Re: [Sursound] OZO? vertical precedence

[Peter Lennox]

Ah! Thanks - you've told me more than or IT dept. did (though I suppose they 
may be busy)

Dr. Peter Lennox
Senior Lecturer in Perception
College of Arts
University of Derby, UK
e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk 
t: 01332 593155
https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox 


-Original Message-
From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Hodges
Sent: 08 December 2015 12:24
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OZO? vertical precedence

--On 08 December 2015 10:22 + Peter Lennox 
wrote:

> having problems with our internet access at the moment...

(It's because of a severe DDoS on Janet, the UK universities network.)

Paul

--
Paul Hodges

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the 
right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this was sent to you in error, 
please select unsubscribe.

Unsubscribe and Security information contact:   info...@derby.ac.uk
For all FOI requests please contact:   f...@derby.ac.uk
All other Contacts are at http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] OZO? vertical precedence

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 12/08/2015 01:47 PM, Peter Lennox wrote:

Couldn't find the full paper again - but there's this one in full: 
https://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/litovsky.pdf

The abstract ends "...models that attribute the precedecence effect entirely to 
processes that involve binaural differences are no longer viable"

The researchers are known as excellent contributors to the corpus of 
psychophysics (Ruth Litovsky did the defninitive review of precedence effects).

So I would be interested to examine the differences in their findings and 
Huddersfield's


thanks, very interesting! a quick glance makes me very curious, i'm 
looking forward to reading this tonight.



--
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 - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] OZO? vertical precedence

[Peter Lennox]

I'll dig it out - having problems with our internet access at the moment...

Dr. Peter Lennox
Senior Lecturer in Perception
College of Arts
University of Derby, UK
e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk 
t: 01332 593155
https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox 

-Original Message-
From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Jörn 
Nettingsmeier
Sent: 08 December 2015 10:19
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OZO? vertical precedence

On 12/07/2015 02:31 PM, Peter Lennox wrote:
> But see: Localization dominance in the median-sagittal plane: Effect 
> of stimulus duration Roberto M. Dizon and Ruth Y. Litovsky Received
> 19 June 2003; accepted for publication 22 March 2004

interesting!

i wonder:

> Lead-lag pairs of   noise
> bursts   were   presented   from   locations   spaced   in   15°
> increments   in   the   frontal, median-sagittal plane, with a 2-ms
> delay in their onsets, for source durations of 1, 10, 25, and 50-ms.

does this mean they used the same noise source, where one channel was actually 
delayed, or the same noise source and one channel was just faded up later 
("onset delay" could be read this way), or different noise sources altogether?

in order to investigate "phantom source" mechanisms, it should be the same 
noise source, delayed, which is likely what they did, but i can't check this 
paper unfortunately.

> Intermixed  with  these  trials  were  single-speaker  trials,  in 
> which  lead  and  lag  were  summed  and presented from one speaker.

> Listeners identified the speaker that was nearest to the perceived 
> source location.

so this is a simple "either/or" decision, not a continuum of possible phantom 
source locations. or put differently: not summing localisation, but something 
like a precendence effect. ok.

i could hypothesize that the initial phase of 2ms from one speaker only is 
enough information to localize the source, and that the lagging signal is not 
contributing any more cues. if so, that would not really contradict lee et al.

they go on to say

> With   single-speaker   stimuli,   localization
> improves   as   signal   duration   is   increased.

the single speaker case is not relevant to the discussion really (although it's 
a nice touch to add this to the experiment). it just means that if get more 
time to pinpoint a single source, localisation performance improves. very well.

but this could be read as implying "in two speaker stimuli, there was _no_ 
improvement of localisation as the signal duration is increased". 
which seems to suggest that indeed, the localisation process is over and done 
with during the initial 2ms of only a single speaker playing.

to test this, one would need to use a coherent signal in both speakers that 
starts at the same time, but one is delayed relative to the other. 
maybe by delaying a noise source and fading it in at the same time in both 
speakers. otherwise, we're really only looking at onset transients.

 > Furthermore,
> evidence of elevation compression was found with a dependence on 
> duration. With lead-lag pairs, localization dominance occurs in the 
> median plane, and becomes more robust with increased signal duration.

this general statement would contradict my interpretation above. is this paper 
available somewhere?

this one however leaves me scratching my head:

> These results suggest that accurate localization of a co-located 
> lead-lag pair is necessary for localization dominance to occur when 
> the lag is spatially separated from the lead.

i can't imagine what this means.



--
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 - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the 
right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this was sent to you in error, 
please select unsubscribe.

Unsubscribe and Security information contact:   info...@derby.ac.uk
For all FOI requests please contact:   f...@derby.ac.uk
All other Contacts are at http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] OZO? vertical precedence

[Paul Hodges]

--On 08 December 2015 10:22 + Peter Lennox 
wrote:

> having problems with our internet access at the
> moment...

(It's because of a severe DDoS on Janet, the UK universities network.)

Paul

-- 
Paul Hodges

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] OZO? vertical precedence

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 12/07/2015 02:31 PM, Peter Lennox wrote:

But see: Localization dominance in the median-sagittal plane: Effect
of stimulus duration Roberto M. Dizon and Ruth Y. Litovsky Received
19 June 2003; accepted for publication 22 March 2004


interesting!

i wonder:


Lead-lag pairs of   noise
bursts   were   presented   from   locations   spaced   in   15°
increments   in   the   frontal, median-sagittal plane, with a 2-ms
delay in their onsets, for source durations of 1, 10, 25, and 50-ms.


does this mean they used the same noise source, where one channel was 
actually delayed, or the same noise source and one channel was just 
faded up later ("onset delay" could be read this way), or different 
noise sources altogether?


in order to investigate "phantom source" mechanisms, it should be the 
same noise source, delayed, which is likely what they did, but i can't 
check this paper unfortunately.



Intermixed  with  these  trials  were  single-speaker  trials,  in
which  lead  and  lag  were  summed  and presented from one speaker.



Listeners identified the speaker that was nearest to the perceived
source location.


so this is a simple "either/or" decision, not a continuum of possible 
phantom source locations. or put differently: not summing localisation, 
but something like a precendence effect. ok.


i could hypothesize that the initial phase of 2ms from one speaker only 
is enough information to localize the source, and that the lagging 
signal is not contributing any more cues. if so, that would not really 
contradict lee et al.


they go on to say


With   single-speaker   stimuli,   localization
improves   as   signal   duration   is   increased.


the single speaker case is not relevant to the discussion really 
(although it's a nice touch to add this to the experiment). it just 
means that if get more time to pinpoint a single source, localisation 
performance improves. very well.


but this could be read as implying "in two speaker stimuli, there was 
_no_ improvement of localisation as the signal duration is increased". 
which seems to suggest that indeed, the localisation process is over and 
done with during the initial 2ms of only a single speaker playing.


to test this, one would need to use a coherent signal in both speakers 
that starts at the same time, but one is delayed relative to the other. 
maybe by delaying a noise source and fading it in at the same time in 
both speakers. otherwise, we're really only looking at onset transients.


> Furthermore,

evidence of elevation compression was found with a dependence on
duration. With lead-lag pairs, localization dominance occurs in the
median plane, and becomes more robust with increased signal duration.


this general statement would contradict my interpretation above. is this 
paper available somewhere?


this one however leaves me scratching my head:


These results suggest that accurate localization of a co-located
lead-lag pair is necessary for localization dominance to occur when
the lag is spatially separated from the lead.


i can't imagine what this means.



--
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 - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] OZO?

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 01:55:36AM +, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

> But your plots surely don't apply directly to the Ozo sphere, which
> is packed with electronics inside? (s. Nokia's videos.)
> The word "case" includes the interior of the sphere, which is not hollow.
> Your plots refer to an empty sphere, don't they?
 
A solid (i.e. acoustically not transparent) sphere. It doesn't 
matter what is inside.

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 - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Visual monitoring of surround sound

[D Ryan]

see: http://www.fluxhome.com/products/analyzer_modules/pas_surround

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:13 PM, David Pickett <d...@fugato.com> wrote:

> Apart from the obvious measurement of the amplitude and phase of the
> individual signals, which I do, I only have access to two ways of visually
> monitoring surround signals.
>
> I have always found a phase meter very informative in stereo.  There is
> the centre zero "correlation" meter type, either analog or with LED bars,
> and the oscilloscope L/R or M/S method which I find less useful.  Having
> written that, I must say that I find the "Vector scope" in RME's Digicheck
> works well.  This is an oscilloscope display but there is the option of
> AGC, and the rise and fall times are adjustable.
>
> Digicheck's surround visualisation includes phase meters between all the
> channels of the "correlation" type and a synthesized two dimensional
> display which assumes five channels in the directions of 5.1.  If there is
> sound on one channel, one sees a line pointing in the direction of the
> relevant loudspeaker.  Two adjacent channel produce a triangle, one apex at
> the centre, four a quadrilateral, etc.  Thus the space between the channels
> is filled in, although to me this conveys no real information.  One can
> read the individual phase meters, which are mostly of use with tones, or
> read the position of the corners of the display to see the relative
> magnitude of the levels in each channel.  (There are also separate level
> meters on the same panel.)
>
> The other surorund display that I have is in Samplitude, and also assumes
> 5.1.  This produces cigar shaped signals for individual channels, coming to
> a point at the origin, but very rounded at the outer end.  Two front
> signals will fill in the space between the L cigars, etc.  Other than
> that, I have been uinable to discover how it works.  With this display, one
> can see if a single channel is low or high in level, and gauge the relative
> levels of F and B.  But there is no indication of the coherence, or lack of
> it, between channels.
>
> On a stereo phase display, such as that in Digicheck, one can readily see
> if a mono signal has been placed in the stereo by means of a panpot; but
> this cannot be seen in either of the surround visualizations that I have.
>
> What might work would be the Digicheck stereo display modified such that
> signals in the front half on the soundfield are placed in the top half of
> the display, while the rear half is in the lower part.  Then it might be
> possible to distinguish between panpotted signals and coherent pairs.
>
> I'd be very interested to know about other methods of visualizing surround
> -- in the horizontal plane, at least to start with.  In my experience I can
> tell a lot about a stereo signal by watching the level and phase meters,
> and I would like to be able to do also in surround.
>
> David
>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151208/cd552afe/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] OZO? vertical precedence

[Augustine Leudar]

Very interesting paper. I would love to read it properly - can you just
tell me - does precedence work as well vertically as it does horizontally ?

On 8 December 2015 at 13:30, Jörn Nettingsmeier <
netti...@stackingdwarves.net> wrote:

> On 12/08/2015 01:47 PM, Peter Lennox wrote:
>
>> Couldn't find the full paper again - but there's this one in full:
>> https://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/litovsky.pdf
>>
>> The abstract ends "...models that attribute the precedecence effect
>> entirely to processes that involve binaural differences are no longer
>> viable"
>>
>> The researchers are known as excellent contributors to the corpus of
>> psychophysics (Ruth Litovsky did the defninitive review of precedence
>> effects).
>>
>> So I would be interested to examine the differences in their findings and
>> Huddersfield's
>>
>
> thanks, very interesting! a quick glance makes me very curious, i'm
> looking forward to reading this tonight.
>
>
>
> --
> 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 - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151208/2be0465c/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Dolby Atmos audio recording on sale...

[Augustine Leudar]

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Dr. Peter Lennox
> >>>> Senior Lecturer in Perception
> >>>> College of Arts
> >>>> University of Derby, UK
> >>>> e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk
> >>>> t: 01332 593155
> >>>> https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox
> >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Sursound mailing list
> >>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> >>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> here,
> >>> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >> ___
> >> Sursound mailing list
> >> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> >> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >>
> > ------ next part --
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151207/d05105f0/attachment.html
> >
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151207/4f1fdabb/attachment.html
> >
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151208/1c77676c/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Dolby Atmos audio recording on sale...

[Augustine Leudar]

Stefan -
what software is used to render/design these audio objects ?
best
Gus

On 7 December 2015 at 17:37, Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:

> Peter Lennox wrote:
>
> Yes, the thinking is that a speaker-layout-agnostic format file can be
>> transmitted and decoded at the client end of things, so it could end up
>> being mono, stereo, surround, surround with height, large-scale surround
>> (eg cinema) and so on, depending on the technical competence of the client
>> machine.
>> Of course, a lot could go wrong...
>>
>>
>
> With the limitation that audio objects alone don't define a real acoustic
> space/environment. (You would have to render this.)
>
> It is good to have options. But audio objects are not very compatible with
> holistic = real recordings?
>
> (Audio objects  have been used  for ages in  game audio, including
> rendering of reflections and simulated acoustics.)
>
> Dolby Atmos is actually a hybrid (C/O) format.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
> Dr. Peter Lennox
>> Senior Lecturer in Perception
>> College of Arts
>> University of Derby, UK
>> e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk t: 01332 593155
>> https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox
>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox
>>
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151208/61fdebf5/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] OZO? vertical precedence

[Peter Lennox]

no -percedence effects include a range of phenomena. But precedence in the 
median plane isn't quite as effective as in the azimuthal plane, according to 
Litovsky, Rakerd, Hartmann et al, but is still quite effective and so not 
negligible. So I'd like to understand what Lee (Huddersfield) was saying, to 
compare.

Certainly, in respect of producing phantom imagery in the vertical, I've found 
this to be quite effective (though often slightly more vague than in 
horizontal) which would explain why periphonic ambisonics works at all - and 
this seems to be a related issue to the precedence one
cheers
ppl
Dr. Peter Lennox
Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy
Senior Lecturer in Perception
College of Arts
University of Derby

Tel: 01332 593155

From: Sursound [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Augustine Leudar 
[augustineleu...@gmail.com]
Sent: 08 December 2015 19:57
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OZO? vertical precedence

Very interesting paper. I would love to read it properly - can you just
tell me - does precedence work as well vertically as it does horizontally ?

On 8 December 2015 at 13:30, Jörn Nettingsmeier <
netti...@stackingdwarves.net> wrote:

> On 12/08/2015 01:47 PM, Peter Lennox wrote:
>
>> Couldn't find the full paper again - but there's this one in full:
>> https://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/litovsky.pdf
>>
>> The abstract ends "...models that attribute the precedecence effect
>> entirely to processes that involve binaural differences are no longer
>> viable"
>>
>> The researchers are known as excellent contributors to the corpus of
>> psychophysics (Ruth Litovsky did the defninitive review of precedence
>> effects).
>>
>> So I would be interested to examine the differences in their findings and
>> Huddersfield's
>>
>
> thanks, very interesting! a quick glance makes me very curious, i'm
> looking forward to reading this tonight.
>
>
>
> --
> 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 - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



--
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151208/2be0465c/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the 
right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this was sent to you in error, 
please select unsubscribe.

Unsubscribe and Security information contact:   info...@derby.ac.uk
For all FOI requests please contact:   f...@derby.ac.uk
All other Contacts are at http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.