Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
--On 02 November 2012 02:30 + Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: - Windows NT is partially based on C++. I don't see based on - written in is not the same. NT was a rename of OS/2 v3, the version being re-engineered for cross-machine compatibility by MS (while IBM were making v2); hence the use throughout of a high-level language. Therefore Microsoft was earlier in the application of OOP languages then most other companies, OS/2 v2 already had a fully O-O desktop (the Workplace Shell) written by IBM - to this day Windows isn't as purely O-O on the desktop. Many people see the start of O-O going back to Simula-67 anyway. Paul -- Paul Hodges ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
On 1 Nov 2012, at 17:00, sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu wrote: i am wondering if we cannot produce HRTFs the way the first produced spectacle lenses. one needs to look at the range of variations in HRTFs and what actually varies from person to person and produce a dozen or so hrtfs. people can just try them and stick with the one they like. a real time, streaming b-format to binaural programme into which the hrtf can be plugged in is all that will be needed. umashankar That's a great idea, then you could buy +1.00 or -3.50 headphones to suit your ears. And it would give more work to audiologists! We could develop a test soundtrack like the opticians' chart. I have experience though with a soundwalk project in amsterdam where we just chose one sort of headphone (a compromise between sound quality, comfort, robustness price) and mastered all the pieces for that type of headphone and MY ears seeing I was doing the mastering. Generally we get very good reactions to the spatial quality of the sound. The artists tend to use omnis placed in the ears (soundman, DPA 4060) for recording, or synthetically panned binaural (e.g. Logic) and this is often also mixed with normal panpotted stereo and other stereo recording techniques. I've also used some binaural decodes from soundfield mics but I've never been so happy about those. see http://www.soundtrackcity.nl if you're interested. best, Justin Justin Bennett i...@justinbennett.nl http://www.justinbennett.nl NEW RELEASES AND FREE DOWNLOADS FROM http://spore.soundscaper.com ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
On 1 Nov 2012, at 06:24, Peter Lennox p.len...@derby.ac.uk wrote: Download the binaural for binaural use, and the stereo for stereo use? - in fact, instead of trying to make one format fit all - people could just download a folder and extract the ones they needed... That's an academic solution. That's like saying: who needs an ambisonic decoder, just use Bidule, or something like that. We're not talking about how some enthusiast can cobble together a solution, but how a particular technology is made accessible to the masses. It has to be automatic. People don't want to be bothered about which song to choose, just as they don't want to be bothered with selecting an SMTP port for their e-mail client. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
Hi On 2 November 2012 03:54, Alexis Shaw alexis.s...@gmail.com wrote: For HRTF based sound, headphones work the best. The HRTF is the solution of the in-head effects. Actually, you simply can't guarantee that. To even get close to guaranteeing that it will work for the majority head tracking is essential, especially with generic HRTF's. Even then, invidualised HRTF's are needed to take it further and _still_ even with all this, without the correct stimulation of other sound perception mechanisms (chest cavity resonances etc) it can still fall down because this lack is a cue to the brain that there is no real external sound field - so it must be internal... Dave On 2 November 2012 14:07, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: Richard Dobson wrote: The same is true of stereo too. There are people who just don't hear stereo as stereo. If the response to lack of perfection is always do nothing, nothing will be done. Alternatively, if you use those generic HRTFs, at least ~some~ people will be happy. BTW, the AES has just announced a project AES-X212 to develop a file format for HRTF data; The format will be designed to include source materials from different HRTF databases. See: http://www.aes.org/standards/**meetings/new-projects.cfmhttp://www.aes.org/standards/meetings/new-projects.cfm Richard Dobson The next and valid question is if stereo via headphones actually works so well at all... (Many people have problems, such as in-head effects, lack of perceived real space, etc.) If you would fix these problems, then you could probably also reproduce convincing binaural surround via headphones. Best, Stefan Schreiber On 31/10/2012 16:38, Martin Leese wrote: Peter Lennox wrote: Yes but...why not simply release stuff for mobiles in a generic binaural - skip the uhj altogether? Please, what is this generic binaural? Everyone has an individual HRTF. If you release binaural recording using a generic HRTF then it will work for some and not for others. There have been attempts to systemise HRTFs, so that you set about four different parameters to produce an individual HRTF, but they never caught on. Regards, Martin __**_ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursoundhttps://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound __**_ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursoundhttps://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121102/11ca3cdc/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University, so this disclaimer is redundant These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer Dave Malham Ex-Music Research Centre Department of Music The University of York Heslington York YO10 5DD UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
On 1 Nov 2012, at 22:30, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: Object Oriented programming was available 1978/1980. It wasn't used until NeXT started pushing ObjC and SUN tried to rip it off unsuccessfully with Java (which barely qualifies because for several iterations of the language it missed key elements of a real OOP language), and despite NeXT, and even despite OS X, OOP languages became only truly mainstream with later iterations of the Java language and with the success of iOS devices and the resulting surge in ObjC programming. (And even ppl now use OOP languages, a lot of the code written is bad, and thus doesn't count as OOP.) It wasn't used until NeXT started pushing ObjC and SUN tried to rip it off unsuccessfully with Java Even if I agree with some of your opinions, this is utter nonsense. - Java is a highly successful programing language, namely for Internet and business applications. And all that happened MUCH AFTER NEXT. Remember, the WWW was invented on the NeXT, and it was invented only, because OOP gave TBL enough leverage to write a web server and client in reasonably short time. Java wasn't even conceived until well after the web had taken off. So it's very accurate to say that OOP hasn't taken off until after later iterations of the Java language, because the first few barely even qualified to be called OOP languages. The VM model in a C based language was a major innovation, now copied by JavaScript/ECMA Script etc. The VM model has NOTHING to do with OOP. - C++ existed before NeXT. C++ is NOT an OOP language, it's a class-based language, but OOP requires dynamicism and run-time message lookup and binding, which C++ does not have. OOP also requires decent reflection, which Java only gained after several iterations of language revisions (and which is still somewhat clumsy). If you want to know what OOP is, you have to use the definition of the inventor of the concept, Alan Kay, and not the definition of the people who don't understand the concept and try to peddle their language as something it is not, because it happens to be a buzz-word at the time. In case you doubt me, you may want to read e.g. this here: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AlanKaysDefinitionOfObjectOriented - Windows NT is partially based on C++. Therefore Microsoft was earlier in the application of OOP languages then most other companies, including Apple at this time. The choice of language doesn't imply the choice of a programming model, and again, C++ is not an OOPL. - NeXT lended heavily on existing stuff, such as the MACH kernel and BSD Unix. So what? Just about everything that made the NeXT unique, aside from DPS, was OOP, in particular all the frameworks which are now in their revised versions called Cocoa, Cocoa-Touch, etc. MACH is an OS kernel, it has nothing to do with OOP and OOPL. You are too sure of your theories, see above. You counter arguments go totally past the point, because they are about things I wasn't even talking about. Consumers will not ask for technical things, they will ask for a repeat of an experience they had sometime and thought was great. That's how I got introduced to Ambisonics: heard a UHJ Nimbus recording on a Meridian system. Meridian is truly a high end company, hardly consumer stuff. That's like saying Mercedes isn't a consumer company because their cars cost more than Hundays's. There are very few things, and in particular no relevant concepts, that Meridian uses that couldn't be just as well be used by Onkyo, Sony, etc. except that they choose not to implement Ambisonics decoding in their products. I wasn't sold on Ambisonics because a Meridian system sounded so much better than my own system, but because Ambisonics on a Meridian system sounded so much better than Stereo on the exactly same Meridian system in the exactly same playback environment. And that's a testament to how incredibly useful even lowly UHJ encoded Ambisonics is. Except it was so bad I never wanted to go back to Stereo again. So I want others to have similarly horrible experiences, such that they, too, don't want stereo anymore, either. UHJ is good enough for a start, a binaural decoder could easily become part of iOS and Android devices by means of a custom playback app. Instant surround sound access for the masses. And this is the point: IF a binaural system works, you can include 5.1 -- binaural (or HOA -- binaural) decoding. Both source formats are in many senses better than UHJ surround... ;-) Except that 5.1 uses a lot more storage, and if you have storage limited portable devices that's HUGE. And also most 5.1 stuff SUCKS, because it's not G-format, ambisonically mixed surround, but some pan-pot abomination that is horrible even on a perfect 5.1 setup. HOA uses even more storage. These suggestions simply prove how out of touch with the market
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
On 1 Nov 2012, at 22:47, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: You're angry at reality. I'm not making these things up, nor do they constitute my ideal world. But I'm willing to face the reality and ask which small steps can we take to get from here to there by infiltrating what actual consumers use, rather than being preoccupied with lab experiments and boutique recordings that cater to a bunch of enthusiasts. Nobody who matters (i.e. average consumer) is interested in a dorky head-tracking headphone setup that makes him/her look like a Borg from Star Trek. I think this is just half-educated. Wasn't the success of the Wii console based on some gyroscope/motion sensors, which are build in into the remote controller? Don't have even many mobile phones and laptops motion controllers? And what does that do for head-tracking? Do you want to carry your iPhone on some head-mount? Looks really stylish, will be a huge market success... NOT! Headphones are accessories that need to be fashionable, because people know they are going to be seen in public wearing them. That's reality. Get used to it. That's why stuff like Beats by Dr. Dre sells (cool DJs have them) and nobody would want to be caught dead wearing top-notch studio head phones. Thanks for the education! :-D Bayer and Sennheiser still sell more stuff than Dr. Dre. You are welcome to buy fashionble products by Dr. Dre, Apfel, or whoever is currently in fashion. It's not about me, I listen to music on my HD650, but I'm not the market, I'm an enthusiast. But unlike you, I realize that this isn't the norm, nor would I wear the HD650 while jogging or working out in the gym, and like it or not, that's where people tend to listen to music. Don't hold your breath for a fashionable Apple TV, though. (I mean the iTV, BTW. Apple didn't figure out yet what this actually is all about...:-X ) I didn't bring that up, you did, but we'll see in the future if they figured it out or not. But even their current set top box sells in the millions, because it has tangible benefits in a networked home, allowing content to be streamed all over the house. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Patent application: Data structure for HOA
On 1 Nov 2012, at 23:07, Stefan Schreiber st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: The next and valid question is if stereo via headphones actually works so well at all... (Many people have problems, such as in-head effects, lack of perceived real space, etc.) If you would fix these problems, then you could probably also reproduce convincing binaural surround via headphones. Of course stereo doesn't work through headphones! That's why there's a difference between stereo and binaural, because stereo assumes speakers being IN FRONT of the listener, not perpendicularly left and right of the listener. That's why there are head phone processors which in essence transcode regular stereo into binaural stereo. Sennheiser sold such a processor for a while, I still have it somewhere. It worked rather well, except that the electronics were of inferior quality using cheap, low-power components. So then I had the choice of listening to super-clean audio from my Metric Halo headphone output, but have in head stereo, or to listen to grungy, muddy sound, with the proper sound stage. That's also EXACTLY why UHJ needs to be decoded to binaural, because being stereo compatible, without decoding it works just as well or just as badly as regular stereo works on headphones. A mobile device music player app can solve these issues for both UHJ and regular stereo by doing the proper binaural decoding/transcoding, and since it's an app and not a hardwired appliance, it's easy to let users select different HRTF in the app's preferences, or even let advanced users load personalized HRTFs. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
