Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
If anyone cares, the proof is not too hard. Clearly one cannot have faces that have more sides than five, because there no room angularly: three regular hexagons at a point already fill up 360 degrees and seven or more fill up more than 360, which is impossible(note that the solid has to be convex at the vertices because every finite extent solid has one convex vertex --shrink a big sphere down until it touches first time--and a regular solid has by definition all vertices congruent. So they are all convex). Euler showed that no of faces-no of edges+ no of vertices has to be 2(for any dissection of the sphere into polygonal figures, regular or not). So one just looks at the possiblities for numbers of faces, number of faces meeting at each vertex, and number of edges in each face, and mess about with arithmetic to see that the only possiblities are the cube , octahedron, tetrahedron, dodecahedron, and icosahedron. (eg tetrahedron has 4 faces which are triangles, each edge belongs to two faces--in all cases!so there are 4 x3/2 = 6 edges. Each edge has 2 vertices and since three faces meet at each vertex, the number of vertices has to be 6x2 / 3= 4 . And indeed 4-6 +4 = 2 as requires). One cute part of all this is to see that the dodecahedron exists! It exists "combinatorially--that is the numbers work in the above, but it is not so clear that it exists in reality, that such a figure can be realized. I leave that to you to think about.(Suggestion: Think about the fact that when you fit three pentagons together at a vertex , the result is rigid--no flexing is possible). The icosahedron exits if the dodecahedron does (and it does!) since it can be obtained by using the centers of the faces of the dodecahedron as vertices. All the others have an obvious existence. Robert On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Michael Chapman wrote: Robert Greene wrote : ... If you need more points, then there is no "canonical" choice(and no one is going to "discover" any more Platonic solids--there aren't any more!). ... Sorry to start that one ... it was basically a joke (I say basically as like perpetual motion machines I had the impression that this was a field that had (too many) claims;-)> (Where "too many" >= 1.) Martin Gardner had a proof (of "no more") that was very elegant, very short and in normal prose ... its only negative feature is that it was (for me, at least) highly unmemorable ... Happy etiolating, Michael ___ 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] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Regarding 'even' distribution of points on a sphere Most of the spherical microphone arrays use the Fliege points http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/jf1w07/nodes/nodes.html For numerical integration on the sphere (both for ambisonic decoder optimization and mic array simulation), I use Lebedev-Laikov quadrature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebedev_quadrature Florian Hollerweger's 3LD system implements bucky balls, geodesics, and a minimum energy scheme based on electron repulsion. http://flo.mur.at/software/3ld -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130711/f1dedf9b/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Robert Greene wrote : > ... > If you need more points, then > there is no "canonical" choice(and no one is going to "discover" > any more Platonic solids--there aren't any more!). ... Sorry to start that one ... it was basically a joke (I say basically as like perpetual motion machines I had the impression that this was a field that had (too many) claims;-)> (Where "too many" >= 1.) Martin Gardner had a proof (of "no more") that was very elegant, very short and in normal prose ... its only negative feature is that it was (for me, at least) highly unmemorable ... Happy etiolating, Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Decades ago, I was working on a project to find the best way to equidistribute a large number of points on a sphere. We were looking for "random unit vectors". (This had to do with choosing "random" orientations for a pot containing a seed to see if the seed would sprout and grow without benefit of gravity, the random orientation being the best on earth simulation of no gravity at all. If you are wondering, almost all kinds of seeds sprout intitially but only some kinds of plants to grow. The others get all confused about which way is up, and die. But some apparently are seeking not up but warmth and they will grow if provided with one direction being more towards warmth than others, a warmth gradient as it were, the gravitational gradient being not used. This all had to do with the space program of course though equally of course the space program did not get to the point-not yet and probably not ever--that gardening or farming in space was being attempted in any serious way, if at all). What we came up with is that the locations of the centers of an icosahedron's faces--or equivalently at the vertices of a dodecahedron --is a good way. If you need more points, then there is no "canonical" choice(and no one is going to "discover" any more Platonic solids--there aren't any more!). But you can do reasonably well by just equidistributing in some sense within the faces of an icosahedron but varying the distribution a bit in each face. Actually, once you get beyond the 20 speakers this gives you (centers of the icosahedron faces), it probably does not matter too much how you do it in detail. Not for the plants anyway and probably not for Ambisonics. It would be tempting NOT to vary the in-face distributions just for computational convenience! Robert On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Martin Leese wrote: "Michael Chapman" wrote: Martin Leese wrote: In general, for Ambisonics, you should distribute the speakers as evenly as possible. Aim for the faces of a platonic solid; visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid Problem is ... despite many claims to be on the verge of discovering new ones;-)> ...that Plato did not have many solids . . . I _thought_ the consenus on this list (no howls of derision, please) was edging towards three rings ... though without looking back, whether that was 6-8-6 or something else ...? Just a two pennies' worth, I did not make myself sufficiently clear. Aiming for a Platonic solid is just a goal, not a destination. I was trying to suggest that achieving an even distribution is important, and was not trying to dictate strict adherence to a fixed rule. Note that with only three rings, you are limited to second-order height. This may or may not be a problem. 24 speakers is almost 5 squared, so fourth-order full-sphere could be attempted. Regards, Martin -- Martin J Leese E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/ ___ 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] aes journal article
> As you say, not surprising. > As someone who came originally from a noncommercial > field of research(pure mathematics), I have long > noticed that a good deal of "research" in audio > comes from people either re-discovering or simply > seizing ideas of other people, often long established, and > re-packaging them as their own. Not disagreeing with the generality . . . but you did engender a mirthless laugh : the classic case of being reticent about either references or acknowledgements must be Einstein's initial relativity papers . . . but perhaps with reason ;-(> Michael > No one much is interested in giving credit where it is due. > All they want to do is to get in their with claims of > things that they can sell as new. And sell is the operative > word. > > This is all quite outrageous if viewed from the perspective > of the scientific research world--where there is plenty > of skullduggery but it is usually done more subtlely. > > Audio research has to be its own reward because one > will certainly not get credit for it from others. > > Robert > > On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Dave Malham wrote: > >> Really disappointed (but not too surprised) to that in the June AES in >> an article about Spatial Audio, which says "Spatial audio can be >> reprocessed for reproduction over different loudspeaker formats using >> upmixing and downmixing. It can even be rendered binaurally for >> headphones. We review the latest research in this field and consider >> the potential pros and cons of the technology." there is not one >> mention of Ambisonics, despite the really significant increase in >> publications in the last few years. >> >>Dave >> >> -- >> -- >> As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University. >> >> These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University >> >> Dave Malham >> Honorary Fellow, Department of Music >> The University of York >> York YO10 5DD >> UK >> >> '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 > ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] aes journal article
As you say, not surprising. As someone who came originally from a noncommercial field of research(pure mathematics), I have long noticed that a good deal of "research" in audio comes from people either re-discovering or simply seizing ideas of other people, often long established, and re-packaging them as their own. No one much is interested in giving credit where it is due. All they want to do is to get in their with claims of things that they can sell as new. And sell is the operative word. This is all quite outrageous if viewed from the perspective of the scientific research world--where there is plenty of skullduggery but it is usually done more subtlely. Audio research has to be its own reward because one will certainly not get credit for it from others. Robert On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Dave Malham wrote: Really disappointed (but not too surprised) to that in the June AES in an article about Spatial Audio, which says "Spatial audio can be reprocessed for reproduction over different loudspeaker formats using upmixing and downmixing. It can even be rendered binaurally for headphones. We review the latest research in this field and consider the potential pros and cons of the technology." there is not one mention of Ambisonics, despite the really significant increase in publications in the last few years. Dave -- -- As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University. These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University Dave Malham Honorary Fellow, Department of Music The University of York York YO10 5DD UK '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] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Augustine Leudar wrote: Im all ears (pun not intended) Hehe, me too. :-) Practical things and theory possibly don't meet here. Anyway, I am confused. Possibly I should have started a topic with a different name and not stir this thread. Having built several installations and demos myself I know it is always risky to place objects above the audience and you need to take care of the safety. Also, the less you have objects up there, the smaller are the risks. However, I was taught that a phantom image is more stable when the angle between the two speakers gets smaller, whatever the direction of the speaker pair. The feeling of space reduces. When the angle gets wider, the localization of a phantom image gets less stable and the feeling of space gets better, until it all splits apart. The stability of the phantom image depends also some on how it was achieved, panning a mono source or some microphone technique or some certain decoding method, or something else. Although I have been "fooling the ear" in my work in radio drama, it bothers me, if the "right way" to reproduce sound is to try to fool the hearing where you can (as hearing cannot distinguish the difference anyway), or should you try to reproduce it as well you can. Eero ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] aes journal article
Why not suprised out of curiosity ? On 11 July 2013 14:01, Dave Malham wrote: > Really disappointed (but not too surprised) to that in the June AES in > an article about Spatial Audio, which says "Spatial audio can be > reprocessed for reproduction over different loudspeaker formats using > upmixing and downmixing. It can even be rendered binaurally for > headphones. We review the latest research in this field and consider > the potential pros and cons of the technology." there is not one > mention of Ambisonics, despite the really significant increase in > publications in the last few years. > > Dave > > -- > -- > As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University. > > These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University > > Dave Malham > Honorary Fellow, Department of Music > The University of York > York YO10 5DD > UK > > 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > -- 07580951119 augustine.leudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130711/1c14b510/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Hi Dave, Interesting - but we cannot comfortably tilt our heads on the side of our neck so that the horizontal plane becomes exactly equivelant vertical plane so even with these head movements I localisation directly above would be less accurate other directions (I assume - I would like to see some listening test results anyone ?). Either way we both agree putting more loudspeakers in a area we can localise worse there would not help. Ill raise this topic at the next meeting I have with the spatial audio group perhaps and see if I can get a more accurate picture of why the directly over head speakers were reduced. Sonic lab layout is here : http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/sarc/AboutUs/TheSARCBuildingandFacilities/TheSonicLab/SonicLabSpecs/Image,219299,en.gif as I say I think they had more directly overhead previously - though now I wonder if I got that wrong as there seems to be quite a few overhead still. On 11 July 2013 12:40, Dave Malham wrote: > Hi Augustine, >Whilst it is generally said that that our angular acuity is better > on the horizontal plane, this way of expressing things is, frankly, a > snare and a delusion since it only applies when the head is upright. > Unless your listeners are restrained using something like the infamous > Green-Lee neck brace they will be able to move and change the > orientation of their heads so the direction of maximum acuity can be > essentially anywhere. So, if it is remotely possible, the rig should > be as homogeneous as possible in all directions. The other thing to > beware of is the difficulty of retaining equi-loudness in all panned > directions with uneven speaker rigs. > > Dave > > On 11 July 2013 10:15, Augustine Leudar wrote: > > Hi Eero, > > Al revers amigo. I dont know how it works with ambisonics and soundfield > > reconstruction but basically generally speaking your ears cant tell the > > difference if a speaker directly overhead is half a metre this way or the > > other - in effect your ears have lower resolution straight above so extra > > speakers are just wasted as you cant hear the difference anyway- > conversley > > where your ears have good localisation you need more speakers as your > ears > > are less easily fooled . This resulted in several speakers in the sonic > lab > > at the sonic arts research centre being removed overhead as listening > tests > > showed they were making little difference to the listener experience. > > Unless I was taught wrong - In which case Im all ears (pun not intended) > > > > On 11 July 2013 10:34, Eero Aro wrote: > > > >> I must confess that I don't know much about what you are discussing > >> about, but I think I read in one of the posts (that I already have > deleted) > >> that "there is no need to place a lot of speakers directly above, as our > >> localization is at it's worst in that direction". > >> > >> However, I have always thought that you need _more_ speakers (with > >> smaller angles) in those directions where the hearing localization of > >> phantom > >> images is not very good. You don't need as many speakers in those > >> directions > >> where the localization of phantom images is good. In front of the > listener > >> on the > >> horizontal plane two speakers at an angle of 60 degrees is good for most > >> people. > >> Elsewhere you need more. > >> > >> This of course applies to when the listener's head is not moving. > >> > >> Just ask Thomas Chen. > >> > >> Eero > >> > >> __**_ > >> Sursound mailing list > >> Sursound@music.vt.edu > >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound< > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > 07580951119 > > > > augustine.leudar.com > > -- next part -- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130711/c0d83a94/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. > > These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University > > Dave Malham > Honorary Fellow, Department of Music > The University of York > York YO10 5DD > UK > > 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > -- 07580951119 augustine.leudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130711/5b494ef9/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] aes journal article
Really disappointed (but not too surprised) to that in the June AES in an article about Spatial Audio, which says "Spatial audio can be reprocessed for reproduction over different loudspeaker formats using upmixing and downmixing. It can even be rendered binaurally for headphones. We review the latest research in this field and consider the potential pros and cons of the technology." there is not one mention of Ambisonics, despite the really significant increase in publications in the last few years. Dave -- -- As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University. These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University Dave Malham Honorary Fellow, Department of Music The University of York 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] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
This is actually a good point, also against mixed order approaches (at least if you can afford the number of speakers...). On 7/11/13 1:40 PM, Dave Malham wrote: Hi Augustine, Whilst it is generally said that that our angular acuity is better on the horizontal plane, this way of expressing things is, frankly, a snare and a delusion since it only applies when the head is upright. Unless your listeners are restrained using something like the infamous Green-Lee neck brace they will be able to move and change the orientation of their heads so the direction of maximum acuity can be essentially anywhere. So, if it is remotely possible, the rig should be as homogeneous as possible in all directions. The other thing to beware of is the difficulty of retaining equi-loudness in all panned directions with uneven speaker rigs. Dave ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
> Hi Eero, > Al revers amigo. I dont know how it works with ambisonics and soundfield > reconstruction but basically generally speaking your ears cant tell the > difference if a speaker directly overhead is half a metre this way or the > other - in effect your ears have lower resolution straight above so extra > speakers are just wasted as you cant hear the difference anyway- > conversley > where your ears have good localisation you need more speakers as your ears > are less easily fooled . This resulted in several speakers in the sonic > lab > at the sonic arts research centre being removed overhead as listening > tests > showed they were making little difference to the listener experience. > Unless I was taught wrong - In which case Im all ears (pun not intended) > > On 11 July 2013 10:34, Eero Aro wrote: > >> I must confess that I don't know much about what you are discussing >> about, but I think I read in one of the posts (that I already have >> deleted) >> that "there is no need to place a lot of speakers directly above, as our >> localization is at it's worst in that direction". >> >> However, I have always thought that you need _more_ speakers (with >> smaller angles) in those directions where the hearing localization of >> phantom >> images is not very good. [ ... ] Discounting the argument that nobody's localisation is good when they realise that a 60Kg speaker is suspended over their head on a weak bracket . . . I posit the following : DWMM has a soundstage of, what ? +/- ( 45 > A > 135 )(degrees) E : -5 to -15 E: +10 to +25 Better estimates and/or actual figures welcome ;-)> But my point is that you need better rendering of elevation because the (primary sources of) sound are so close together in elevation (E). The sound stage (angle/azimuth (A)) is relatively broad. So, logically, first order horizontal and third order vertical (I jest ... !). Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Hi Augustine, Whilst it is generally said that that our angular acuity is better on the horizontal plane, this way of expressing things is, frankly, a snare and a delusion since it only applies when the head is upright. Unless your listeners are restrained using something like the infamous Green-Lee neck brace they will be able to move and change the orientation of their heads so the direction of maximum acuity can be essentially anywhere. So, if it is remotely possible, the rig should be as homogeneous as possible in all directions. The other thing to beware of is the difficulty of retaining equi-loudness in all panned directions with uneven speaker rigs. Dave On 11 July 2013 10:15, Augustine Leudar wrote: > Hi Eero, > Al revers amigo. I dont know how it works with ambisonics and soundfield > reconstruction but basically generally speaking your ears cant tell the > difference if a speaker directly overhead is half a metre this way or the > other - in effect your ears have lower resolution straight above so extra > speakers are just wasted as you cant hear the difference anyway- conversley > where your ears have good localisation you need more speakers as your ears > are less easily fooled . This resulted in several speakers in the sonic lab > at the sonic arts research centre being removed overhead as listening tests > showed they were making little difference to the listener experience. > Unless I was taught wrong - In which case Im all ears (pun not intended) > > On 11 July 2013 10:34, Eero Aro wrote: > >> I must confess that I don't know much about what you are discussing >> about, but I think I read in one of the posts (that I already have deleted) >> that "there is no need to place a lot of speakers directly above, as our >> localization is at it's worst in that direction". >> >> However, I have always thought that you need _more_ speakers (with >> smaller angles) in those directions where the hearing localization of >> phantom >> images is not very good. You don't need as many speakers in those >> directions >> where the localization of phantom images is good. In front of the listener >> on the >> horizontal plane two speakers at an angle of 60 degrees is good for most >> people. >> Elsewhere you need more. >> >> This of course applies to when the listener's head is not moving. >> >> Just ask Thomas Chen. >> >> Eero >> >> __**_ >> Sursound mailing list >> Sursound@music.vt.edu >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> >> > > > > -- > 07580951119 > > augustine.leudar.com > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130711/c0d83a94/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. These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University Dave Malham Honorary Fellow, Department of Music The University of York 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] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Hi Eero, Al revers amigo. I dont know how it works with ambisonics and soundfield reconstruction but basically generally speaking your ears cant tell the difference if a speaker directly overhead is half a metre this way or the other - in effect your ears have lower resolution straight above so extra speakers are just wasted as you cant hear the difference anyway- conversley where your ears have good localisation you need more speakers as your ears are less easily fooled . This resulted in several speakers in the sonic lab at the sonic arts research centre being removed overhead as listening tests showed they were making little difference to the listener experience. Unless I was taught wrong - In which case Im all ears (pun not intended) On 11 July 2013 10:34, Eero Aro wrote: > I must confess that I don't know much about what you are discussing > about, but I think I read in one of the posts (that I already have deleted) > that "there is no need to place a lot of speakers directly above, as our > localization is at it's worst in that direction". > > However, I have always thought that you need _more_ speakers (with > smaller angles) in those directions where the hearing localization of > phantom > images is not very good. You don't need as many speakers in those > directions > where the localization of phantom images is good. In front of the listener > on the > horizontal plane two speakers at an angle of 60 degrees is good for most > people. > Elsewhere you need more. > > This of course applies to when the listener's head is not moving. > > Just ask Thomas Chen. > > Eero > > __**_ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> > -- 07580951119 augustine.leudar.com -- next part ------ An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130711/c0d83a94/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
I must confess that I don't know much about what you are discussing about, but I think I read in one of the posts (that I already have deleted) that "there is no need to place a lot of speakers directly above, as our localization is at it's worst in that direction". However, I have always thought that you need _more_ speakers (with smaller angles) in those directions where the hearing localization of phantom images is not very good. You don't need as many speakers in those directions where the localization of phantom images is good. In front of the listener on the horizontal plane two speakers at an angle of 60 degrees is good for most people. Elsewhere you need more. This of course applies to when the listener's head is not moving. Just ask Thomas Chen. Eero ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
Thank you for all suggestions! I am also aware of t-design [1] for even distribution. Does somebody have practical experience with those, except for virtual loudspeaker arrangements? Fons' 1+6+8+6+1 seems to be a good and easy to mount start. Do you see a problem in increasing the number of speakers for the middle ring, for 4th/5th order 2d playback? (1+6+9+6+1 or 1+6+11+6+1) Or is this middle ring afterwards "incompatible" with the 3rd order periphonic setup? I do have third and fourth order material as well. I want to use this place to test my Ambisonics (ambix) Plug-ins which currently go up to 5th order. But of course I'd also like to listen/work with first order recordings. Anyway, as Dave pointed out there might be a lot to try out and just listen. But it's always good to have some opinions before starting to mount speakers. Matthias [1] http://www2.research.att.com/~njas/sphdesigns/ On 7/11/13 10:11 AM, Dave Malham wrote: For small areas, or central listeners, I do think there is a good argument for not over egging the pudding with too many speakers for low order material. But I am not at all convinced, based on experience, that this is true when dealing off centre listeners in a large area such as a concert since it doesn't take account of differential distance based losses amongst other things. Experimentation is definitely needed Dave On 10 July 2013 21:30, Fons Adriaensen wrote: 1 + 6 + 8 + 6 + 1 works very well for full 3rd order (with the rings of 6 at elevation +/-45). That is assuming you have 3rd order material to play. For lower order you should definitely use less speakers. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Suggestions spherical loudspeaker installation observatory
For small areas, or central listeners, I do think there is a good argument for not over egging the pudding with too many speakers for low order material. But I am not at all convinced, based on experience, that this is true when dealing off centre listeners in a large area such as a concert since it doesn't take account of differential distance based losses amongst other things. Experimentation is definitely needed Dave On 10 July 2013 21:30, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > 1 + 6 + 8 + 6 + 1 works very well for full 3rd order > (with the rings of 6 at elevation +/-45). > > That is assuming you have 3rd order material to play. > For lower order you should definitely use less speakers. -- -- As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University. These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University Dave Malham Honorary Fellow, Department of Music The University of York York YO10 5DD UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
