less popular than it used to
be, at least in my immediate vicinity.

Seriously though, I think stereo diffusion remains in use because it
is very pragmatic, and is surprisingly effective in creating a vivid
sonic image. It is not one which is the same for everyone in the
audience, but it is one which can be effective for a given piece of
music despite those differences. Gary Kendall has some interesting
things to say about why in his article in the same issue of OS.


i'll try to check it out if i can find it.


I think that distinction, which I'll crudely describe as (musically)
effective vs. consistent and 'realistic', is worth keeping in mind in
many cases when spatialising audio. Often the former matters a *lot*
more than the latter.


absolutely. however, i still think using the same number of speakers in 
a systematic manner (or even a lot less) would ultimately yield a more 
powerful and versatile instrument than ad-hoc stereo diffusion. of 
course it would be a totally different instrument, and it would do a 
lousy job of reproducing music for loudspeaker orchestra.



But I think the real question is why do people still fall for
ambisonics?


touché, and a very valid question. to me, ambisonics is quite elegant, 
and i like the way it converges to "usable" at relatively low channel 
counts.
take my word with a grain of salt, because i'm apparently one of the 
millstones around the neck of ambisonics (you know, those young HOA 
zealots that are working hard to undermine the grand marketing schemes 
of our forefathers).


but compared to both WFS _and_ diffusion in the acousmatic tradition, i 
guess HOA provides a better "return on investment" curve, i.e. a usable 
instrument at lower channel counts, which i find quite elegant and 
intriguing. it is of course understood that a piece conceived for either 
WFS or diffusion will not work well on HOA, they are different concepts 
after all. so i don't mean better in terms of "drop-in replacement".


in my mind, a loudspeaker orchestra is a huge steam engine with 
glistening brass pipes, huge gear trains and the smell of oil, whereas 
HOA is a neat little power tool with a lightweight Li-ION battery. it's 
a great experience to see a huge engine come to life, and we can't 
emulate that effect in HOA. if the purpose is just to make something 
turn, however, HOA is the better approach. if a composer is after the 
steam engine experience, there is nothing to discuss, and i find the 
experience thoroughly enjoyable.
sometimes i just seem to find that composers just want to make something 
turn, and they're too lazy to wrap their heads around HOA and the steam 
engine happens to be there, so that's the default choice.


btw, you are doing a disservice to stereo with your ridiculously high 
numbers of speakers. if you continue to tell people this is what they 
need to create proper art, stereo will never catch on. you don't feed a 
bab... oh, wait. got a bit carried away there >;->



regards,


jörn




--
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

Re: [Sursound] DTS files (was Re: Can anyone ...)

[David Pickett]

This works perfectly with Samplitude Pro X.  I will find time to play 
these over the weekend...


Thanks, Aaron, Dave and Paul!

David

At 02:32 05/04/2012, Paul Hodges wrote:

--On 05 April 2012 06:43 +0100 Dave Malham  wrote:


Don't you just change the extension?


SoundForge will still refuse to open such a file because it doesn't 
have the usual GUID; maybe Samplitude is the same (Audition CS5.5 
will open it, but gives a knowledgeable warning).  I use CHXFORMAT 
from Richard Dobson's mctools to convert the file when necessary:




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] DTS files (was Re: Can anyone ...)

[David Pickett]

At 00:43 05/04/2012, Dave Malham wrote:
>On 5 April 2012 02:22, David Pickett  wrote:
>
>>
>> My normal method of playing first order is to load B format WXY .wav files
>> into Samplitude, matrix them and add shelf filters, but I have not yet
>> successfully discovered how to convert the .amb files to .wav files. Â I
>> should be grateful for a few pointers.
>>
>
>Don't you just change the extension?
>
>Dave
>
>> David
>>
>>
>> At 12:56 04/04/2012, Aaron Heller wrote:
>>>Hi David,
>>>
>>>Thanks for listening and writing. Â All these recordings were made at
>>>the Troy Savings Bank Music Hall in upstate NY and broadcast on NPR's
>>>Performance Today about 8-10 years ago.
>>>
>>>As for the distortion, frankly I have not listened to the DTS versions
>>>that carefully. Last night, I decoded the Brahms using VLC Player and
>>>note that the DTS version does sound "coarser" than the original. The
>>>masters are 48kHz, so the DTS encoding also includes a sample rate
>>>conversion to 44.1 kHz, and I'm not sure about the quality of the SRC
>>>in the Surcode DTS encoder.
>>>
>>>I've uploaded the B-format files from which the DTS files were made,
>>>if you'd like to listen to those
>>>
>>> Â http://ambisonics.dreamhosters.com/AMB/
>>>
>>>The free Harpex player makes that particularly easy (and you can play
>>>with different virtual mic arrays). Â http://harpex.net/
>>>
>>>In my humble option, the Stravinsky Pulcinella recording is the best
>>>of the lot. Â It was made with my MkIV (#99) when it still had the
>>>original Calrec capsules and alignment. Â The Beethoven is from the
>>>same concert and is the one I listen to the most often. Â The Dvorak
>>>recording was made after an overhaul by Soundfield Research that
>>>included a capsule replacement, and the Brahms after further tweaking
>>>by Richard Lee and Eric Benjamin.
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>
>>>Aaron
>>>
>>>
>>>On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM, David Pickett  wrote:
 At 14:01 02/04/2012, Aaron Heller wrote:

> I put some files at
>
> Â  http://ambisonics.dreamhosters.com/DTS/

 I downloaded, cut onto CD and listened to the finale of Brahms I, which I
 have conducted several times (where was this recorded?). It is the first
 time I have heard 4.0 from a CD and for some reason it took me a long
 time
 to establish a volume level. The wide dynamic range is nice. The
 instrumental timbres are realistic, and it is terrific to hear the
 applause
 from all around -- something that one unfortunately doesnt get with the
 DVD
 recordings of the Sylvester concert from the Musikverein. The image
 seemed
 stable. The worst aspect was the "distortion" (most noticeable just after
 Letter N from 12:10), which I take to be the 16-bit granularity. I will
 listen to more of these.

 Thanks!

 David
>>>___
>>>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
>
>
>
>--
>
>These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
>
>Dave Malham
>Music Research Centre
>Department of Music
>The University of York
>Heslington
>York YO10 5DD
>UK
>Phone 01904 322448
>Fax     01904 322450
>'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
>___
>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] B-Format to Binaural

[Paul Hodges]

--On 05 April 2012 09:03 + Fons Adriaensen 
wrote:

> But such a matrix is still based on a particular choice of 
> speaker locations, even if those are no longer visible.

Has anyone investigated, formally or informally, what number of
simulated speakers works best for binaural conversion?  Or is the
binaural effect in any case too variable for this to be determined?

Paul

-- 
Paul Hodges


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

Re: [Sursound] B-Format to Binaural

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 06:05:31AM +0100, Dave Malham wrote:

> In one of my talks with Michael Gerzon (or, rather, one of my
> listening to MAG sessions - he talked, I listened and tried to
> understand), he hinted that there was a more direct path, but didn't
> elaborate further. Given that you can encode HRTF's in a spherical
> harmonic framework (Evans, Michael J.; Angus, James A. S.; Tew,
> Anthony I."Spherical Harmonic Spectra of Head-Related Transfer
> Functions", AES Convention:103 (September 1997) Paper Number:4571) and
> you already have the soudfield in a spherical harmonic framework,
> maybe all you need to do is .

You can always combine the decoder and the hrtfs into a single
N * 2 matrix where N is the number of Ambisonic input signals.
But such a matrix is still based on a particular choice of 
speaker locations, even if those are no longer visible.

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] DTS files (was Re: Can anyone ...)

[Paul Hodges]

--On 05 April 2012 06:43 +0100 Dave Malham  wrote:


Don't you just change the extension?


SoundForge will still refuse to open such a file because it doesn't have 
the usual GUID; maybe Samplitude is the same (Audition CS5.5 will open it, 
but gives a knowledgeable warning).  I use CHXFORMAT from Richard Dobson's 
mctools to convert the file when necessary:




Paul



--
Paul Hodges


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