Re: [Sursound] Digital spreaders
Umm - fun? Historical interest, as I'd never heard the original? Insufficient other things to do? :-) For those interested, the original paper describing the newer process is Signal Processing for Simulating Realistic Stereo Images preprint 3423 of the 93rd AES Convention October 1992 (San Francisco)...at some point I'll get round to doing an Ambisonic version of that, too - but it is covered by a current patent US 5671287 http://www.google.com/patents/US5671287 so there could be problems releasing something based on the technology. Dave On 31/05/2012 19:46, Martin Leese wrote: Dave Malhamdave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote: Subject: Re: [Sursound] Chasing flies with ambisoinics? ... That's interesting - it kind of chimes with some experiments I have been doing recently with digital recreations of Gerzon's spreaders, which used phase shift based processing. Although technically they are doing what is described in MAG's original hand written reports, the way they sound doesn't really correspond very closely to description of how they should sound in the same report. Er ... why are you recreating Gerzon's *analogue* spreaders when you can look at Gerzon's *digital* spreader. This is called the PS22 Stereo Maker plug-in from Waves Audio. This is only a stereo spreader, but that is actually a minor detail. The screen shot on Page 21 of their manual (page 22 in the PDF file) should give you the idea; visit: http://www.waves.com/Manuals/Plugins/PS22.pdf Regards, Martin -- 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/; */ /*/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120601/4293fc0e/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Chasing flies with ambisoinics?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 03:26:18PM +0100, Dave Malham wrote: Have you compared the results of having separate X,Y,U,V,P,Q filters to generate the panning (which is how I interpret what you say above) with pre-filtering the sounds then panning the filter outputs? Not sure if I understand the question correctly... But if I do, that is how it works, except that the filtering and panning operations have been collapsed into a single operation. The IRs of all the panned filter outputs are summed, the result is a set of seven filters (the one for W is just a delay, as the others are linear-phase). So for a mono source we get a 1 by 7 convolution matrix, which in this case is the equivalent of 2048 individually panned filter outputs. 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] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)
I once had a piece played atspatial audio concert and some people came to visit. Afterwards one guy came up to me and said - the sound was right there - right there in front of my face ! Was it ambionics ? Im pretty sure he just heard what he expected or hoped to hear - simply because he thought it was ambisonics and thats what he expected. I didnt get os dramatic an effect and I made it ! I think a really good related example of this sort of thing is WALLACH, H. (1940) The role of head movements and vestibular and visual cues in sound localization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 339-368. which demonstrates that visual cues can completely overide audio cues when it comes to sound localisation. Im beginning to think that people often hear what they believe they are going to hear and that the context in which you put the sounds can be as important as the filtering etc you apply to the sounds. the argument essentially says that for something to appear real it has to fit people's *pre-conception* of what is real, rather than fit what actually is real. In other words, throw out veridicality (coincidence with reality), instead try to satisfy people's belief of reality. This is an other argument for questioning the extent to which physical modelling has the capacity to create illusions of reality in sound. It is perfectly possible that a more accurate illusion is actually perceived as less real than a less accurate one. Etienne -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120601/e589e92b/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/20120602/ed042cbe/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
