Re: [Sursound] Why Ambisonics Didn't Become A Standard, OT: Spatial Music; Low Cost Speakers
On 16 Apr 2012, at 04:12, David Pickett d...@fugato.com wrote: At 19:44 15/04/2012, Len Moskowitz wrote: A lot of stuff, with which I agree, plus: Ronald Antony talked about the cost of good speakers being a barrier: ... and anything halfway acceptable is on a good sale at least $250/speaker. This has changed in the last ten years. Good speakers today are acceptably inexpensive: around $75 to $175 per speaker channel. Have a look at: Pioneer SP-BS41-LR ($149.99/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/content/pioneer-sp-bs41-lr-loudspeaker Wharfedale Diamond 10.1 ($350/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/content/wharfedale-diamond-101-loudspeaker NHT SuperZero 2.0 ($198/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/content/entry-level-10 Boston Acoustics A 25 ($299.98/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/content/boston-acoustics-25-loudspeaker PSB Alpha B1 ($279/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/507psb/index.html Infinity Primus P162 (or older P150 and P160, or newer P153 and P163) loudspeaker ($298/pair) -http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1007inf/index.html All of them have been reviewed on Stereophile's web site. Most of the reviews include a nice set of measurements. This is an impressive list. Only one caveat: bookshelf speakers need to be mounted on stands in order to be close to optimally placed, which increases the system price and probably diminishes the Wife Acceptance Factor. One reason wny I went for the BW DM603s. Maybe I'm a bass fetishist, but as nice as many bookshelf speakers sound, even relatively cheap ones, they don't go low enough. By the time you add stands and a subwoofer, you're easily above the price range I said you have to consider. Still, it's good things are coming down in price somewhat. My strategy for years was to hunt for good speakers being discontinued, and then snap them up at close-out sales. This works well, because speakers really don't get outdated. Currently listening to music on a pair of AR90 from the early 80s which I refurbished, and they sound better than things that sell for well in the four digits range today, and are truly full-range. I wish I had a second pair, that would be a nice Ambi setup. Ronald ___ 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 14/04/2012 18:23, Martin Leese wrote: Somebody who was involved at the time (which I was not) would be better able to answer this. Thatcher came to power in 1979. In 1981, the NRDC was merged into the British Technology Group. It is true that development and promotion of Ambisonics was the sort of thing that the Thatcher government felt should be left to industry. However, the marketing plan for Ambisonics being pursued by the NRDC/BTG was so at odds with how the audio industry actually worked that failure was certain. Much as I would delight in blaming Thatcher for the failure of Ambisonics (she is the reason I emigrated to Canada), I don't believe she was significant. Regards, Martin Much though I'd also love to blame the Evil Witch of the West for this, this is one of the very few occasions where I can't, in all honesty, ascribe to her any significant proportion of the blame. :-( Dave -- These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer /*/ /* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */ /* Music Research Centre */ /* Department of Musichttp://music.york.ac.uk/; */ /* The University of York Phone 01904 322448*/ /* Heslington Fax 01904 322450*/ /* York YO10 5DD */ /* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */ /*http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/; */ /*/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] audio point / audio plenum
I have to say I don't hear any bells ringing - and I'm (almost) from that era. Like Ronald said, a scan of the passage might help... Dave On 15/04/2012 10:07, Gregorio Garcia Karman wrote: Dear sursounders, I found a reference in a musical text of the 1960s originated in the UK that mentions the terms audio point and audio plenum perhaps in reference to a technique that would be able to control the spread of a single source in the stereophonic image. Do these terms ring the bell of anyone here? Huge thanks and best regards Gregorio Garcia Karman ggkar...@musicologia.com ___ 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 http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */ /* Music Research Centre */ /* Department of Musichttp://music.york.ac.uk/; */ /* The University of York Phone 01904 322448*/ /* Heslington Fax 01904 322450*/ /* York YO10 5DD */ /* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */ /*http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/; */ /*/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Hi Richard, As we announced at the conference, Ambisonia is well on the way to being resurrected, thanks to the efforts of Oli Larkin, Marc Lavallée and Ettienne Deleflie. There's lots of fiddly details and housekeeping to finish off, but...RSN Dave On 14/04/2012 10:31, Richard Lee wrote: PS The most immediate need at the moment, and it is crucial, is to re-surrect Ambisonia.com. Otherwise, the best evidence that Ambi is worth pursuing goes down the drain. GV Malham, I hope you have this in hand before you hang up your pointy hat. ___ 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 http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */ /* Music Research Centre */ /* Department of Musichttp://music.york.ac.uk/; */ /* The University of York Phone 01904 322448*/ /* Heslington Fax 01904 322450*/ /* York YO10 5DD */ /* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */ /*http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/; */ /*/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Why Ambisonics Didn't Become A Standard
Message: 11 Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:19:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Greene gre...@math.ucla.edu Subject: Re: [Sursound] Why Ambisonics Didn't Become A Standard, OT: Spatial Music; Low Cost Speakers To: Surround Sound discussion group sursound@music.vt.edu Message-ID: alpine.lnx.2.00.1204152117440.10...@walnut.math.ucla.edu Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Interesting indeed, but not new. I think the Unicorn Fenby Legacy(Music of Delius), the part that was done with the Soundfield mike, On the vinyl this is sides 2~4; I have never seen the CD version! As I recall I used a MKII sfm and handmade electronics as JLW preferred the sound ..and it was on a PCM1600, the one with drifting barely 16bit ADCs, but after the 7k whistle had been fixed. Geoffrey is one of the finest of all stereo recordings of an orchestra. For naturalness of sound, it is unbeatable and hard for anything else to equal in my view. Robert ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] Job opening in 3D-audio research development
An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120416/5d17d3be/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: On 14 Apr 2012, at 16:47, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: UHJ is simple and convenient, because people can buy it as a regular stereo track like the rest of the music. No pop-up with a choice: stereo or surround version, no playlists where one has to make sure the stereo version ends up on the iPod, and the surround version is used for home playback. None of that. One file, one solution, stereo, portable, home, car, whatever. No confusion for consumers, distribution channel, radio capable, etc. THAT works. No, it didn't work. That's just a plain lie. Obviously I can listen to a UHJ encoded CD or radio transmission as regular stereo, and if I have the equipment/software, I can also decode it into surround. It works, I've heard it, I have the UHJ CDs that I can (and often have to) play back as stereo. UHJ will (mostly) be heard as plain stereo, So what? That's the entire point. Selling UHJ encoded material requires hardly a change in the distribution channel, and requires no change at all for the consumer, unless they want to explore the surround sound feature. Anthony, this is my point: UHJ didn't work for distribution of surround music. No change at all doesn't give you surround at home. Unless they want to explore is exactly what didn't work out, and then people might want to explore some real surround. How many people have an UHJ decoder? How many people have Dolby Surround decoders? (I mean the old form, not the discrete one...) Best Stefan Schreiber ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: and then there might be a few issues. (Mathematically-logically, it is impossible to press 3 channels into 2. You will have some artefacts if presenting surround sound in just 2-channels.) The artefacts are not significant. They are certainly less of an issue than all the artefacts that arise from lossy compression, and people by and large don't care or notice either. Artefacts are probably bigger than from lossy compression (which one? AAC?). People don't care: I do, and don't underestimate your customers anyway. Best, Stefan Schreiber ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: Did I say anything different? The thing is FOA sounds just fine with 4 speakers, and 4 decent speakers are a lot more affordable than 6, 8, or more decent speakers. The way the world economy is going (stagnant wages combined with inflation in the rich countries, and rising wages in poor countries, which means global income averaging), people will in inflation adjusted terms have less disposable income for tech gadgetry in the rich countries, and may be barely get to the point where they can afford entry-level systems in the poor countries. But you bought all the Apple stuff, not me... :-) You don't buy speakers very often, this is a typical long-term buy. If you don't have any surround market (unless for home theater), typical audio equipment companies won't sell a lot of speakers. If I talk about Germany or Britain, some people certainly could and would spend more on typical hi fi (now: surround) stuff if there would be a market at all, which isn't. (The world economy is actually growing, so your argument doesn't convince me.) That means stereo systems will already be considered expensive, and something that requires four speakers will start to push the pain envelope. Forget 6 or 8 speaker setups, these are a luxury for an upper crust of high-income or high-networth people, and they won't sustain a mass market. Currently nobody as 8 speaker setups because there is no music around. It is not necessarily about luxury products, because even the richtest customers can't listen to enough recordings. Secondly, good speakers don't have to be so expensive as they tell you in the local hi fi shop. And thirdly, you will buy less times speakers in your life than iPhones/Android phones... Best, Stefan Schreiber ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Why Ambisonics Didn't Become A Standard, OT: Spatial Music; Low Cost Speakers
Excellent! Most serious manufacturers seem to feel thatthe way to make an inexpensive speaker is to take the top two thirds of a more expensiveone. But of course it is a kind of convention of High End audio that warmth and so on are really not importnat nor perhaps even desirable Cf my guest editorial in The Absolute Sound last issue but one. Robert On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: On 16 Apr 2012, at 04:12, David Pickett d...@fugato.com wrote: At 19:44 15/04/2012, Len Moskowitz wrote: A lot of stuff, with which I agree, plus: Ronald Antony talked about the cost of good speakers being a barrier: ... and anything halfway acceptable is on a good sale at least $250/speaker. This has changed in the last ten years. Good speakers today are acceptably inexpensive: around $75 to $175 per speaker channel. Have a look at: Pioneer SP-BS41-LR ($149.99/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/content/pioneer-sp-bs41-lr-loudspeaker Wharfedale Diamond 10.1 ($350/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/content/wharfedale-diamond-101-loudspeaker NHT SuperZero 2.0 ($198/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/content/entry-level-10 Boston Acoustics A 25 ($299.98/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/content/boston-acoustics-25-loudspeaker PSB Alpha B1 ($279/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/507psb/index.html Infinity Primus P162 (or older P150 and P160, or newer P153 and P163) loudspeaker ($298/pair) -http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1007inf/index.html All of them have been reviewed on Stereophile's web site. Most of the reviews include a nice set of measurements. This is an impressive list. Only one caveat: bookshelf speakers need to be mounted on stands in order to be close to optimally placed, which increases the system price and probably diminishes the Wife Acceptance Factor. One reason wny I went for the BW DM603s. Maybe I'm a bass fetishist, but as nice as many bookshelf speakers sound, even relatively cheap ones, they don't go low enough. By the time you add stands and a subwoofer, you're easily above the price range I said you have to consider. Still, it's good things are coming down in price somewhat. My strategy for years was to hunt for good speakers being discontinued, and then snap them up at close-out sales. This works well, because speakers really don't get outdated. Currently listening to music on a pair of AR90 from the early 80s which I refurbished, and they sound better than things that sell for well in the four digits range today, and are truly full-range. I wish I had a second pair, that would be a nice Ambi setup. Ronald ___ 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
The solution to establish any mass market for surround would be obviously to look into better playback via headphones. (binaural, 5.1, FOA, .AMB, etc.) Listening via (4-x) speakers at home would be higher en. Motion-compensated playback is possible nowadays. Many devices have motion sensors. (I personally believe that motion-compenation has to be included into the surround via headphone approach.) Mark: I dislike this case closed rhetorics, it is just your opinion. We know that the music industry has missed many boats, but maybe you also had one or two wrong predictions in your recent life? Best, Stefan newme...@aol.com wrote: Folks: ALL reproduced music is a special effect -- if you wish to hear a performance, as it was actually played, go to the performance. MONO is a special effect. STEREO is a special effect. SURROUND is a special effect. MP3 is a special effect. None of them is a live performance. And, no amount of money spent by audiophiles can change that. Neither can a few extremely well-executed recordings. It will always be a special effect and everyone knows it. Starting In the 1960s, the *stereo* special effect beat out the *mono* special effect for the reproduction of music. A lot of people *made* a lot of money as a new mass-market was generated, culminating in the CD (followed by MP3 etc.) Beginning in the 1990s, the music industry tried to promote the *surround* (i.e. 5.1 style) special effect -- driven by the installed base of home theaters and DVD players, along with a preceived need to recapture the revenues being lost in CD sales (due to the MP3 special effect). They *spent* a lot of money, tried various technologies, and they failed. The consumer did not believe that it was good enough (i.e. compared to the stereo special effect) to make the switch. No one is going to try that again. Furthermore, as music reproduction shifted to MP3-based online delivery and ear-bud reproduction (i.e. another version of the stereo special effect) -- the idea of pretending that all this isn't a *special effect* by trying to get absolute sound in your living-room just seemed more ridiculous than ever. Case closed. Mark Stahlman Brooklyn NY P.S. By the 1990s, the ground of our experience had shifted from the acoustic/electric to the tactile/digital and we were freed to do whatever we wanted with sound. People playing with Ambisonics was the result. But our personal interests no longer intersect with the now obsolete efforts to generate mass-markets around new sonic special effects. Lou Reed can play around all he wants. It will not create a new mass-market for a new special effect. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120413/10ced087/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
