Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Bo-Erik Sandholm]

They are "Boutique Speaker" you have to listen at The designers place in
stockholm before ordering. Ingvar Öhman is The designer.
If you want to resurect your swedish IÖ speakers are discussions Here:
http://www.faktiskt.se/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=20&sid=fe0a25f7ffd1b73fb42e330e84150f30

A pair PI-60 Cost around 3000 euro/Usd.
The commercial version is The
http://www.the-ear.net/review-hardware/guru-qm60-floorstanding-loudspeaker

Bo-Erik

Den 10 jan. 2017 10:47 skrev "Sampo Syreeni" :

> On 2017-01-10, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:
>
> For UHJ I have experienced about +20 degrees outside of the speakers.
>>
>
> I've only heard well-decoded UHJ or the "super-stereo" effect once (thanks
> to Eero Aro). But even then I can confirm that even the undecoded stereo
> goes well beyond the speaker positions.
>
> Then the question becomes, why. I like to believe I'm reasonably well-read
> in physical acoustics, psychoacoustics, and ambisonic theory. But somehow I
> *still* don't understand what's *really* going on with the super-stereo
> effect. It has to have something to do with how BHJ was optimized to retain
> LF velocity cues, yes. But that you can reproduce those outside of a
> frontal stereo setup baffles me as well.
>
> But then my speakers are a bit unusual, they are phase linear, if I play
>> back square waves I get recognisable square waves if using a small diameter
>> Omni microphone :-)
>>
>
> Oh. My. God. What speaker do you speak of? How much does it cost? I mean,
> for my native techno-land, that sort of thing would be well ideal. 8)
> --
> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
> +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
> ___
> 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: 

___
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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Sampo Syreeni]

On 2017-01-10, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:


For UHJ I have experienced about +20 degrees outside of the speakers.


I've only heard well-decoded UHJ or the "super-stereo" effect once 
(thanks to Eero Aro). But even then I can confirm that even the 
undecoded stereo goes well beyond the speaker positions.


Then the question becomes, why. I like to believe I'm reasonably 
well-read in physical acoustics, psychoacoustics, and ambisonic theory. 
But somehow I *still* don't understand what's *really* going on with the 
super-stereo effect. It has to have something to do with how BHJ was 
optimized to retain LF velocity cues, yes. But that you can reproduce 
those outside of a frontal stereo setup baffles me as well.


But then my speakers are a bit unusual, they are phase linear, if I 
play back square waves I get recognisable square waves if using a 
small diameter Omni microphone :-)


Oh. My. God. What speaker do you speak of? How much does it cost? I 
mean, for my native techno-land, that sort of thing would be well ideal. 
8)

--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
___
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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Stefan Schreiber]

Sampo Syreeni wrote:


On 2017-01-09, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

- Backward-compatible (to stereo) forms of Ambisonics are very 
probably possible.



They are not "probably possible". That's what the BHJ version of UHJ 
*is*.



Yes. But you still have to put L/R + 1 or 2 ext. channels into some < 
stereo



MP3 or AAC file.



...



That is then not much of a problem either, if you think about it. 
Pretty much the only formats we have to think about are RIFF WAVE 
(.wav) and MPEG2 layer 3 (.mp3). Just maybe MPEG2/4 AAC (ISO/IEC 
13818-7:2006).


Wav, especially in its modern versions, supports hiding T. It also 
supports a media tag to discern between just UHJ encoded stereo with a 
hidden channel, from ordinary stereo with one hidden channel. We 
already used it to encode B-format, in Richard Dobson's .AMB format, 
derived from WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonic_data_exchange_formats).


AAC is pliable as well. Of MP3 I'm not too sure, but I think it might 
be. (I'm too drunken and tired to delve into that now. If you want 
certainty, remind me later. I do think I have the relevant ISO 
standards laying around somewhere on my disks.)


I came basically to the same conclusions. (AAC implementation possible, 
some MP3 "hack" maybe...)
But to implement this, you or I or anybody would need the (detailled) 
format specifications.


(Hidden) Extension channels are known and applied in other cases. (DTS, 
True HD's 5.1 system over stereo "core", etc.)


Best,

Stefan



UHJ was always a hierarchy scheme. Even so you have to find some 
space for T and Q channels. It is all just about some "practical 
space problems", not Makita theory itself...  Just IT and standard 
related stuff, not math! ;-)



Funnily, Gerzon also built up another hierachy of sorts, incompatible 
with UHJ. That's the frontal stereo one for early HDTV work. I never 
understood why he didn't bring it under the ambisonic compatibility fold.


DirAC has the problem that it currebtly can be used "just as 
research" tool. (I won't discuss this here. But you know this as well 
as I do. )



Yes. It might be patent encumbered as well. And I don't much like the 
idea that the decoder's input is effectively a directed cardioid -- 
that should be dealt with pretty much as the dual of an optimal decoder.


But yeah...

Maybe. But before we "just" would need some good binaural decoder for 
some standard surround formats; 5.1 and FOA surely included.



If you "just want to do it", I can easily contribute the research, 
math and inner loops. On the framework and integration side I'm not 
too good.


I might come back to this later and accept your kind offer...   :-)



Until 2morrow, and many thanks for your thoughtful and constructive 
posting! (I have to think about this quite a bit more)



What the list is for, but also a bit sorry for my usual rant-length. :)



___
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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Sampo Syreeni]

On 2017-01-09, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

- Backward-compatible (to stereo) forms of Ambisonics are very 
probably possible.


They are not "probably possible". That's what the BHJ version of UHJ 
*is*.


Yes. But you still have to put L/R + 1 or 2 ext. channels into some < stereo 

MP3 or AAC file.


Yes. There's a lot of haziness around how to do that optimally, at 
least. Cf. the discussions around Vorbis's multichannel capability. 
There ambisonic theory is explicitly mentioned.


Our aim would be to be backward compatibility to common file and 
stream stereo formats. This is not completely trivial, but can be 
done. (Extension channels "buried" in file or container format. We 
don't want to break existing stereo decoders...)


There's then historical ambisonic theory even for that. :D

In the UHJ hierachy we also have SHJ and THJ. Those were originally 
meant as compatibility formats for augmented AM and FM stereo radio. SHJ 
as a "two and a half channel" format exists because at the time sattling 
a full-bandwidth third channel onto a typical radio broadcast was 
technically impossible. Given the limitations of analogue electronics. 
However, a half-band channel could be put on, and so SHJ was borne.


At the same time, what you'd really want in a compatibility format would 
be just a third, full-bandwidth channel. That's what THJ then 
represents, as the full-fledged third tier of the UHJ hierarchy. It 
starts with BHJ, and then ads a suitably (complex) matrixed third 
channel (T), so that the whole system inverts into pure pantophonic 
B-format (a bit of a misnomer because cylindrical and spherical 
harmonics can't really be so exchanged, but still close enough).


So, if you want to get complete compatibility, we have the signal format 
already. The question is how to convey it within common audio formats.


That is then not much of a problem either, if you think about it. Pretty 
much the only formats we have to think about are RIFF WAVE (.wav) and 
MPEG2 layer 3 (.mp3). Just maybe MPEG2/4 AAC (ISO/IEC 13818-7:2006).


Wav, especially in its modern versions, supports hiding T. It also 
supports a media tag to discern between just UHJ encoded stereo with a 
hidden channel, from ordinary stereo with one hidden channel. We already 
used it to encode B-format, in Richard Dobson's .AMB format, derived 
from WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonic_data_exchange_formats).


AAC is pliable as well. Of MP3 I'm not too sure, but I think it might 
be. (I'm too drunken and tired to delve into that now. If you want 
certainty, remind me later. I do think I have the relevant ISO standards 
laying around somewhere on my disks.)


UHJ was always a hierarchy scheme. Even so you have to find some space 
for T and Q channels. It is all just about some "practical space 
problems", not Makita theory itself...  Just IT and standard related 
stuff, not math! ;-)


Funnily, Gerzon also built up another hierachy of sorts, incompatible 
with UHJ. That's the frontal stereo one for early HDTV work. I never 
understood why he didn't bring it under the ambisonic compatibility 
fold.


DirAC has the problem that it currebtly can be used "just as research" 
tool. (I won't discuss this here. But you know this as well as I do. )


Yes. It might be patent encumbered as well. And I don't much like the 
idea that the decoder's input is effectively a directed cardioid -- that 
should be dealt with pretty much as the dual of an optimal decoder.


But yeah...

Maybe. But before we "just" would need some good binaural decoder for 
some standard surround formats; 5.1 and FOA surely included.


If you "just want to do it", I can easily contribute the research, math 
and inner loops. On the framework and integration side I'm not too good.


Until 2morrow, and many thanks for your thoughtful and constructive 
posting! (I have to think about this quite a bit more)


What the list is for, but also a bit sorry for my usual rant-length. :)
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
___
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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Stefan Schreiber]

Augustine Leudar wrote:


Not really simply because binaural is meant for headphones -  transaural is
meant to be the binaural equivalent for loudspeakers. If you think about it
- our ears have their own transfer function - the filter would have to be
tailored to our own HRTFs to remove our HRTF filtering.



Naive kunstkopf recordings sound coloured and "dump" if reproduced via 
speakers. This is some tonal problem, which requires some equalisation 
filter.


This (in German "entzerrungs"-) filter is about spectral problems. It is 
not some "de-HRTF" filter. (Which would be 1stly nonsentical and is 
2ndly impossible!)


http://www.neumann.com/download.php?download=docu0009.PDF

This is complicated stuff, certainly not trivial.


the filter would have to be
tailored to our own HRTFs to remove our HRTF filtering.

This also doesn't work! (You can derive your binaural response from some 
sound field, but not vice versa. Even if you know the transfer functions 
exactly.)


Best,

Stefan




I suppose you could
try some sort of phase cancellation stuff to stop cross talk -


Independent from above...



but I really
cant see it working . These guys claim binaural makes good stereo
recordings but you lose the binuaral spatialisation effect :

http://www.binaural.com/binfaq.html#anchor720852

For artistic purposes I have long sort to find something that would get
sounds to fly round the back of my head (or even 180 degrees) with just two
loudspeakers but alas I have found nothing yet just many audacious claims
and no results - I would love to be proved wrong ...

On 9 January 2017 at 20:15, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:

 


Augustine Leudar wrote:

Hi Stefan - yes I have a set of soundman ones which Ive use don and off for
   


the last ten years - I have really weird shaped ears though so my
recordings dont work well on people with normal shaped heads ;)


 


Do they use some form of filter to get the spectral balance for
loudspeaker playback right?

Neumann kunstkopf mikes do this since 1981 or so ("2nd generation"...)

Best,

Stefan

P.S.: This is not on Wikipedia. So who would sign my claim?  O:-)




On 9 January 2017 at 16:41, Stefan Schreiber 
   


wrote:



 


Augustine Leudar wrote:

Yes i just mean - when making a 3D sound installation you can use various


   


types of panning round a sphere (or whatever of speaker array). You
seemed
to be saying ambisonics had a clear advantage over other types of
panning
for 3D audio - I was just wondering what you saw as ambisonics'
advantages
over VBAP.



 


I am really quite format-neutral... Did I claim such advantages?

The only thing I wrote into this direction was that sound fields fit by
its very nature very well to 360º video and AR/VR. (Isotropy, 3D
capability
even at just 4 channels,  SF rotation is quite easy.)


Otherwise, we came from the discussion of quadrophony (now recording
history) - and then binaural recordings.

I have recorded my own Binaural album using binaural


   


microphones - it doesnt work at all on speakers - and thats with my own
HRTF . Seeing as the claim has been made between "modern" binaural
recordings work on two speakers (not by you incidently) - lets hear one
-
I
can guarantee you you will not hear a barber shaving the back of your
head
on to loud speakers.

I believe you would need certain filtering (problem: you would damage


 


headphone representation - where binaural  recordings are supposed to
shine!), or X-talk cancellation.

The kunstkopf concept uses some (statistically) averaged HRTF. That you
could do some good binaural recordings (just) with some simple in-ear
microphones and your/our heads is probably just a claim by your local ear
microphone producer...;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording

"For listening using conventional speaker-stereo, or mp3 players, a
pinna-less dummy head may be preferable for quasi-binaural recording,
such
as the sphere microphone or Ambiophone. As a general rule, for true
binaural results, an audio recording and reproduction system chain, from
microphone to listener's brain, should contain one and only one set of
pinnae (preferably the listener's own) and one head-shadow."

Binaural stayed in the background due to the expensive, specialized


   


equipment required for quality recordings, and the requirement of
headphones for proper reproduction.



 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_head_recording

"The dummy head is designed to replicate average sized human head and
depending on the manufacturer may have a nose and mouth too. "

Best,

Stefan

P.S.: No, I don't sell binaural recording equipment. O:-)


I've actually found Ambisonics to be worse compared to VBAP in


   


many situations and better in others - but generally I use Vbap or Dbap
.
The only real advantage I can see of ambisonics is having one file that
can
be up or down mixed - but you can do that to a degree with Vbap files as
well

Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Sampo Syreeni]

On 2017-01-09, Alan Varty wrote:

It was repeated several times over a period of about 12 months or so 
and advertised as being either QUAD or MATRIX-H and eventually HJ in 
Radio Times.


Tell me/us, is any of this H-stuff available anywhere? Has anybody tried 
decoding it via the usual UHJ machinery?


Because as far as I remember, the encoding locus of H and UHJ are 
compatible; in fact I seem to remember that UHJ was designed to be 
compatible with Matrix H. So that an UHJ decode of H ought to work like 
a charm, by definition. With UHJ decoders being much more easily 
available than anything purely worked for H... ;)

--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
___
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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Sampo Syreeni]

On 2017-01-09, Augustine Leudar wrote:

Hi Stefan - yes I have a set of soundman ones which Ive use don and 
off for the last ten years - I have really weird shaped ears though so 
my recordings dont work well on people with normal shaped heads ;)


BTW, I have to second that. I have pretty normal shaped ears, but also 
rather a funky hearing deficit. Probably a hereditary one. I basically 
have a steep symmetric null in my hearing capacity, at about 2kHz, with 
no LF or HF attenuation whatsoever. Perhaps even circa +15dB rollon at 
HF (normalized for my age). That fucks up your usual Kemar set derived 
HRTF like no tomorrow.


Goes to show, we're all different, so that it's pretty difficult to do 
psychoacoustical optimization which fits all of us at the same time. 
Pretty much the only thing which could work for us all is some type of 
physical reconstruction of sound(fields), or a very generalized 
psychoacoustical optimization -- which is perhaps why I like ambisonic 
as much as I do :)

--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
___
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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Stefan Schreiber]

Sampo Syreeni wrote:


On 2017-01-09, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

The critique I'd have for such panning laws is that they don't 
really respect the ambisonic/Gerzon theory, especially at the low 
frequencies.



Stereophonic panning laws are based on Blumlein's stereo theory, 
which in Wittek's opinion is pretty close to sound fields anyway.



Correct, but only in the high order, dense limit. In the low order, 
sparse array case, which especially four speaker POA deals with, you 
can do better. That's why POA decoders don't go in-phase but max 
energy even at HF, and especially why we have shelf filters which cut 
the decode down to velocity coherence at the low end.


But Blumlein developped his "physical cue" stereo just for 2 speakers.  ;-)
Forget about any "high order" re-interpretations. It's all about ITD, 
ILD and say summing location.


It is pretty obvious that Ambisonics theory is influenced by Blumlein 
stereo...


Now, 3-channel stereo (+ extensions) seems to be some early version of 
WFS...


http://www.hauptmikrofon.de/HW/Wittek_thesis_201207.pdf

p. 28:

In America Steinberg, Snow and Fletcher (Steinberg and Snow, 1934) 
from Bell Laboratories

explored the 'acoustic curtain', see Figure 3-3.



Snow described their ideas in
this way: "The myriad loudspeakers of the screen, acting as point 
sources of sound identical
with the sound heard by the microphones, would project a true copy of 
the original sound into
the listening area. The observer would then employ ordinary binaural 
listening, and his ears
would be stimulated by sounds identical to those he would have heard 
coming from the original

sound source." (Snow, 1953)


(= WFS!)

These scientists quickly noticed that, due to technical constraints, 
it would not be feasible to
put their ideas into practice. As a compromise, they limited the 
practical system to three channels,
accepting that the original aim of recreating the real sound field 
would no longer be ful


filled. The three-channel stereophony produced in this way was 
therefore not created as a
result of a mathematical analysis of the sound field, but rather as an 
engineering compromise.
Its directional effect is based on perceptual phenomena such as the 
precedence effect and

level and time difference stereophony.
In contrast, Blumlein (1933) aimed at a proportional reproduction of 
the directional image of

the recorded scene by recreating the original physical auditory cues.


Snow (1953) pointed out, regarding the basic difference between the 
n-channel acoustic curtain
and 3-channel stereophony: "This arrangement [3-channel stereophony, 
see Figure 3-3]
does indeed give good auditory perspective, but what has not been 
generally appreciated is
that conditions are now so different from the impractical screen> setup that a different

hearing mechanism is used by the brain."
Researchers who observe contradictions in the generally accepted 
summing localisation theory

quote this statement by Snow.



Let's say the creators of stereo (including binaural stereo, developped 
even earlier in the 19th century) thought all in terms of physical 
acoustics and psychoacoustics...




Obviously all of those decoding principles converge to holophony in 
the high order, dense array limit, so that Wittek is correct in that case.


Well, look to the title of Wittek's dissertation...

Switching guru mode on:
< Every reasonable stereophonic system  will become some copy of 
real-world acoustics >, as long as you can use  infinite  ressources to 
prove your point! (Do you agree?!)


Example:
HOA DirAC...   :-)

However I'd argue that the whole point of POA is to optimally deal 
with the low order, sparse array case, where each of the decoding 
principles are pretty far from convergence, and in very different ways 
-- intensity panning pretty much corresponding to an in-phase decode, 
which we already know is *not* always optimal.


1st order Ambisonics is "just" the 2nd most simple implementation of a 
sound field. Should we not start interpretation in this way, not with 
some "sparse array" we should use somehow??
The "sparse" decoder array is an implementation issue. (Order 0 was 
already obsolete when Ambisonics was developped. But quadraphonic 
systems already existed. "Some believe that Ambisonics is a kind of 
improved quadraphonic system"...   8-) )


Anyway: I can't quite follow! You do an in-phase decode if you want to 
enlarge some (usable) listening area. It is not some optimal decoding 
strategy for POA, but so what?


You could also say that your argument is some "proof" that intensity 
panning/VBAP has some bigger sweet spot than POA. (Maybe true, but this 
is not really the motivation behind some in-phase area decoder.)


I would not treat stereophonic systems as some "deformed" implementation 
of Ambisonics. They are not...


Secondly, "theoretically perfect" systems are mostly "not really" 
perfect in reality:


http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/record-play-map.h

Re: [Sursound] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Sampo Syreeni]

On 2017-01-09, Augustine Leudar wrote:

and of course I mean amplitude panning rather than vbap in that 
instance - but I have had reasonable results doing the same for full 
3D installations as well, at least as resoble as can be expected 
representing a 3D audio scene in stereo (which is never very good in 
any format)


Not to be a prude, but... ;)

VBAP is short for vector base amplitude panning. So it's really just 
amplitude panning. It's absolutely no different from your typical 
left-right panpot, except that it's been generalized from the 1D line 
going from left to right, to the 2D sphere surface which is the space of 
directions. Technically, that surface's triangulations: where you had 
left and right on your panpot before, now you have triangles over the 
sphere of directions.


But it's still just basic equal energy panning; sinusoidal interpolation 
between points; now just among three while there were two before. Simple 
as that. :)

--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
___
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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Bo-Erik Sandholm]

For UHJ I have experienced about +20 degrees outside of the speakers.
But then my speakers are a bit unusual, they are phase linear, if I play
back square waves I get recognisable square waves if using a small diameter
Omni microphone :-)
Bo-Erik

On 9 Jan 2017 22:18, "Augustine Leudar"  wrote:

Not really simply because binaural is meant for headphones -  transaural is
meant to be the binaural equivalent for loudspeakers. If you think about it
- our ears have their own transfer function - the filter would have to be
tailored to our own HRTFs to remove our HRTF filtering. I suppose you could
try some sort of phase cancellation stuff to stop cross talk - but I really
cant see it working . These guys claim binaural makes good stereo
recordings but you lose the binuaral spatialisation effect :

http://www.binaural.com/binfaq.html#anchor720852

For artistic purposes I have long sort to find something that would get
sounds to fly round the back of my head (or even 180 degrees) with just two
loudspeakers but alas I have found nothing yet just many audacious claims
and no results - I would love to be proved wrong ...


>>>>>>>
>>>>>Å



--
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
attachments/20170109/c031c5c9/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/20170110/336ae683/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] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Sampo Syreeni]

On 2017-01-09, Politis Archontis wrote:

I am a bit baffled by the idea that VBAP is not compatible with 
Ambisonics theory (?)


I actually didn't mean to say quite as much. :)

Thinking in terms of velocity and energy vectors, as far as I 
understand, VBAP with the (classic) amplitude panning formulation has 
zero angular error for the (Makita) velocity vectors for all 
directions.


Yes. In my mind the trouble with VBAP isn't that it's somehow incorrect, 
because obviously it isn't. It eminently does work. But reflected 
against ambisonic theory, it also has its shortcomings.


The closest thing in POA (plain old ambisonic) theory to VBAP is, I 
believe, in-phase decoding. It's not an exact fit, true, but it comes 
close enough to make a comparison: in-phase basically means that 
whatever you put into the soundfield comes from a certain direction, 
with no anti-phase, oscillating (in the sound intensity theory sense) 
contribution from around the rig. It tries to keep all of the energy as 
travelling, not oscillating, or in other words it tries to keep close to 
what the more involved NFC-HOA analysis calls an "inbound solution". So, 
pretty much what pure amplitude panning like VBAP does in practice as 
well.


With that in mind, you can immediately see how the idea fails the 
ambisonic ideal. Perhaps not by too much, and we know that all of the 
solutions tend toward the same holophonic limit given enough resources. 
But still in the low order sparse rig case there's a difference. Which 
is why we don't do in-phase decodes, but max rE at HF and max rV at LF.


Namely, two things. First, the ambisonic formulation tries as hard as it 
can to be isotropic. That's the basic reason why you need at least four 
speakers for even three channel, pantophonic POA: you just can't make 
the system so that it doesn't pull sound into speakers with just three. 
VBAP doesn't respect that basic theorem, and so it does pull into 
speakers; it doesn't sound the same when you pan into a speaker 
position, as it does when you pan between. POA does (or at least tries 
very hard to do so).


And secondly, VBAP doesn't utilize the whole (limited, cheap, basic) 
speaker rig as efficiently as POA does. The classical ambisonic theory a 
la Gerzon starts with the Makita theory of localisation, and optimizes 
against it. VBAP doesn't take heed of that or any other theory, but is 
in the perceptual sense an ad hoc machinery. Thus, it doesn't really 
optimize for hearing, or the use of limited speaker resources; it 
doesn't do what POA does, which is to utilize anti-phase signals in 
order to give higher location accuracy at LF. (Remember, those go away 
at the dense HOA limit even within the ambisonic framework; but we're 
not talking about that in usual home configurations; the cheap, basic 
setup every homeowner has is the thing, and the thing where VBAP 
performs worst as compared to POA.)


In essence, if you want to put VBAP within the ambisonic framework, I'd 
characterize it as being "an infinite order single band decoder 
optimized for in-phase propagation, without the isotropy constraints 
which characterize low order ambisonic". There's nothing inherently 
wrong with such a decoding solution, and even the ambisonic theoretical 
machinery tells you that such a solution is sometimes ideal. It's just 
that if you work with your average 4-5 speakers, and within POA's single 
listener, central, isotropic assumption, the classical POA framework 
does even better.


Of course at low frequencies you cannot achieve the “perfect” pressure 
reconstruction that a mode-matching decoder can achieve, but then you 
see what are the gains that such a decoder imposes on not ideal 
regular setups to realize that perfect reconstruction should be 
compromised anyway with some more practical solution.


If I understand you correctly, we sort of agree. But you see, my 
argument is very much about the *imperfect* case, and I think the 
classical Gerzon/POA theory is about that too. If we had a million 
speakers, too much processing power to speak of, and so on, all of this 
discussion would be moot. It's just that we don't have that. We 
typically have just four speakers (if even as many), and we have to make 
the best of what little we have.


That then leads to Gerzon's theory (of POA); something which is almost 
singlemindedly psychoacoustical (within the constraint of an LTI signal 
chain). Nowadays we could theoretize about tons of speakers and the high 
holophonic limit, but in his day Gerzon worked with pretty much just a 
quadraphonic setup. If you want to have something like that deliver 
passable pantophony, you can't go with idealisations. You work with what 
you got, and what you got was part psychoacoustics.


Which is why we have shelf filters, which cut from rE to rV, and which 
is why in POA's presumable use case, it does (as much as the underlying 
Makita theory of localization can help you) far better than VBAP. With 
the limi

Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Sampo Syreeni]

On 2017-01-09, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

The critique I'd have for such panning laws is that they don't really 
respect the ambisonic/Gerzon theory, especially at the low 
frequencies.


Stereophonic panning laws are based on Blumlein's stereo theory, which 
in Wittek's opinion is pretty close to sound fields anyway.


Correct, but only in the high order, dense limit. In the low order, 
sparse array case, which especially four speaker POA deals with, you can 
do better. That's why POA decoders don't go in-phase but max energy even 
at HF, and especially why we have shelf filters which cut the decode 
down to velocity coherence at the low end.


Obviously all of those decoding principles converge to holophony in the 
high order, dense array limit, so that Wittek is correct in that case. 
However I'd argue that the whole point of POA is to optimally deal with 
the low order, sparse array case, where each of the decoding principles 
are pretty far from convergence, and in very different ways -- intensity 
panning pretty much corresponding to an in-phase decode, which we 
already know is *not* always optimal.

--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
___
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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Groups]

I doubt it. That links to a 1966 video by Jonathan Miller which will 
only have mono sound!


Bill Taylor


On 09/01/2017 21:21, Augustine Leudar wrote:

 - will this have the quad audio ? It makes me wonder if Delia
Derbyshire or any of the Radiophonic workshop did any quad stuff - now that
I would love to hear !

On 9 January 2017 at 20:38, Paul Hodges  wrote:


--On 09 January 2017 19:45 + Augustine Leudar
 wrote:


Is it perhaps available here ?



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.






___
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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Augustine Leudar]

 - will this have the quad audio ? It makes me wonder if Delia
Derbyshire or any of the Radiophonic workshop did any quad stuff - now that
I would love to hear !

On 9 January 2017 at 20:38, Paul Hodges  wrote:

> --On 09 January 2017 19:45 + Augustine Leudar
>  wrote:
>
> > Is it perhaps available here ?
>
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p032khvk/products>
>
> 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.
>



-- 
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170109/9ee75249/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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Augustine Leudar]

gt;>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>>>>> complexity?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I must again ask:  What does "vbap" actually means in your question.
>>>>> Because  it is not clear what should be "compared" at all. For me, VBAP
>>>>> (=
>>>>> panning technique) is always used in some specific context.  Is this
>>>>> context 7.1 or Dolby Atmos or DTS:X or...? You see what I mean,
>>>>> hopefully.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good night
>>>>>
>>>>> Stefan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9 January 2017 at 01:05, Stefan Schreiber 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <> modern binaural recordings I've heard on speakers did not give
>>>>>>> excellent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> results they gave terrible results, aside from the fact the transfer
>>>>>>>> functions are messed up by room reflections and cross talk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fair enough. But it seems that opinions about this seem to be vastly
>>>>>>> different. (The quality of binaural recordings represented via
>>>>>>> loudspeakers
>>>>>>> is judged to be about between "terrible" and "excellent", depending
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> listener)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it doesn't even
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> work perfectly on headphones due to differences in individual hrtfs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, quite obviously not "perfectly".  Listening results will depend a
>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>> on the hrtf mismatch between dummy head and (individual) listener.
>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> perspective is fixed - you can't rotate some dummy  head recording!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Transaural is supposed to be the the two speaker equivelant of
>>>>>>> binaural
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> speakers I know spat were due to release a new version that worked -
>>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>> heard it ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ambiophonics could also  be used - as some already established form
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> X-talk cancellation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>>>>>>> capability ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>>>>>> complexity?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You didn't specify any  application details. (So I assume you
>>>>>>> referred
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> music recordings or VR.)
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stefan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, 8 January 2017, Bob Burton  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield)
>>>>>>>>> collaborating
>>>>>>>>> with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title
>>>>>>>>> track
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090).
>>>>>>>>> Surprisingly,
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester
>>>>>>>>> Cathedral
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
>>>>>>>>> breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike
>>>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>>>> guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite
>>>>>>>>> awesome.
>>>>>>>>> Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in
>>>>>>>>> BBC
>>>>>>>>> Matrix
>>>>>>>>> H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
> ___
> 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.
>



-- 
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170109/c031c5c9/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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Paul Hodges]

--On 09 January 2017 19:45 + Augustine Leudar
 wrote:

> Is it perhaps available here ?



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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Stefan Schreiber]

Augustine Leudar wrote:


Hi Stefan - yes I have a set of soundman ones which Ive use don and off for
the last ten years - I have really weird shaped ears though so my
recordings dont work well on people with normal shaped heads ;)
 

Do they use some form of filter to get the spectral balance for 
loudspeaker playback right?


Neumann kunstkopf mikes do this since 1981 or so ("2nd generation"...)

Best,

Stefan

P.S.: This is not on Wikipedia. So who would sign my claim?  O:-)




On 9 January 2017 at 16:41, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:

 


Augustine Leudar wrote:

Yes i just mean - when making a 3D sound installation you can use various
   


types of panning round a sphere (or whatever of speaker array). You seemed
to be saying ambisonics had a clear advantage over other types of panning
for 3D audio - I was just wondering what you saw as ambisonics' advantages
over VBAP.

 


I am really quite format-neutral... Did I claim such advantages?

The only thing I wrote into this direction was that sound fields fit by
its very nature very well to 360º video and AR/VR. (Isotropy, 3D capability
even at just 4 channels,  SF rotation is quite easy.)


Otherwise, we came from the discussion of quadrophony (now recording
history) - and then binaural recordings.

I have recorded my own Binaural album using binaural
   


microphones - it doesnt work at all on speakers - and thats with my own
HRTF . Seeing as the claim has been made between "modern" binaural
recordings work on two speakers (not by you incidently) - lets hear one -
I
can guarantee you you will not hear a barber shaving the back of your head
on to loud speakers.

I believe you would need certain filtering (problem: you would damage
 


headphone representation - where binaural  recordings are supposed to
shine!), or X-talk cancellation.

The kunstkopf concept uses some (statistically) averaged HRTF. That you
could do some good binaural recordings (just) with some simple in-ear
microphones and your/our heads is probably just a claim by your local ear
microphone producer...;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording

"For listening using conventional speaker-stereo, or mp3 players, a
pinna-less dummy head may be preferable for quasi-binaural recording, such
as the sphere microphone or Ambiophone. As a general rule, for true
binaural results, an audio recording and reproduction system chain, from
microphone to listener's brain, should contain one and only one set of
pinnae (preferably the listener's own) and one head-shadow."

Binaural stayed in the background due to the expensive, specialized
   


equipment required for quality recordings, and the requirement of
headphones for proper reproduction.

 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_head_recording

"The dummy head is designed to replicate average sized human head and
depending on the manufacturer may have a nose and mouth too. "

Best,

Stefan

P.S.: No, I don't sell binaural recording equipment. O:-)


I've actually found Ambisonics to be worse compared to VBAP in
   


many situations and better in others - but generally I use Vbap or Dbap .
The only real advantage I can see of ambisonics is having one file that
can
be up or down mixed - but you can do that to a degree with Vbap files as
well.
In terms of one of these "modern" binaural recordings - I dont really know
what this means . ...


 


On 9 January 2017 at 03:49, Stefan Schreiber 
wrote:



 


Augustine Leudar wrote:

Spatial audio is as doused  snakeoil as the hifi world.

I find this view a bit one-sided. At least this should not be related to
our discussion...

Sound localisation


   


is not a purely subjective affair -

I didn't claim this.


 


have there been any listening tests


   


which demosntrate binaural rendering is capable of creating anything
like
headphone spatialisation over two stereo loudspeakers ?



 


I am pretty sure that the kunstkopf proponents did some scientific
listening tests.


Anyway -- perhaps one of these "modern" inaural recording are available


   


online and we can judge for ourselves.




 


There are plenty of CDs around, so you will find some content on YT,
Spotify etc.

I have neve rnotices any problems rendering ambisonics or vbap with
dozens


   


of channels - or even WFS .  What do you mean by "you cant record audio
objects" ?




 


What means "rendering vbap" at all? Vbap is "just" (3D) stereophonic
panning.

You could pan some spot mikes or audio objects into some loudspeaker
layout. But you have to pan "something".

http://legacy.spa.aalto.fi/research/cat/vbap/


What do you mean by "you cant record audio


   


objects" ?

I was referring to music and scene/ambiance  recording.


 


Of course you can record some audio objects. This is not a complete
recording yet... I admit that the citing above doesn't make a lot of
sense,
but in its context there was one:

Stefan I am cur

Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Alan Varty]

Hello there Andrew,

Yes, that sounds about right.

It was repeated several times over a period of about 12 months or so
and advertised as being either QUAD or MATRIX-H and eventually HJ
in Radio Times.

I also believe some of the BBC TV "Sight and Sound In Concert"
televised rock concerts may have been transmitted in Matrix-H
as well via BBC Radio 1, the idea being you turned your TV sound
down to zero and listened on your stereo/Matrix-H equipped Hi-Fi
whilst watching the performance.

73
Alan
G6CQC





-Original Message- 
From: g...@btinternet.com

Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 4:33 PM
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

Most likely this broadcast Alan; I wonder if Transcription Services still
have the tape!?
Note the reference to the 'Quadraphon'   :-)


From the Radio Times archives -

***
The Monday Play: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
By LEWIS CARROLL
BBC Radio 4 FM, 12 December 1977 19.20
(A quadraphonic broadcast using Matrix H, compatible for both stereo and
mono receivers)

Synopsis:-
The world premiere of a new musical adapted for radio with additional lyrics
by JOHN WELLS and music composed and conducted by CARL DAVIS with Polly
James as Alice
No "Eat Me!" "Drink Me!" Golden Key,
No Mushroom Left or Right,
Turn on, my Dears, and you will be
In Wonderland tonight!
With glittering Scales the Quadraphon
Spreads wide its wond'rous Wings:
Melodious Creatures cry "Come on",
And dance, as Alice sings.
(JOHN WELLS)
Associate conductor MICHAEL REEVES
A Transcription Services Recording by ADRIAN REVILL.
Directed bv IAN COTTERELL
(Richard Goolden is appearing, in 'Dirty Linen' at the Arts Theatre Club,
London)
Contributors
Written By: Lewis Carroll
Adapted By: John Wells
Music Conducted By: Carl Davis
Recording by: Adrian Revill.
Director: Ian Cotterell


Cheers,
Andrew Birt


Original message

From : alan.va...@talktalk.net

The Monday Play: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
Date : 05/01/17 - 11:19 (GMTST)
To : sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject : Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

I too have experienced BBC Matrix H broadcasts.

One broadcast I recall was a play based upon Alice in Wonderland entitled
"Alice's Adventures In Wonderland".

I can remember listening to this play on BBC Radio 3/4 several times, great
stuff.

All the very best,
Alan

___
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.

Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Augustine Leudar]

ring ambisonics or vbap with
>>> dozens
>>>
>>>
>>>> of channels - or even WFS .  What do you mean by "you cant record audio
>>>> objects" ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What means "rendering vbap" at all? Vbap is "just" (3D) stereophonic
>>> panning.
>>>
>>> You could pan some spot mikes or audio objects into some loudspeaker
>>> layout. But you have to pan "something".
>>>
>>> http://legacy.spa.aalto.fi/research/cat/vbap/
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "you cant record audio
>>>
>>>
>>>> objects" ?
>>>>
>>>> I was referring to music and scene/ambiance  recording.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Of course you can record some audio objects. This is not a complete
>>> recording yet... I admit that the citing above doesn't make a lot of
>>> sense,
>>> but in its context there was one:
>>>
>>> Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>>>> capability ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>>> complexity?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I must again ask:  What does "vbap" actually means in your question.
>>> Because  it is not clear what should be "compared" at all. For me, VBAP
>>> (=
>>> panning technique) is always used in some specific context.  Is this
>>> context 7.1 or Dolby Atmos or DTS:X or...? You see what I mean,
>>> hopefully.
>>>
>>> Good night
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9 January 2017 at 01:05, Stefan Schreiber 
>>>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <> modern binaural recordings I've heard on speakers did not give
>>>>> excellent
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> results they gave terrible results, aside from the fact the transfer
>>>>>> functions are messed up by room reflections and cross talk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough. But it seems that opinions about this seem to be vastly
>>>>> different. (The quality of binaural recordings represented via
>>>>> loudspeakers
>>>>> is judged to be about between "terrible" and "excellent", depending on
>>>>> listener)
>>>>>
>>>>> it doesn't even
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> work perfectly on headphones due to differences in individual hrtfs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, quite obviously not "perfectly".  Listening results will depend a
>>>>> lot
>>>>> on the hrtf mismatch between dummy head and (individual) listener. And
>>>>> the
>>>>> perspective is fixed - you can't rotate some dummy  head recording!
>>>>>
>>>>> Transaural is supposed to be the the two speaker equivelant of binaural
>>>>> for
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> speakers I know spat were due to release a new version that worked -
>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>> heard it ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ambiophonics could also  be used - as some already established form of
>>>>> X-talk cancellation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>>>>> capability ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> 1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>>>> complexity?
>>>>>
>>>>> You didn't specify any  application details. (So I assume you referred
>>>>> to
>>>>> music recordings or VR.)
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Stefan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, 8 January 2017, Bob Burton  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield)
>>>>>>> collaborating
>>>>>>> with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title track
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090). Surprisingly,
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester Cathedral
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
>>>>>>> breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike
>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>> guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite
>>>>>>> awesome.
>>>>>>> Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in BBC
>>>>>>> Matrix
>>>>>>> H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
>>>>>>> -- next part --
>>>>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>>>>> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
>>>>>>> attachments/20170107/65d28b1e/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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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.
>



-- 
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170109/786a227d/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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Augustine Leudar]

Is it perhaps available here ?

http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/5e0b9b76e3b840c884a1a84f50d50436

On 9 January 2017 at 16:33, g...@btinternet.com  wrote:

> Most likely this broadcast Alan; I wonder if Transcription Services still
> have the tape!?
> Note the reference to the 'Quadraphon'   :-)
>
> From the Radio Times archives -
> ***
> The Monday Play: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
> By LEWIS CARROLL
> BBC Radio 4 FM, 12 December 1977 19.20
> (A quadraphonic broadcast using Matrix H, compatible for both stereo and
> mono receivers)
>
> Synopsis:-
> The world premiere of a new musical adapted for radio with additional
> lyrics by JOHN WELLS and music composed and conducted by CARL DAVIS with
> Polly James as Alice
> No "Eat Me!" "Drink Me!" Golden Key,
> No Mushroom Left or Right,
> Turn on, my Dears, and you will be
> In Wonderland tonight!
> With glittering Scales the Quadraphon
> Spreads wide its wond'rous Wings:
> Melodious Creatures cry "Come on",
> And dance, as Alice sings.
> (JOHN WELLS)
> Associate conductor MICHAEL REEVES
> A Transcription Services Recording by ADRIAN REVILL.
> Directed bv IAN COTTERELL
> (Richard Goolden is appearing, in 'Dirty Linen' at the Arts Theatre Club,
> London)
> Contributors
> Written By: Lewis Carroll
> Adapted By: John Wells
> Music Conducted By: Carl Davis
> Recording by: Adrian Revill.
> Director: Ian Cotterell
> 
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew Birt
>
>
> Original message
> From : alan.va...@talktalk.net
> The Monday Play: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
> Date : 05/01/17 - 11:19 (GMTST)
> To : sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject : Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973
>
> I too have experienced BBC Matrix H broadcasts.
>
> One broadcast I recall was a play based upon Alice in Wonderland entitled
> "Alice's Adventures In Wonderland".
>
> I can remember listening to this play on BBC Radio 3/4 several times, great
> stuff.
>
> All the very best,
> Alan
>
> ___
> 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.
>



-- 
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170109/5e8da818/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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 06:27:15AM +0200, Sampo Syreeni wrote:

> Basically VBAP (vector base amplitude panning) is a form of equal
> power weighted amplitude panning. Just as your normal stereo panning
> law would be, only it's in 3D, over widely varying speaker geometry.

VBAP is the 3D form of pairwise panning, and has the same problems.

> The critique I'd have for such panning laws is that they don't
> really respect the ambisonic/Gerzon theory, especially at the low
> frequencies. In essence, they work, and necessarily would *have* to
> work in the high frequency, (ambisonically speaking) high
> order,sparse array limit. Which is why they mostly work for common
> music and speech signals.
 
Pairwise panning or VBAP vs. Ambisonics is just like linear
interpolation vs. constant-bandwidht (sinc) interpolation. 

As the number of speakers / AMB order increases, the difference
between VBAP and in-phase or max rE decoding becomes smaller.
But not for LF where you'd use systematic decoding when using AMB.

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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Stefan Schreiber]

Augustine Leudar wrote:


Yes i just mean - when making a 3D sound installation you can use various
types of panning round a sphere (or whatever of speaker array). You seemed
to be saying ambisonics had a clear advantage over other types of panning
for 3D audio - I was just wondering what you saw as ambisonics' advantages
over VBAP. 


I am really quite format-neutral... Did I claim such advantages?

The only thing I wrote into this direction was that sound fields fit by 
its very nature very well to 360º video and AR/VR. (Isotropy, 3D 
capability even at just 4 channels,  SF rotation is quite easy.)



Otherwise, we came from the discussion of quadrophony (now recording 
history) - and then binaural recordings.



I have recorded my own Binaural album using binaural
microphones - it doesnt work at all on speakers - and thats with my own
HRTF . Seeing as the claim has been made between "modern" binaural
recordings work on two speakers (not by you incidently) - lets hear one - I
can guarantee you you will not hear a barber shaving the back of your head
on to loud speakers.

I believe you would need certain filtering (problem: you would damage 
headphone representation - where binaural  recordings are supposed to 
shine!), or X-talk cancellation.


The kunstkopf concept uses some (statistically) averaged HRTF. That you 
could do some good binaural recordings (just) with some simple in-ear 
microphones and your/our heads is probably just a claim by your local 
ear microphone producer...;-)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording

"For listening using conventional speaker-stereo, or mp3 players, a 
pinna-less dummy head may be preferable for quasi-binaural recording, 
such as the sphere microphone or Ambiophone. As a general rule, for true 
binaural results, an audio recording and reproduction system chain, from 
microphone to listener's brain, should contain one and only one set of 
pinnae (preferably the listener's own) and one head-shadow."


Binaural stayed in the background due to the expensive, specialized 
equipment required for quality recordings, and the requirement of 
headphones for proper reproduction.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_head_recording

"The dummy head is designed to replicate average sized human head and 
depending on the manufacturer may have a nose and mouth too. "


Best,

Stefan

P.S.: No, I don't sell binaural recording equipment. O:-)



I've actually found Ambisonics to be worse compared to VBAP in
many situations and better in others - but generally I use Vbap or Dbap .
The only real advantage I can see of ambisonics is having one file that can
be up or down mixed - but you can do that to a degree with Vbap files as
well.
In terms of one of these "modern" binaural recordings - I dont really know
what this means . ...





On 9 January 2017 at 03:49, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:

 


Augustine Leudar wrote:

Spatial audio is as doused  snakeoil as the hifi world.
   


I find this view a bit one-sided. At least this should not be related to
our discussion...

Sound localisation
   


is not a purely subjective affair -

I didn't claim this.
 


have there been any listening tests
   


which demosntrate binaural rendering is capable of creating anything like
headphone spatialisation over two stereo loudspeakers ?

 


I am pretty sure that the kunstkopf proponents did some scientific
listening tests.


Anyway -- perhaps one of these "modern" inaural recording are available
   


online and we can judge for ourselves.


 


There are plenty of CDs around, so you will find some content on YT,
Spotify etc.

I have neve rnotices any problems rendering ambisonics or vbap with dozens
   


of channels - or even WFS .  What do you mean by "you cant record audio
objects" ?


 


What means "rendering vbap" at all? Vbap is "just" (3D) stereophonic
panning.

You could pan some spot mikes or audio objects into some loudspeaker
layout. But you have to pan "something".

http://legacy.spa.aalto.fi/research/cat/vbap/


What do you mean by "you cant record audio
   


objects" ?

I was referring to music and scene/ambiance  recording.
 


Of course you can record some audio objects. This is not a complete
recording yet... I admit that the citing above doesn't make a lot of sense,
but in its context there was one:

Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
   

 


ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
capability ?




   


1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
complexity?


 


I must again ask:  What does "vbap" actually means in your question.
Because  it is not clear what should be "compared" at all. For me, VBAP (=
panning technique) is always used in some specific context.  Is this
context 7.1 or Dolby Atmos or DTS:X or...? You see what I mean, hopefully.

Good night

Stefan







On 9 January 2017 at 01:05, Stefan Schreiber 
   


wrote:



 


Augustine Leud

Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[g...@btinternet.com]

Most likely this broadcast Alan; I wonder if Transcription Services still have 
the tape!?
Note the reference to the 'Quadraphon'   :-)

>From the Radio Times archives - 
***
The Monday Play: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
By LEWIS CARROLL
BBC Radio 4 FM, 12 December 1977 19.20
(A quadraphonic broadcast using Matrix H, compatible for both stereo and mono 
receivers)

Synopsis:-
The world premiere of a new musical adapted for radio with additional lyrics by 
JOHN WELLS and music composed and conducted by CARL DAVIS with Polly James as 
Alice
No "Eat Me!" "Drink Me!" Golden Key,
No Mushroom Left or Right,
Turn on, my Dears, and you will be
In Wonderland tonight!
With glittering Scales the Quadraphon
Spreads wide its wond'rous Wings:
Melodious Creatures cry "Come on",
And dance, as Alice sings.
(JOHN WELLS)
Associate conductor MICHAEL REEVES
A Transcription Services Recording by ADRIAN REVILL.
Directed bv IAN COTTERELL
(Richard Goolden is appearing, in 'Dirty Linen' at the Arts Theatre Club, 
London)
Contributors
Written By: Lewis Carroll
Adapted By: John Wells
Music Conducted By: Carl Davis
Recording by: Adrian Revill.
Director: Ian Cotterell


Cheers, 
Andrew Birt


Original message
>From : alan.va...@talktalk.net
The Monday Play: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
Date : 05/01/17 - 11:19 (GMTST)
To : sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject : Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

I too have experienced BBC Matrix H broadcasts.

One broadcast I recall was a play based upon Alice in Wonderland entitled 
"Alice's Adventures In Wonderland".

I can remember listening to this play on BBC Radio 3/4 several times, great 
stuff.

All the very best,
Alan

___
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] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Augustine Leudar]

;> one you prefer. However, the generality of Ambisonics becomes clear if you
>> have real sound-scene recordings, or you don’t have access to the objects
>> due to bandwidth limitations, and it makes sense to downmix them to a
>> format that preserves their directional properties as good as possible.
>> This last case becomes especially important if decoding of some HOA
>> channels (or even FOA with parametric decoding) becomes perceptually
>> indistinguishable with respect to spatializing many of sound objects
>> separately..
>>
>> Regards,
>> Archontis
>>
>> ___
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Augustine Leudar
> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> Company Number : NI635217
> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> Belfast BT88LL
>
>


-- 
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170109/e84c42cb/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] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Augustine Leudar]

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



-- 
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170109/61ca3ba6/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.

[Sursound] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Politis Archontis]

Hi Sampo,

> On 09 Jan 2017, at 06:27, Sampo Syreeni  wrote:
> 
> The critique I'd have for such panning laws is that they don't really respect 
> the ambisonic/Gerzon theory, especially at the low frequencies. In essence, 
> they work, and necessarily would *have* to work in the high frequency, 
> (ambisonically speaking) high order,sparse array limit. Which is why they 
> mostly work for common music and speech signals.

I am a bit baffled by the idea that VBAP is not compatible with Ambisonics 
theory (?) Thinking in terms of velocity and energy vectors, as far as I 
understand, VBAP with the (classic) amplitude panning formulation has zero 
angular error for the (Makita) velocity vectors for all directions. If you take 
the energy formulation of VBAP for high frequencies (solving for energies 
instead of amplitudes) then it results in the maximum (Gerzon) energy vectors 
that the setup can achieve with zero directional error again. Of course at low 
frequencies you cannot achieve the “perfect” pressure reconstruction that a 
mode-matching decoder can achieve, but then you see what are the gains that 
such a decoder imposes on not ideal regular setups to realize that perfect 
reconstruction should be compromised anyway with some more practical solution.


> However, they fail to work general speaker arrays fully. Especially at the 
> lower frequencies. Ambisonically speaking, where we'd go with a holistic, 
> whole array, directionally averaged velocity decode.

Again I think it depends how you mean it - VBAP will just work for any speaker 
array with a performance limited by the setup in a quite intuitive 
understandable way (large spread for large triangle apertures, full 
concentration at a speaker direction, nothing for regions outside a partial 
setup etc..). Ambisonic decoding for any array is not designed as easily as 
computing VBAP gains, and it seems for irregular setups, one of the most 
straightforward and practical ways to do it is to combine the properties of 
VBAP and Ambisonic decoding (as the work of Zotter, Batke, and Epain have 
shown). Considering panning specifically, I think it depends on the application 
what works best, for VR or interactive-audio stuff for example, where normally 
sound objects would be rendered with maximum sharpness VBAP would work better. 
If however some and more even directional spreading is preferred, then 
ambisonic panning should be better, or some VBAP variant with spreading as has 
been presented by Ville and others.

So I find Augustine's comments reasonable on panning sounds, but not in 
general: VBAP vs Ambisonics.

> On 09 Jan 2017, at 12:33, Augustine Leudar  wrote:
> 
> Yes i just mean - when making a 3D sound installation you can use various
> types of panning round a sphere (or whatever of speaker array). You seemed
> to be saying ambisonics had a clear advantage over other types of panning
> for 3D audio - I was just wondering what you saw as ambisonics' advantages
> over VBAP. I've actually found Ambisonics to be worse compared to VBAP in
> many situations and better in others - but generally I use Vbap or Dbap .
> The only real advantage I can see of ambisonics is having one file that can
> be up or down mixed - but you can do that to a degree with Vbap files as
> well.

(What is a VBAP file?)

That’s if you have actually access to the sound objects with their parametric 
information, in which case sure you can pan them however you like, you can even 
switch between different panners on the fly and pick the one you prefer. 
However, the generality of Ambisonics becomes clear if you have real 
sound-scene recordings, or you don’t have access to the objects due to 
bandwidth limitations, and it makes sense to downmix them to a format that 
preserves their directional properties as good as possible. This last case 
becomes especially important if decoding of some HOA channels (or even FOA with 
parametric decoding) becomes perceptually indistinguishable with respect to 
spatializing many of sound objects separately..

Regards,
Archontis

___
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] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

[Augustine Leudar]

; Transaural is supposed to be the the two speaker equivelant of binaural
>>> for
>>>
>>>
>>>> speakers I know spat were due to release a new version that worked -
>>>> anyone
>>>> heard it ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ambiophonics could also  be used - as some already established form of
>>> X-talk cancellation.
>>>
>>> Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>>
>>>
>>>> ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>>> capability ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>> complexity?
>>>
>>> You didn't specify any  application details. (So I assume you referred to
>>> music recordings or VR.)
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, 8 January 2017, Bob Burton  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield)
>>>>> collaborating
>>>>> with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title track
>>>>> on
>>>>> Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090). Surprisingly,
>>>>> the
>>>>> track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester Cathedral
>>>>> on
>>>>> the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
>>>>> breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike
>>>>> playing
>>>>> guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite
>>>>> awesome.
>>>>> Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in BBC
>>>>> Matrix
>>>>> H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
>>>>> -- next part --
>>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>>> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
>>>>> attachments/20170107/65d28b1e/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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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.
>



-- 
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170109/fd20a13d/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.