Re: [Sursound] [allowed] Call for Proposals: AES 2019 Conference on Headphone Technology

[Gerard Lardner]

Strange. Looks perfect here:

 Forwarded Message 
Subject: 	[allowed] [Sursound] Call for Proposals: AES 2019 Conference 
on Headphone Technology

Date:   Sun, 3 Feb 2019 15:58:24 -0800
From:   Jean-Marc Jot 
Reply-To:   Surround Sound discussion group 
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
CC: 2019hp_pap...@aes.org



[Apologies for cross-posting]


Dear Sursounders,


The second AES International Conference on Headphone Technology will be
held on August 27–29, 2019 in San Francisco <
http://www.aes.org/conferences/2019/headphones/>.

It will gather scientists, developers and practitioners who are involved in
theory, technical design, application or evaluation of headphone
technology, with a special emphasis on the emerging fields of Mobile
Spatial Audio, Individualization, Assistive Listening and Audio for
Augmented Reality. This will be an interdisciplinary forum encouraging
fruitful discussions across the headphone, hearing aid and audio delivery
industries.


We invite the submission of full papers, demonstrations, workshops or
thematically suited product presentations. For more detailed instructions: <
http://www.aes.org/conferences/2019/headphones/CFC.cfm>.


Deadline for full-paper submissions: March-1-2019

Accepted paper authors notified by: May-20-2019

Deadline for workshop or demonstration proposals: May-31-2019

Accepted workshop and demonstrations notified by: June-30-2019

Deadline for final manuscripts and early registration: July-15-2019.


We look forward to seeing you in San Francisco in August! Please don't
hesitate to let us know if you have any questions, and feel free to
distribute this notification to your colleagues who may also be interested
in this event.


Best regards,

Jean-Marc, Todd and Jürgen <2019hp_pap...@aes.org>


On 03/02/2019 23:58, Jean-Marc Jot wrote:

[Apologies for cross-posting]


Dear Sursounders,


The second AES International Conference on Headphone Technology will be
held on August 27–29, 2019 in San Francisco <
http://www.aes.org/conferences/2019/headphones/>.

It will gather scientists, developers and practitioners who are involved in
theory, technical design, application or evaluation of headphone
technology, with a special emphasis on the emerging fields of Mobile
Spatial Audio, Individualization, Assistive Listening and Audio for
Augmented Reality. This will be an interdisciplinary forum encouraging
fruitful discussions across the headphone, hearing aid and audio delivery
industries.


We invite the submission of full papers, demonstrations, workshops or
thematically suited product presentations. For more detailed instructions: <
http://www.aes.org/conferences/2019/headphones/CFC.cfm>.


Deadline for full-paper submissions: March-1-2019

Accepted paper authors notified by: May-20-2019

Deadline for workshop or demonstration proposals: May-31-2019

Accepted workshop and demonstrations notified by: June-30-2019

Deadline for final manuscripts and early registration: July-15-2019.


We look forward to seeing you in San Francisco in August! Please don't
hesitate to let us know if you have any questions, and feel free to
distribute this notification to your colleagues who may also be interested
in this event.


Best regards,

Jean-Marc, Todd and Jürgen  <2019hp_pap...@aes.org>
-- 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.


-- 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] [allowed] Re: Soundfield by Rode plugin

[Gerard Lardner]

Has anyone done a calibration of a RØDE NT-SF1 and compared the RØDE 
A-to-B format conversion with the conventional matrix and calibration 
filter A-to-B format conversion - including the effect of a moving mic 
or sound source? Anyone willing to take it on? The results could be very 
interesting.


Gerard Lardner


On 17/12/2018 09:39, Dave Hunt wrote:

Hi,


There is slightly more description of their A to B-format processing
(but not much) in Rode's blog:

<http://www.rode.com/blog/all/soundfield-plugin>

>From that web page.

"The SoundField by RØDE plug-in uses a new time-frequency adaptive approach for A to 
B-format conversion. This complex mathematical process means the phase between the 
A-format channels are aligned prior to application of the conversion matrix – essentially 
correcting for the non-coincidence of the capsules prior to any further processing."

How might they phase/time align the capsules ??

This must indeed be highly complex, as it is frequency dependent (low 
frequencies have smaller phase differences than high frequencies) as well as 
source directionally (across multiple blind sources) dependent.

Ciao,

Dave Hunt



On 16 Dec 2018, at 17:00,sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu  wrote:


Send Sursound mailing list submissions to
sursound@music.vt.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
sursound-ow...@music.vt.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Sursound digest..."
WHEN REPLYING EDIT THE SUBJECT LINE

ALSO EDIT THE MESSAGE BODY

You are receiving the digest so when replying, please remember to edit your Subject line 
to that of the original message you are replying to, so it is more specific than 
"Re: Contents of Sursound-list digest…" the subject should match the post you 
are replying to.

Also, please EDIT the quoted post so that it is not the entire digest, but just 
the post you are replying to - this will keep the archive useful and not 
polluted with extraneous posts.

This is the responsibility of digest subscribers. the community and list 
subscribers care about the integrity of the threads and archives so this is 
important.Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Soundfield by Rode plugin (Gary Gallagher)

From: Gary Gallagher
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Soundfield by Rode plugin
Date: 16 December 2018 04:36:11 GMT
To: Surround Sound discussion group


Thanks for that reference. I guess we'll just have to wait for more
information to filter out.

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018, 01:36 Paul Hodges  wrote:


There is slightly more description of their A to B-format processing
(but not much) in Rode's blog:

<http://www.rode.com/blog/all/soundfield-plugin>

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.


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20181216/6396613f/attachment.html>


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

WHEN REPLYING EDIT THE SUBJECT LINE

ALSO EDIT THE MESSAGE BODY

___
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/20181217/0679dbcd/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] [allowed] Re: A-format to B-format Conversion and Calibration Files

[Gerard Lardner]

It works! The User Interface is not as slick as VVEncode, but it works 
in Reaper. Likewise, Visual Virtual Mic (VST) and ATK FOA Decode Stereo 
(JS) both worked in place of VVDecode.


Gerard


On 06/06/2018 20:44, Gerard Lardner wrote:

Thanks, Paul. I just downloaded VVTetraVST this evening and will try it.


On 06/06/2018 19:19, Paul Hodges wrote:

--On 06 June 2018 16:59 +0100 Gerard Lardner  wrote:


As I said in the OP, I am experiencing some problems with VVEncode;

Are you using VVEncode v1.1?  This fixed multiple problems which I
reported.

Also, for the Core Sound style of calibration using IIR files, there's
the older VVTetraVST - Again, you need to use the latest v1.8 which
fixed similar problems.

Paul


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180606/17894952/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] [allowed] Re: A-format to B-format Conversion and Calibration Files

[Gerard Lardner]

Hi David,

I'm not really the right person to answer your question, but maybe this 
page: 
http://www.angelofarina.it/Public/B-format/A2B-conversion/A2B-Xvolver.htm 
and some of the links off it will help. The "virtual microphone" paper 
referenced about a third of the way down gives more detail.


Best regards,

Gerard


On 06/06/2018 17:23, David Pickett wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but may I ask, for information, about these 
calibration files in the form of IIRs? How do these relate to the 
A-format wavfiles of a first order microphone? Or are they used as a 
means of converting the raw capsule signals into A-format by some kind 
of concatenation, or other algorithm?  What is the relationship 
between IIR files and the .WAV format referred to in the last line below?


Perhaps, because of my ignorance, I am asking the wrong questions and 
maybe all this is written up somewhere; in which case, I should be 
glad to know where I can read about it.


Many thanks!

David

At 01:01 06-06-18, Gerard Lardner wrote:
What A-format to B-format VST encoders exist that can encode 
recordings from an ambisonic microphone for which I have calibration 
files in the form of IIRs? I can use the stand-alone version of 
VVMic; it works well. But is there a reliable VST equivalent that 
will use the same calibration files?


I know about VVEncode; but I am having some problems with it. I think 
these may be down to my PC rather than to VVEncode, which is why I 
would like to try an alternative.


The mic in question is a Brahma, but it was re-calibrated in VVMic 
format.


A second question: Is there any way to convert calibration files from 
IIR format (as used by VVMic) into .WAV format (as used by X-Volver 
or Brahmavolver) and vice versa?






-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180606/721b17da/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] [allowed] Re: A-format to B-format Conversion and Calibration Files

[Gerard Lardner]

Thanks, Paul. I just downloaded VVTetraVST this evening and will try it.


On 06/06/2018 19:19, Paul Hodges wrote:

--On 06 June 2018 16:59 +0100 Gerard Lardner  wrote:


As I said in the OP, I am experiencing some problems with VVEncode;

Are you using VVEncode v1.1?  This fixed multiple problems which I
reported.

Also, for the Core Sound style of calibration using IIR files, there's
the older VVTetraVST - Again, you need to use the latest v1.8 which
fixed similar problems.

Paul



-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180606/7646bff6/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] A-format to B-format Conversion and Calibration Files

[Gerard Lardner]

As I said in the OP, I am experiencing some problems with VVEncode; I think 
these are related to my PC rather than to VVEncode, so i wanted to try an 
alternative. 
My calibration files are IIR files, as work with VVMic. Does X-Volver accept 
those? I assumed it worked only with the wav type calibration files.
Thanks,
Gerard 


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
 Original message From: Emanuele Costantini 
 Date: 06/06/2018  12:16  (GMT+00:00) To: 
sursound@music.vt.edu Subject: Re: [Sursound] A-format to B-format Conversion 
and Calibration Files 
Hi,

you have VVencode:
https://www.vvaudio.com/products/VVEncode

and XVolver:
http://www.angelofarina.it/X-volver.htm

as VST options.

Emanuele


On 06/06/2018 00:01, Gerard Lardner wrote:
> What A-format to B-format VST encoders exist that can encode 
> recordings from an ambisonic microphone for which I have calibration 
> files in the form of IIRs? I can use the stand-alone version of VVMic; 
> it works well. But is there a reliable VST equivalent that will use 
> the same calibration files?
>
> I know about VVEncode; but I am having some problems with it. I think 
> these may be down to my PC rather than to VVEncode, which is why I 
> would like to try an alternative.
>
> The mic in question is a Brahma, but it was re-calibrated in VVMic 
> format.
>
> A second question: Is there any way to convert calibration files from 
> IIR format (as used by VVMic) into .WAV format (as used by X-Volver or 
> Brahmavolver) and vice versa?
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180606/d16b0a8d/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.

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180606/1d90c91a/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] A-format to B-format Conversion and Calibration Files

[Gerard Lardner]

What A-format to B-format VST encoders exist that can encode recordings 
from an ambisonic microphone for which I have calibration files in the 
form of IIRs? I can use the stand-alone version of VVMic; it works well. 
But is there a reliable VST equivalent that will use the same 
calibration files?


I know about VVEncode; but I am having some problems with it. I think 
these may be down to my PC rather than to VVEncode, which is why I would 
like to try an alternative.


The mic in question is a Brahma, but it was re-calibrated in VVMic format.

A second question: Is there any way to convert calibration files from 
IIR format (as used by VVMic) into .WAV format (as used by X-Volver or 
Brahmavolver) and vice versa?


-- 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] [allowed] Re: Strange 'buzz' in Ambisonic recording

[Gerard Lardner]

OK. I tried. But VVEncode is not seeing/opening/reading the Richard Lee 
calibration files; but VVMic /does/ work with the Richard Lee 
calibration files and it is with those files that I don't have any problem.


I've written now to David McGriffy asking about any difference between 
the calibration file formats for VVMic and VVEncode. Maybe I'm just 
doing something wrong again, though they are saved in the folders listed 
as the default places VVEncoder searches.


FWIW, I've tried to save a copy of the B-format of the same sample of 
music in the same Dropbox as before, 
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sa6mvgfxuo2cxao/AACrbYW96VbxwIB2ZFDJS17ua?dl=0. 
I'm not sure if I have actually exported the B-format track correctly, 
but it sounds right in Harpex Player, except that the buzz is missing.


Gerard Lardner


On 12/05/2018 14:52, Gerard Lardner wrote:

Bing! Illumination strikes. I think I know what's happening. Some years ago 
you, Fons, when I first got the Brahma, or possibly Ricardo (Richard Lee) or 
Angelo, pointed out that the original 44k1 calibration file for my Brahma was 
corrupt; not the right length; maybe also the 96k file, but I don't record at 
96k. Since then I have used 48k sampling, or a set of calibration file done for 
me by Ricardo. But this year i forgot and had gone back to the original 
calibration file. That's why VVMic stand alone works without the noise - it 
only uses the new calibration file. I'll try/check with the new calibration 
file when I get home tonight.


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
 Original message From: Fons Adriaensen <f...@linuxaudio.org> 
Date: 12/05/2018  08:37  (GMT+00:00) To: sursound@music.vt.edu Subject: Re: 
[Sursound] [allowed] Re: Strange 'buzz' in Ambisonic recording
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:35:56AM +0100, Gerard Lardner wrote:


I have tried encoding using VVEncode and using X-Volver (in Reaper). The
effect is there in either case, though it is less obvious when using
X-Volver. However, I do not hear it at all if I listen to the files through
the stand-alone version of VVMic. This makes me think I am doing something
wrong in Reaper.

A had a quick look (more later, have to go now). In the stereo file
there are discontinuities spaced 512 samples or multiples of 512
samples apart. This looks like a problem in the convolution.

Please upload the B-format as well.



-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180512/f8f76af2/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] [allowed] Re: Strange 'buzz' in Ambisonic recording

[Gerard Lardner]

Bing! Illumination strikes. I think I know what's happening. Some years ago 
you, Fons, when I first got the Brahma, or possibly Ricardo (Richard Lee) or 
Angelo, pointed out that the original 44k1 calibration file for my Brahma was 
corrupt; not the right length; maybe also the 96k file, but I don't record at 
96k. Since then I have used 48k sampling, or a set of calibration file done for 
me by Ricardo. But this year i forgot and had gone back to the original 
calibration file. That's why VVMic stand alone works without the noise - it 
only uses the new calibration file. I'll try/check with the new calibration 
file when I get home tonight. 


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
 Original message From: Fons Adriaensen <f...@linuxaudio.org> 
Date: 12/05/2018  08:37  (GMT+00:00) To: sursound@music.vt.edu Subject: Re: 
[Sursound] [allowed] Re: Strange 'buzz' in Ambisonic recording 
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:35:56AM +0100, Gerard Lardner wrote:

> I have tried encoding using VVEncode and using X-Volver (in Reaper). The
> effect is there in either case, though it is less obvious when using
> X-Volver. However, I do not hear it at all if I listen to the files through
> the stand-alone version of VVMic. This makes me think I am doing something
> wrong in Reaper.

A had a quick look (more later, have to go now). In the stereo file
there are discontinuities spaced 512 samples or multiples of 512
samples apart. This looks like a problem in the convolution.

Please upload the B-format as well.

-- 
FA


___
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/20180512/f7fd8729/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] [allowed] Re: Strange 'buzz' in Ambisonic recording

[Gerard Lardner]

OK, I've put a short section (30 seconds) in 
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sa6mvgfxuo2cxao/AACrbYW96VbxwIB2ZFDJS17ua?dl=0


The A-format is in two 2-channel files; the file names should be 
self-explanatory. The stereo file exhibits the buzzing sound right from 
the start of the music.


Gerard Lardner


On 11/05/2018 15:13, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 01:03:57AM +0100, Gerard Lardner wrote:
  

Actually really only when the organ is playing; the brass is usually with
the organ, but not always. The buzz is present when the organ is playing
loudly.

Could you make available a small part (20 seconds or so) of the original
A-format file and the encoded B-format one for the part where you hear
the 'buzz' ??



-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180512/04649478/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] [allowed] Re: Strange 'buzz' in Ambisonic recording

[Gerard Lardner]

I have tried encoding using VVEncode and using X-Volver (in Reaper). The 
effect is there in either case, though it is less obvious when using 
X-Volver. However, I do not hear it at all if I listen to the files 
through the stand-alone version of VVMic. This makes me think I am doing 
something wrong in Reaper.


Reaper's flexibility for Ambisonic work is wonderful, but it has so many 
features, I have not begun to scratch the surface of even understanding 
what it can do, and I guess I am doing something wrong. Copying the 
configuration from one concert to another probably increases the risk :-(


Gerard Lardner


On 11/05/2018 16:14, David McGriffy wrote:

Given that this is a Brahma, it uses FFT based processing.  My suspicion is
that the artifact is actually something in the FFTs like a windowing
problem or a bug handling the first FFT bins.  At 48kHz, 1K block
boundaries would be about 48Hz.

Does using Xvolver give the same artifact?  IIRC I read that code and tried
to do the FFT filters in a compatible way in VVEncode so it could be they
both have the same trouble or it could just be a bug in my code.

David
VVAudio

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 9:13 AM Fons Adriaensen <f...@linuxaudio.org> wrote:


On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 01:03:57AM +0100, Gerard Lardner wrote:


Actually really only when the organ is playing; the brass is usually with
the organ, but not always. The buzz is present when the organ is playing
loudly.

Could you make available a small part (20 seconds or so) of the original
A-format file and the encoded B-format one for the part where you hear
the 'buzz' ??

--
FA



-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180512/eef98abf/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] [allowed] Re: Strange 'buzz' in Ambisonic recording

[Gerard Lardner]

The recording was made using a Brahma, no. 008.

I used the same set-up of mics and en/decoders in Reaper to record 
another choral concert for Passion Sunday, the weekend before Easter. I 
had no such problems with that recording (only coughing in the 
audience!). But in that case there was only a small chamber orchestra 
and a chamber organ.


I'll try to make time tomorrow to post some short extracts from the 
recording causing trouble, both the A-format and B-format as requested 
by Fons Adriaensen. I'll also try X-Volver, as suggested by David 
McGriffy and see if there is any difference there. But given the 
apparent success I have had with previous recordings, I am not jumping 
to blame VVEncoder, Ambipan or VVDecoder; I'd sooner blame some 
oversight or stupidity on my part. I don't do this stuff often enough to 
claim to be any kind of expert, or anything more than lucky.


TBH, I had a problem with the previous recording where it was recorded 
at 44.1 kHz, but Reaper seemed to think it should be played back as if 
it was recorded at 48 kHz, resulting in the pitch dropping by almost a 
tone. I sorted it at the time, but I don't really understand what was 
happening and can't remember how I fixed it. I used that same Reaper 
set-up for this latest concert, just dropping the new audio tracks into 
it. Could that be part of the problem?


Gerard Lardner


On 11/05/2018 16:39, umashankar manthravadi wrote:

Was it a brahma mic ? I got the impression it was not. If it is a Brahma, and I 
get its serial number, I can take a look.



umashankar



Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10





From: Sursound <sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu> on behalf of David McGriffy 
<da...@mcgriffy.com>

Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 8:44:33 PM
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] [allowed] Re: Strange 'buzz' in Ambisonic recording

Given that this is a Brahma, it uses FFT based processing.  My suspicion is
that the artifact is actually something in the FFTs like a windowing
problem or a bug handling the first FFT bins.  At 48kHz, 1K block
boundaries would be about 48Hz.

Does using Xvolver give the same artifact?  IIRC I read that code and tried
to do the FFT filters in a compatible way in VVEncode so it could be they
both have the same trouble or it could just be a bug in my code.

David
VVAudio

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 9:13 AM Fons Adriaensen <f...@linuxaudio.org> wrote:


On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 01:03:57AM +0100, Gerard Lardner wrote:


Actually really only when the organ is playing; the brass is usually with
the organ, but not always. The buzz is present when the organ is playing
loudly.

Could you make available a small part (20 seconds or so) of the original
A-format file and the encoded B-format one for the part where you hear
the 'buzz' ??

--
FA

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.music.vt.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsursound=02%7C01%7C%7C3f13a2b47e39401973a108d5b751fda3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636616485145648601=xReSeGY8N65dByGJkxV5vUGEdZ2dVE6cRuSzouZoOVA%3D=0
 - unsubscribe here,
edit account or options, view archives and so on.


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.music.vt.edu%2Fmailman%2Fprivate%2Fsursound%2Fattachments%2F20180511%2Ff7336a9b%2Fattachment.html=02%7C01%7C%7C3f13a2b47e39401973a108d5b751fda3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636616485145648601=MjmaOExjoAeHZngR%2FoZLEr65q1yC%2BYMiVgILJPQLe%2FI%3D=0>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.music.vt.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsursound=02%7C01%7C%7C3f13a2b47e39401973a108d5b751fda3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636616485145648601=xReSeGY8N65dByGJkxV5vUGEdZ2dVE6cRuSzouZoOVA%3D=0
 - 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/20180511/76262db7/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/20180511/aee5056b/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] [allowed] Re: Strange 'buzz' in Ambisonic recording

[Gerard Lardner]

I've put my answers below David's questions. Apols for the delay in 
replying; I was travelling for business the last couple of days and only 
got home in the early hours of this morning.


Gerard Lardner

On 08/05/2018 12:00, David Pickett wrote:

>> On 7 May 2018, at 17:30, Gerard Lardner <glard...@iol.ie> wrote:

>> I recorded a concert on Saturday (John Rutter's /Gloria/ and Karl
>Jenkins' /The Peacemakers/) using an Ambisonic mic and some others.
>I'm encoding the A-format to B-format using VVEncode in Reaper, and
>panning in the extra mics using Wigware Ambipan. The result is then
>decoded to surround sound or to stereo using VVDecode; all in the same
>Reaper set-up. I've used this approach before, usually successfully.
>>
>> I find that, when the organ and brass are playing at full volume (I
>mean in the orchestra, not just in playback), there is a 'buzzing'
>sound in the playback. It sounds harsh, pitched at about 50 Hz.

Some more information would be useful.

-- Which ambisonic mic were you using? 

Brahma, going to a Tascam DR-680 recorder

Other mics were a pair of Line Audio CM3 sub-cardoid pencil mics to 
boost the outer sides of the choir (if necessary) and a Recording Tools 
MRP-01 ribbon mic for the soloists


-- Does the buzz really only appear when the organ and brass are playing? 


Actually really only when the organ is playing; the brass is usually 
with the organ, but not always. The buzz is present when the organ is 
playing loudly.


-- Is the buzz heard both in loud AND soft passages? 


No, only when the organ is quite loud


David


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180511/bd52510e/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] Strange 'buzz' in Ambisonic recording

[Gerard Lardner]

I'm very much an amateur here, so please forgive what might be a stupid 
question!


I recorded a concert on Saturday (John Rutter's /Gloria /and Karl 
Jenkins' /The Peacemakers/) using an Ambisonic mic and some others. I'm 
encoding the A-format to B-format using VVEncode in Reaper, and panning 
in the extra mics using Wigware Ambipan. The result is then decoded to 
surround sound or to stereo using VVDecode; all in the same Reaper 
set-up. I've used this approach before, usually successfully.


I find that, when the organ and brass are playing at full volume (I mean 
in the orchestra, not just in playback), there is a 'buzzing' sound in 
the playback. It sounds harsh, pitched at about 50 Hz. But if I listen 
to the A-format files alone in Reaper or in VLC Media Player, there is 
no buzz. Similarly, there is no buzz if I encode the A-format using the 
stand-alone version of VVMic. The buzz is present both in the B-format 
from the Ambisonic mic and, less strongly, in the panned B-format from 
the soloists mic. It appears to be an artefact of my editing 
configuration; but it didn't happen in a recording I made, using the 
same configuration, last month. The only difference since then has been 
that my old hard disc, which had developed some faults, was cloned onto 
a new SSD.


Does this description suggest a specific problem/remedy to anyone? I 
know I can produce a decent CD using the stand-alone VVMic route and 
panning in the soloists into the stereo mix; but I'd like to get to the 
bottom of why my Ambisonic configuration is doing this now.


-- 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] [allowed] Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Zoom H2N - thoughts?

[Gerard Lardner]

The Zoom H2n outputs A-format as two stereo files (wav or mp3)

Uumshankar is still producing the Brahma, and some interesting 
developments from it; but no longer in association with Embrace Cinema 
Gear (the original manufacturer for the Brahma Kickstart project). 
Brahma Microphones is now at http://brahmamic.com/



On 09/04/2018 23:16, Oddity Medium wrote:

As I grok it, the Brahmas are significantly more expensive (3-4 times), and
only output A-format. The Brahmas do perform FOA with-height. The Zoom H2N
outputs WAV which is then massaged into pantophonic B-Format... correct?

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Augustine Leudar  wrote:


why would you use external mics for ambisonics if the h2n already does it
(with the new firmware) ?
because of better quality mics? or am i missing something?

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Augustine Leudar <
augustineleu...@gmail.com

wrote:
I also think there was some signal to noise ratio issues with the mini

jack

in especially for wildlife recordings - whereas the signal to noise

ratio

was lower with the onboard capsules. BTW this isnt the Zoom h4 with the
mics on the side its the one with them in the top :

https://www.zoom-na.com/products/field-video-

recording/field-recording/

zoom-h2n-handy-recorder

The Zoom h4 has XLR ins and is by all accounts a better choice for

external

mics.
-- 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.


-- 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.




--
Dr. Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
www.magikdoor.net
-- 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.


-- 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.




-- 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] [allowed] ***UNCHECKED*** Zoom H2N - thoughts?

[Gerard Lardner]

I have recorded several amateur choral concerts with a Zoom H2n using 
the built-in mics. As Augustine says, the results can be remarkably 
good. I prefer to use a 'proper' Ambisonic mic - in my case either a 
Brahma or an Octava (one day I'll buy better mics; but the Brahma is 
remarkably good) - with some additional spot mics. But really the Zoom 
is often good enough.



On 09/04/2018 20:22, Oddity Medium wrote:

Pros and cons of doing ambisonics with H2N? Has anyone of you tried?

I can thikn of one pro - its cheap :=D



-- 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] [allowed] oktava 1st order mic

[Gerard Lardner]

Thanks for the reminder. I had indeed forgotten that you now offer the 
service.


Gerard

On 10/03/2018 02:02, umashankar manthravadi wrote:


If you had seen my website (brahmamic.com) recently, you will notice 
that I have been offering to calibrate third party microphones 
including diy microphones. I also recalibrate brahmas more than two 
years old.


umashankar

Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for 
Windows 10



*From:* Sursound <sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu> on behalf of Gerard 
Lardner <glard...@iol.ie>

*Sent:* Saturday, March 10, 2018 3:58:52 AM
*To:* sursound@music.vt.edu
*Subject:* Re: [Sursound] [allowed] oktava 1st order mic
My attempts to respond last night from my phone didn't work. Try again:

I have an older Oktava MK_012 4D. I bought it relatively cheaply on eBay
a few years ago; it came without any software or digital calibration
data; I think Oktava don't offer anything more than paper frequency
response traces for each capsule. I think it has a larger capsule array
size than the MK-4012; in the MK-012 4D, the capsules lie on a sphere of
about 96 mm diameter.

Fons Adriaensen kindly calibrated my Oktava MK_012 4D for me.
Calibration made a big difference; without calibration, directional cues
were almost non-existant. But the same recordings, reprocessed with the
calibration files, had directional cues, at least at mid- and lower
frequencies. Fons, and Angelo Farina, explained that the mic could not
resolve directional information at higher frequencies due to the large
array size. I think the capsules on my Oktava are not very well matched
(it is maybe 20 years old), and it really needed the calibration.

I love the quality of the sound captured by the Oktava, especially for
classical chamber music and choral music but, to be honest, I use a
Brahma more often, because of its much better directionality.

My recommendation is, if you have an Oktava MK-4012, get it calibrated.
In my case, it made a big difference.

Fons Adriaensen in Italy calibrated my Oktava. I believe Richard Lee in
Australia might still offer a calibration service, though he appears to
be less active on the internet these days, and I think Core Sound in the
USA also will do it - they used to say it on their website, but I
haven't checked lately.

Gerard Lardner


On 08/03/2018 18:51, Peter P. wrote:
> Hi list, please excuse if this has already been discussed here before,
> the archive didn't show much results for me. What is the best way to
> encode the signal from the Oktava MK4012 1st order microphone capsules
> into ambisonics? Did anyone measure the mic so far or is a generic
> encoder the best way to do it for now? It seems that Oktava is not
> providing any hardware/software encoders... Thank you for any ideas!
> Peter


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180311/0bb3ab11/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] [allowed] oktava 1st order mic

[Gerard Lardner]

My attempts to respond last night from my phone didn't work. Try again:

I have an older Oktava MK_012 4D. I bought it relatively cheaply on eBay 
a few years ago; it came without any software or digital calibration 
data; I think Oktava don't offer anything more than paper frequency 
response traces for each capsule. I think it has a larger capsule array 
size than the MK-4012; in the MK-012 4D, the capsules lie on a sphere of 
about 96 mm diameter.


Fons Adriaensen kindly calibrated my Oktava MK_012 4D for me. 
Calibration made a big difference; without calibration, directional cues 
were almost non-existant. But the same recordings, reprocessed with the 
calibration files, had directional cues, at least at mid- and lower 
frequencies. Fons, and Angelo Farina, explained that the mic could not 
resolve directional information at higher frequencies due to the large 
array size. I think the capsules on my Oktava are not very well matched 
(it is maybe 20 years old), and it really needed the calibration.


I love the quality of the sound captured by the Oktava, especially for 
classical chamber music and choral music but, to be honest, I use a 
Brahma more often, because of its much better directionality.


My recommendation is, if you have an Oktava MK-4012, get it calibrated. 
In my case, it made a big difference.


Fons Adriaensen in Italy calibrated my Oktava. I believe Richard Lee in 
Australia might still offer a calibration service, though he appears to 
be less active on the internet these days, and I think Core Sound in the 
USA also will do it - they used to say it on their website, but I 
haven't checked lately.


Gerard Lardner


On 08/03/2018 18:51, Peter P. wrote:
Hi list, please excuse if this has already been discussed here before, 
the archive didn't show much results for me. What is the best way to 
encode the signal from the Oktava MK4012 1st order microphone capsules 
into ambisonics? Did anyone measure the mic so far or is a generic 
encoder the best way to do it for now? It seems that Oktava is not 
providing any hardware/software encoders... Thank you for any ideas! 
Peter


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180309/5fa8475e/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] [allowed] Re: Twirling 720 Microphone

[Gerard Lardner]

My attempts to reply last night, using my phone, didn't work. I'll try 
again.


Take a look at Twirling's 'Accessory Pack'. It includes a stand, cable for 
connecting to a PC, various USB adaptors and a case for the Twirling720 Lite 
mic, and optionally a wind shield. I don't know how good any of these are, but 
they're cheap enough that I ordered a pack yesterday.

Gerard



On 09/03/2018 00:27, Marc Lavallée wrote:

Hi Steven, and thanks for the useful info.

The fact that the Twirling720 presents itself as a stereo 96Khz
device and the possibility that the 4 channels are "encoded" in 2
channels is very interesting, because it could potentially be used with
any computer. I still don't use mine because the Android app is asking
for too many permissions on my phone. I'm waiting for the official SDK,
hoping I can program simple and safe custom apps. I also plan to build
a mount because holding it only from its USB plug is very risky; a
modified phone shell could be a good start.

Le Thu, 8 Mar 2018 18:40:20 +
Steven Boardman  a écrit:


I have one too. Been using it successfully for a while with my android
phone.
It does seem to present itself to other audio apps as  2 channel 96khz
device.
  When using the apk it records either stereo, or 4 channel  A and B
format at 48khz. I think theres some  sort if matrixing going on.
I haven't done any vertical tests, but the horizontal works well for
the price.
It is also pretty easy to rotate the capsule spindle, so not sure how
accurate the positioning is. Mine is also not quite perpendicular!
The manual is useless.
They are quick to fix bugs, and implement suggestions thoigh. (the
A-Fornat one was mine.)
Its way better than a h2n in my opinion, and really easy to carry, as
i always have my phone anyway.
Because if this i use it a lot, as i carry it at all times.
I just have to make a mount for use with my Samsung gear 360.

Best

Steve

On 8 Mar 2018 16:05, "John Leonard Main"  wrote:


Mine (pre-ordered for some small amount) arrived a couple of days
ago and I’ve got it hooked up to my MacBook via a suitable USB
adapter and an old Apple keyboard extension cable. At first, I
couldn't get a sensible signal out of it, but then discovered that
it needs to be connected via USB3, or it won’t work. Then I took a
look at the capsule orientation, which, although it is indeed a
tetrahedral array, seems to be skewed by 45º off centre, but as the
output is encoded in some way into two channels, this may not be a
problem. By using their 720 Studio app, I can get a sort-of
surround signal out of it, although it appears to have no vertical
information. The skimpy on-line manual is pretty useless for Mac
users, so I wonder in anyone else has had better or more consistent
results?

Bruce - I could send it to you for chamber analysis, if you’re
interested.

All the best,

John
___
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.

___
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] Twirling 720 Microphone

[Gerard Lardner]

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] Twirling 720 Microphone

[Gerard Lardner]

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] oktava 1st order mic

[Gerard Lardner]

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] Twirling 720 Microphone

[Gerard Lardner]

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] oktava 1st order mic

[Gerard Lardner]

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] [allowed] Re: Cellphone tetrahedral

[Gerard Lardner]

The reply I got took nearly a week. In part, I think they were changing 
the website to address some of my questions.


Gerard Lardner


On 22/08/2017 00:24, James Mastracco wrote:

Thanky you for this , Gerard,


I  sent  a  note  to  the  "info"  email address, and I haven't gotten
anything back  - now a few days.


Evenasan  "A  Format"   acoustical  data  thingie  -   it's  a
remarkable,thingie - if it works!!



-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170825/e678e753/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] [allowed] Re: Cellphone tetrahedral

[Gerard Lardner]

The website does seem to be evolving, with the English pages catching up 
on the Chinese pages after a few days. There's now an English pre-order 
page on http://yun.twirlingvr.com/index.php/home/Lite/lite-en - odd, as 
most of the English pages are on http://yun*-en*.twirlingvr.com


On 21/08/2017 12:37, Marc Lavallée wrote:

I created an account, but the SDKs are not available without a license
(linked to the account I suppose). And the link to the Linux SDK is a
blank page...
--
Marc



-- 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] [allowed] Re: Cellphone tetrahedral

[Gerard Lardner]

As you say, it's worth a punt.

I asked a few questions and received the following reply:
 Forwarded Message 
Subject:[allowed] 回复：Twirling720 Lite
Date:   Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:48:25 +0800
From:   信息 
Reply-To:   信息 
To: glardner 



Hi Gerard,

Thanks for your interest and please follow this link to the English 
pre-order site: http://yun.twirlingvr.com/index.php/home/Lite/lite-en

And for your questions:

 *
   The Lite works directly with all Android phone with USB port. For
   the type-c port, we will provide a converter.
 *
   The original recording format is A-format, but we will provide a
   phone App that allows you to export file in SN3D format.
 *
   Except for the phone App I mentioned above, we will also provide a
   PC software( Twirling720 Studio) which is a more professional tool
   for users to convert the recording file into multiple formats,
   enable noise suppression, change the sound field, preview sound/360
   video file by dragging the mouse and so on.
 *
   We will carry out a series tests in the before sending it to the
   customers, any device with any imperfections will not be allowed to
   go out. We will make the Lite be configurable and try to provide
   individual's calibration file./(The question was do they provide
   calibration files)/

Please let me know if there are any more problems or any confusions.

Best Regards,
Huiyu
--

Gerard


On 21/08/2017 15:30, mgra...@mstvp.com wrote:

Since it's sub-$100 I've ordered one.
  
I also mentioned it to the lead developer of Freeswitch, an open source telecom soft switch. In the past they explored the 3Dio binaural microphone as a means of capturing conference calls with pseudo-surround.
  
He's ordered one with the dev kit. One day we might be able to have a play with FOA for video conferencing.


  Michael Graves
  mgra...@mstvp.com
http://www.mgraves.org
o(713) 861-4005
  c(713) 201-1262
  sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
  skype mjgraves

  On 18 Aug 2017, at 18:57, Wim wrote:
  
  > It's probably USB audio compliant. Requires no drivers on any OS. An iphone

  > or ipad should work with the famous "Camera connection kit" from Apple.
  > With Android, YMMV, but it should also work, in principle...
  >
  > 2017-08-18 18:35 GMT+02:00 Steven Boardman:
  >
  >> Well, don't be sure it will work with all Android devices. I have been
  >> there before, but It will also work with a computer.
  >> It's $89 till the end of August, which IS what makes it interesting.
  >> Not sure of the regular price of $179. I need to hear some music recorded
  >> with it first.
  >>
  >> It's a good choice (for them) to use a ping pong sample, to show the
  >> spatial abilities. A small emitter of mid/high frequency transients, one
  >> already knows which direction it will appear next!
  >>
  >> Steve
  >>
  >>
  >>> On 18 Aug 2017, at 16:04,mgra...@mstvp.com  wrote:
  >>>
  >>> Since it's USB it must be Android-only for the moment.
  >>>
  >>> Any idea the price?
  >>>
  >>> Michael Graves
  >>>mgra...@mstvp.com
  >>>http://www.mgraves.org
  >>> o(713) 861-4005
  >>> c(713) 201-1262
  >>>sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
  >>> skype mjgraves
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> - Original Message - Subject: [Sursound] Cellphone
  >> tetrahedral
  >>> From: "Steven Boardman"
  >>> Date: 8/18/17 2:36 am
  >>> To: "Surround Sound discussion group"
  >>>
  >>>http://yun.twirlingvr.com/index.php/home/Lite/lite-en
  >>>
  >>> They were also going to bring out a stand alone integrated recording
  >>> solution.
  >>> Will download the b-format files and listen in the studio later..
  >>> Looks precarious, and prone to falling out/over/off. Especially as most
  >>> usb ports are on the bottom and not that tight.
  >>>
  >>> Steve
  


-- 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] Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

[Gerard Lardner]

Following on from Steve's comment, if it is of any interest to you Enda, I can 
offer an early Brahma (serial no 008), about 18 months old, and an old Oktava 
MK-012 D4 (maybe around 20 years old). I'm in Bray, so only about 11 miles from 
TCD.
I had some problems with the calibration files for the Brahma, but I had it 
recalibrated and now I am very satisfied with the result.
The Oktava was calibrated by Fons Adriaensen. It produces a very good sound on 
orchestral and large-scale choral recordings (the only ones I have used it in 
conjunction with conventional microphone techniques, where I could make a 
comparison), but the very large array size - 48-49 mm radius - means that the 
directionality is noticeably quite poor. The current Oktava MK-012 D4 mount is 
different, more stylish; but I have no idea if the array size is any smaller. 
Gerard

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
null
-- 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] [allowed] summary of everything (in the guise of a Sennheiser Ambeo mic critical/comparative review)

[Gerard Lardner]

As Bo-Eric commented, the discussion I referred to was on the Facebook group 
Spatial Audio in VR/AR/MR. I got mixed up, as I keep all my surround emails in 
the same place.
Gerard

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
 Original message From: David Worrall <worr...@avatar.com.au> 
Date: 26/04/2017  07:03  (GMT+00:00) To: glard...@iol.ie, Surround Sound 
discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> Subject: Re: [Sursound] [allowed] 
summary of everything (in the guise of a Sennheiser Ambeo mic 
critical/comparative review) 
Thanks Gerard,I appreciate your info and ref. to the Dec. 2016 posts. We’ll 
check them out. We’re looking at putting together a 20.4 system similar to the 
one I developed in the 1990s etc in 
Australia:http://www.avatar.com.au/newsite/polymedia/ All the best, David   
From: Sursound <sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu> on behalf of Gerard Lardner 
<glard...@iol.ie>
Reply-To: <glard...@iol.ie>, Surround Sound discussion group 
<sursound@music.vt.edu>
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 7:00 PM
To: <sursound@music.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: [Sursound] [allowed] summary of everything (in the guise of a 
Sennheiser Ambeo mic critical/comparative review) Bosse Sandholm posted some 
B-format recordings of the Pygme Jazz Band, recordings made with Core Sound's 
TetraMic and Sennheiser's Ambeo, in response to a similar request that I made. 
Check back to 6 December 2016. The postings then link to files uploaded to 
Soundcloud. I must confess to not having listened to them in surround sound; my 
'studio' has been configured as stereo-only since mid-November. I must put it 
back to surround sound (put back the speakers that were 'borrowed' for another 
project) and listen to the comparisons properly. Interestingly, a small /à 
capella/ group to which I belong hosted some sound recording students from a 
local Institute of Technology just before Easter, to let them try out various 
surround sound and ambience recording techniques. They brought along almost 30 
microphones, including a Tetramic and a Zoom H2n (but not an Ambeo). I look 
forward to hearing the results of their efforts and hearing how we sound when 
recorded using the different techniques. Gerard  On 25/04/2017 23:00, David 
Worrall wrote:Hello all,     (I’ve survived moving continents twice since last 
posting. Now holed up mit Family in Chicago). I’m about 3-4 years behind on 
ambsionic research and now I’m introducing it to a largely ignorant cohort 
here.     My trusty TetraMic is working well, as long as ambient RF is not too 
bad.     I am interested to see the latest product scrutiny by members of this 
esteemed group.     I was initially looking for a review of the Sennheiser 
Ambeo mic but I must admit to being defeated by the seeming lack of a search 
function in the surround archives. Is there anywhere/anyone maintaining a 
searchable version? Failing that, can someone please point me to a decent 
critical –even comparative-review of this machine?     I’d also like to read 
the list’s latest thoughts on current (3rd order etc) mics.     And lastly, (as 
if that’s not enough) could you all post (or email me) your sites and list 
what’s special about them?     Sorry to be a pest, but I have to being the 
evangelizing process here!         Kind regards to you all,     David           
          --- David Worrall, PhD Professor and Chair Audio Arts and Acoustics 
Department School of Media Arts Columbia College Chicago dworr...@colum.edu 33 
E Congress Pkwy Room 601N Chicago, ILLINOIS, USA 60605 Tel: (1)312.369.8821 
Fax: (1)312.369.8427 President, International Community for Auditory Display 
icad.org personal research/creative practice website: avatar.com.au         
-- next part --An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170425/71597f2f/attachment.html>___Sursound
 mailing 
listsurso...@music.vt.eduhttps://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/20170426/9c17dadf/attachment.html>___Sursound
 mailing 
listsurso...@music.vt.eduhttps://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/20170426/2f5c9b88/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] [allowed] summary of everything (in the guise of a Sennheiser Ambeo mic critical/comparative review)

[Gerard Lardner]

Bosse Sandholm posted some B-format recordings of the Pygme Jazz Band, 
recordings made with Core Sound's TetraMic and Sennheiser's Ambeo, in 
response to a similar request that I made. Check back to 6 December 
2016. The postings then link to files uploaded to Soundcloud.


I must confess to not having listened to them in surround sound; my 
'studio' has been configured as stereo-only since mid-November. I must 
put it back to surround sound (put back the speakers that were 
'borrowed' for another project) and listen to the comparisons properly.


Interestingly, a small /à capella/ group to which I belong hosted some 
sound recording students from a local Institute of Technology just 
before Easter, to let them try out various surround sound and ambience 
recording techniques. They brought along almost 30 microphones, 
including a Tetramic and a Zoom H2n (but not an Ambeo). I look forward 
to hearing the results of their efforts and hearing how we sound when 
recorded using the different techniques.


Gerard


On 25/04/2017 23:00, David Worrall wrote:

Hello all,

  


(I’ve survived moving continents twice since last posting. Now holed up mit 
Family in Chicago).

I’m about 3-4 years behind on ambsionic research and now I’m introducing it to 
a largely ignorant cohort here.

  


My trusty TetraMic is working well, as long as ambient RF is not too bad.

  


I am interested to see the latest product scrutiny by members of this esteemed 
group.

  


I was initially looking for a review of the Sennheiser Ambeo mic but I must 
admit to being defeated by the seeming lack of a search function in the 
surround archives.

Is there anywhere/anyone maintaining a searchable version?

Failing that, can someone please point me to a decent critical –even 
comparative-review of this machine?

  


I’d also like to read the list’s latest thoughts on current (3rd order etc) 
mics.

  


And lastly, (as if that’s not enough) could you all post (or email me) your 
sites and list what’s special about them?

  


Sorry to be a pest, but I have to being the evangelizing process here!

  

  


Kind regards to you all,

  


David

  

  

  

  

  


---

David Worrall, PhD

Professor and Chair

Audio Arts and Acoustics Department

School of Media Arts

Columbia College Chicago

dworr...@colum.edu

33 E Congress Pkwy Room 601N

Chicago, ILLINOIS, USA 60605

Tel: (1)312.369.8821 Fax: (1)312.369.8427

President, International Community for Auditory Display icad.org

personal research/creative practice website: avatar.com.au

  

  


-- 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.


-- 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] [allowed] emanuele's Brahma-in-Zoom how to

[Gerard Lardner]

Worked fine for me. I was able to click through to his page and download 
the documents.



On 31/01/2017 03:37, umashankar manthravadi wrote:

Is there a problem posting links. Emanuele Constantini is having problems, so I 
am trying to.

http://www.ecsound.net/pages/projects/tech_notes/engnotes.html

umashankar



Sent from Mail for Windows 10

-- 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.




-- 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] [allowed] brahma

[Gerard Lardner]

Sorry to hear of the falling-out. I have had some issues with the 
build-quality of my Brahma, which was made by Embrace Video, but 
nevertheless it remains my 'go-to' mic for choral recording.


With best wishes for 2017, and for your ongoing Ambisonic microphone 
projects,


Gerard


On 02/01/2017 06:57, umashankar manthravadi wrote:

This is just an announcement that Nakul Sood and Embrace video will no longer 
be manufacturing or selling Brahma ambisonic microphones. Our very informal 
arrangement has come to an end as Nakul Sood demanded 1)I hand over complete 
technology and manufacturing protocols, 2) sign a non-disclosure agreement and 
3) sign a non-compete agreement. (there were other demands) I have always 
worked on Brahma as a shared project, with help from many people and I have no 
desire to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

I had made atleast 20 Brahma microphones before this project began, and I will 
continue to make one off brahmas as demanded (I am currently making five second 
order microphones for Angelo Farina) and I am setting up fairly high tech 
processes in Bangalore where I now live (laser cut microphone bodies!)

Umashankar



-- 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] [allowed] Re: Freedman Electronics Purchases Soundfield

[Gerard Lardner]

Or the Brahma, which is a little cheaper than the Tetramic.

On 21/11/2016 10:49, David Pickett wrote:

At 10:05 21-11-16, Paul Hodges wrote:

>I wonder whether this heralds a lowercost ambisonic microphone.

I cant see that one ocould be produced much more cheaply than Core 
Sound's Tetramic.


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: 

___
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] [allowed] Speaker numbering

[Gerard Lardner]

Ah yes. I /was/ thinking only of ambisonics.

On 18/11/2016 03:54, Augustine Leudar wrote:
Not really Gerard - there's plenty of techniques on spatial audio that 
dont use decoders and have nothing to do with ambisonics.


On 18 November 2016 at 00:46, Gerard Lardner <glard...@iol.ie 
<mailto:glard...@iol.ie>> wrote:


Surely it must depend on the convention used in your decoder
software. For example, Harpex-B uses

1  8
  2  7
  3  6
4  5

for an 8-speaker horizontal ring, or

1  6
  2  5
3  4

for a 6-speaker ring, but VVMic uses

1  2
  3  4
    5  6

Gerard Lardner



On 16/11/2016 22:12, Augustine Leudar wrote:

How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've
come
across.. Using the example of an octophonic array
The first way seems to be circular :

   1   2
83
74
6   5

The other way is as follows :

1  2
3   4
5   6
7  8

There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was
curious as to
how other sursounders number their speakers ?


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161118/32efde5d/attachment.html

<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161118/32efde5d/attachment.html>>


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu <mailto:Sursound@music.vt.edu>
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
<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/20161118/2eb2c3a6/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] [allowed] Speaker numbering

[Gerard Lardner]

Surely it must depend on the convention used in your decoder software. 
For example, Harpex-B uses


1  8
  2  7
  3  6
4  5

for an 8-speaker horizontal ring, or

1  6
  2  5
3  4

for a 6-speaker ring, but VVMic uses

1  2
  3  4
5  6

Gerard Lardner


On 16/11/2016 22:12, Augustine Leudar wrote:

How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
across.. Using the example of an octophonic array
The first way seems to be circular :

   1   2
83
74
6   5

The other way is as follows :

1  2
3   4
5   6
7  8

There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was curious as to
how other sursounders number their speakers ?



-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161118/32efde5d/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] [allowed] Re: New FOA recorder

[Gerard Lardner]

Maybe gang an F8 and an F4 together?

Gerard Lardner


On 06/09/2016 16:30, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

umashankar manthravadi wrote:


I am building a second order microphone with 8 capsules,
umashankar




Why don't you consider to build some 3D version with 12 capsules?

The VR people might be quite interested in such a "simple" HOA mike.

Best regards,

Stefan

P.S.: It seems obvious that your mike is a 2D version.

P.S. 2: The associated 12-track recorder would be a secondary 
problem...   :-)




-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160907/ead6c27b/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] [allowed] Re: LaMonte Young - Just Charles & 'Cello in The Romantic Chord

[Gerard Lardner]

Sorry; mis-typed the link - I couldn't cut-'n-paste it between apps on 
my phone. Try 
https://web.archive.org/web/20121007215033/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7-hQ6TZTGk=US=en 
- It does work; I'm listening to it (wierd sound!)


Gerard


On 22/02/2016 16:56, John Leonard wrote:

Unfortunately, that leads to the “This video is unavailable” notice.

But thanks for looking.

John

Please note new email address & direct line phone number
email: j...@johnleonard.uk
phone +44 (0)20 3286 5942



On 22 Feb 2016, at 16:39, Gerard Lardner <glard...@iol.ie> wrote:

It seems to be still there on The Internet Archive:

___
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] [allowed] Re: Directional confusion between different B-format players

[Gerard Lardner]

The Oktava was calibrated for me by Fons Adriaensen at the Casa della 
Musica in Parma. The calibration files he provided are 4-channel wav 
files, with four impulses per channel, configured for use with 
Brahmavolver. That was early last year, before I also bought a Brahma. 
The files have been described to me by Angelo Farina as 'minimum-phase 
FIRs obtained by sampling the output of IIR filters'; Angelo told me 
that they would also work with his X-volver and with SourceForge project 
ConvolverVST.


I bought the Oktava as 'used' on eBay; it came with no user manual or 
any calibration files; as it appears to be at least 10-12 years old, I 
wouldn't have trusted the calibration files even if they had existed. 
The capsules are easy to remove and swap around and there's nothing, no 
markings, to say which capsule was originally in which position. Indeed, 
as you can see on the Oktava-Shop website, the MK-012 4D is actually 
sold without any capsules; the purchaser has to buy the capsules 
separately. The MK-012 4D is supposedly large enough to take any of the 
end-fire capsules from the MK-012 small-diameter range - omni, cardoid 
or hypercardoid (mine has four cardoid capsules), and I see the 
OktavaUSA website also suggests the MK-102 large diameter capsules and 
the MK-103 medium diameter capsules can be used.


The other oddity about my MK-012 4D is that the capsule positions are 
Left-Front-Down, Right-Front-Up, Left-Back-Up, Right-Back-Down; this 
appears to be common to the earlier production, but photos on the 
Oktava-Shop website now appear to show it changed in the latest models. 
This is different from say the Brahma or TetraMic, which has the 
positions Left-Front-Up, Right-Front-Down, Left-Back-Down, 
Right-Back-Up. However, if I simply turn the Oktava 90° to the left, 
then the capsules come into the conventional positions.


The European website at 
http://www.oktava-shop.com/Small-and-medium-diaphragm-condenser-mics/Oktava-MK-012-01-12.html?XTCsid=9k990s7ih25ggn95d4f2ak2bq1 
appears to have a lot more info than the USA website 
http://www.oktavausa.com/ProductsPages/Ambient4DMic.html. However, the 
pictures of the mic on the OktavaUSA website show the form of my mic, 
which is different from the form now shown on the European Oktava-Shop 
website.


Gerard Lardner


On 18/06/2015 10:24, Richard Lee wrote:

How is the Oktava Tetrahedral mike calibrated?

In what form are the calibration files?

Can you post a copy of the User Manual for it?

http://www.oktavausa.com/ProductsPages/Ambient4DMic.html has no info at all.
___
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] [allowed] Re: Directional confusion between different B-format players

[Gerard Lardner]

Thanks, David, for the detailed comments and for explaining the likely 
difference between VVMic and Harpex. I hope to make some tests after the 
concert next weekend for which I am rehearsing most evenings at present. 
I'll try your suggestion.


Gerard Lardner


On 16/06/2015 17:45, David McGriffy wrote:

The rear lobes of a figure-8 decode in VVMic should be inverted just like
those of a physical figure-8 mic.  It's a linear decoder and not really
capable of anything else.  Harpex, being a parametric decoder, could be
producing a figure-8 pattern with non-inverting rear lobes, or with the
rear lobes swapped, but I doubt they do.  Someone with the Harpex plugin
could test this by panning an impulse into one of the rear lobes and
checking the results.

I'd say it's more likely that some subtle combination of the spatial
aliasing from the large array with the parametric decoder in Harpex is
producing different results than a linear decode of the same spatial
aliasing.  Neither can really be correct in the upper, aliased part of the
spectrum and so it's not surprising to me that they would sound different.
This could be tested by filtering out frequencies above the aliasing point,
though with an array that large this will be pretty low (~2kHz?).

I might also suggest, as a point of comparison, to test against a simple
mix of the inputs.  Ignoring fine points like shelf filters and NFC, a
figure-8 decode is simply L=X+Y, R=X-Y.

David McGriffy
VVAudio.com

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Gerard Lardner glard...@iol.ie wrote:


That occurred to me too. The Oktava array is really huge (mine is an old
one; the newer ones may be smaller); it places the capsules on a sphere of
radius 48 mm - nearly 4 diameter! But the problem, the swapping of left
and right in the front soundstage, exists only for one decoder (of those
that I have tried) and only for one virtual mic pattern - VVmic decoding
B-format to Blumlein stereo pair; it doesn't occur if I use Harpex B Player
to decode the B-format to the same Blumlein stereo pair. That's what is
puzzling. If they were swapped in more cases I could perhaps understand it
better. I was wondering if VVMic and Harpex treat the 'back' lobes of the
crossed figure-8s differently.

When I have some more time, I will try to record something using both the
Oktava array and a Brahma Ambisonic mic and to see if there is the same
difference. The Brahma array is much smaller than the Oktava array.

Gerard Lardner


On 14/06/2015 17:34, Paul Hodges wrote:


--On 13 June 2015 20:15 +0100 Gerard Lardner glard...@iol.ie wrote:

  I recorded a concert using my Oktava MK-012 4D ambisonic microphone

and encoded it to B-format using Brahmavolver. Yesterday, while
playing back the recording with the conductor we noticed that under
certain circumstances left and right appeared to be swapped.


My first thought is that the microphone used has its capsules more
widely spaced than other tetrahedral mics, which could be leading to
some directivity confusion at lower frequencies than usual, which in
turn this material might be sensitive to.  Certainly I've never noticed
such an effect with VVmic, whether using a TetraMic or my previous
native B-format arrangement.

Paul



___
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/20150616/f9291613/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.

Re: [Sursound] [allowed] Re: Directional confusion between different B-format players

[Gerard Lardner]

That occurred to me too. The Oktava array is really huge (mine is an old 
one; the newer ones may be smaller); it places the capsules on a sphere 
of radius 48 mm - nearly 4 diameter! But the problem, the swapping of 
left and right in the front soundstage, exists only for one decoder (of 
those that I have tried) and only for one virtual mic pattern - VVmic 
decoding B-format to Blumlein stereo pair; it doesn't occur if I use 
Harpex B Player to decode the B-format to the same Blumlein stereo pair. 
That's what is puzzling. If they were swapped in more cases I could 
perhaps understand it better. I was wondering if VVMic and Harpex treat 
the 'back' lobes of the crossed figure-8s differently.


When I have some more time, I will try to record something using both 
the Oktava array and a Brahma Ambisonic mic and to see if there is the 
same difference. The Brahma array is much smaller than the Oktava array.


Gerard Lardner


On 14/06/2015 17:34, Paul Hodges wrote:

--On 13 June 2015 20:15 +0100 Gerard Lardner glard...@iol.ie wrote:


I recorded a concert using my Oktava MK-012 4D ambisonic microphone
and encoded it to B-format using Brahmavolver. Yesterday, while
playing back the recording with the conductor we noticed that under
certain circumstances left and right appeared to be swapped.

My first thought is that the microphone used has its capsules more
widely spaced than other tetrahedral mics, which could be leading to
some directivity confusion at lower frequencies than usual, which in
turn this material might be sensitive to.  Certainly I've never noticed
such an effect with VVmic, whether using a TetraMic or my previous
native B-format arrangement.

Paul



___
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] Directional confusion between different B-format players

[Gerard Lardner]

I have a problem of directional confusion that depends on which B-format 
player is used. I recorded a concert using my Oktava MK-012 4D ambisonic 
microphone and encoded it to B-format using Brahmavolver. Yesterday, 
while playing back the recording with the conductor we noticed that 
under certain circumstances left and right appeared to be swapped.


At the time we were trying different virtual mic combinations to improve 
the clarity of certain divisions of the choir, for ordinary stereo 
playback. At first I used Harpex B player, because of the useful sound 
scope display, then, when we had identified a likely mic configuration, 
I processed the (B-format) files with VVmic using the same mic 
configuration. What we noticed was that /in most cases/ the stereo files 
created in VVmic sounded just the same as when we played the recording 
in Harpex B player, for the same virtual mic configuration. But if the 
mic configuration was Blumlein (crossed fig-8s at 90°), then in the 
VVmic-produced files very audibly the sopranos and violins were swapped 
from the left side of the soundstage to the right side, and other very 
obvious voices (basses, altos) and instruments (cellos and double 
basses) were swapped from the right side, where they had been on stage, 
to the left side.


Everything sounds correct for any microphone combination in Harpex B 
player; everything seems correct also in VVmic except if fig-8s are 
selected. I would like to base my recording on the Blumlein 
configuration as the basis, with other reinforcing mics added in. But it 
is not working for me if I use VVmic (and I can't afford the full 
version of Harpex). Can anyone explain what might be happening?


Gerard Lardner

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20150613/12d0ddd0/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] [allowed] Recording B-Format

[Gerard Lardner]

Search on Google for Nimbus-Halliday. Dr Jonathan Halliday used this 
arrangement - no Z - for many (most?) of the Nimbus CDs; it comprised 
one omni and two fig-8s. You can see a picture of the array and a 
description at http://www.radio.uqam.ca/ambisonic/native_b.html. I have 
a lot of Nimbus CDs and am familiar with the sound.


Gerard Lardner


On 05/03/2015 16:39, Ricky Graham wrote:

Hi Everyone,

Does anyone have any experience recording B-Format with multiple microphones 
set to specific polar patterns (i.e. if you don’t have access to an ambisonic / 
tetramic?). Is it possible? If so, what are some of the issues / problems with 
this approach?

Thanks,

Richard



___
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] [allowed] Re: Oktavia 4-D ambient microphone

[Gerard Lardner]

Indeed; I recently got an old one on eBay, and it is very big. The 
capsules (or at least their grilles) sit on the surface of a sphere 
approx 48 mm radius (using the Oktava MK012 cardioid capsules). I have 
not used it in anger yet as I want to get it calibrated before I try it 
out properly. My normal work has been too busy this summer to permit 
time for my recording hobby, so for the moment tis mic languishes 
uncalibrated and effectively unused. The output is type-II A-format 
(LFD, RFU, LBU, RBD) rather than the more-usual type-I A-format  (LFU, 
RFD, LBD, RBU); but obviously just turning the whole mic assembly 90° to 
the left (body vertical) will make the result effectively type-I.


Gerard Lardner


On 05/10/2013 22:20, Paul Hodges wrote:

--On 05 October 2013 18:56 +0100 Dan Andrews d...@db-av.co.uk wrote:


I stumbled across this the other day, It looks like it could be an
affordable way to get into b-format recording at last.
http://www.oktava-shop.com/product_info.php/info/p12_4-d-ambient-micropho 


ne.html


It's been mentioned here before.  The capsule spacing looks 
substantially wider than the TetraMic's, because the capsules are 
larger.  This means that the HF performance will start to get erratic 
at a lower frequency. You will also need to do your own calibration 
for the A to B-format conversion (and be sure to mark the capsules if 
you're going to swap them, so that you can put them back in the same 
positions, otherwise the calibration will be out).


Paul



___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] [allowed] Re: A-format panner.

[Gerard Lardner]

Reading through this thread I feel the other responses may not have 
given you a clear picture. There are lots of very capable Ambisonic 
practitioners on this list, but sometimes they forget that beginners may 
not understand the formal terminology (or the in-list banter).


The simple answer is that you cannot manipulate a set of A-format 
signals and then convert them into B-format. A-format is simply a set of 
microphone signals with very precisely-known characteristics and from 
precisely-known directions (LFU, RFD, RBD, LBU - note the U (up) and D 
(down) components; it's not simply LF, RF, RB, LB). Normally the only 
possible manipulation of the A-format signals is correction for 
calibration differences between the microphones and compensation for the 
distance between the capsules if you are using a soundfield-type 
microphone; this manipulation is done to the A-format signals to improve 
the A-format to B-format conversion.


The Ambisonic signal as such exists as the B-format data. In this form 
only it can be rotated, focussed, made to behave like sets of virtual 
microphones of different character, etc. Nowadays this is much more 
easily done in the digital domain rather than by analogue mixing. But 
the A-format signals are not an analog of quadrophonic signals; if you 
mix/rotate the A-format signals before converting them into B-format 
what you will end up with is a set of signals that _cannot ever_ be 
converted into Ambisonic B-format. To attempt to do so just doesn't make 
any sense.


OK, I've simplified things a little in this explanation; the more 
scientific- or mathematically-minded list members will probably burn me 
in effigy for heresy. ;-) But I think you needed a simpler, more direct 
explanation than you had got before now.


Gerard Lardner


On 26/09/2013 23:22, Kan Kaban wrote:

Sorry Mr. McGriffy  Aero for the wrong quote, I don´t do lists since some 
years ago.
Thanks a lot for all this info to everyone, I really appreciate your concern. 
Now I have a lot to do...
I´m sorry if some ambisonics terminology is not being used as intended. I hope 
you understand.
The idea of using a quadraphonic panner (previous to AB conversion, came from 
Mr. Gerzon´s paper:
A-format consists of four channels LB, LF, RF, RB compatible with existing 
'discrete' practice for the four corner positions.
Please correct me again, but I read that A-format is Lb / Lf /Rf / Rb. So seems 
logical  possible to me (sorry I that´s offending anyone) to use a 
quadraphonic panner before the AB converter.
I suppose that´s not a full ambisonics panner, but at last will do the job as a 
starting point. Isn´t it?.
Soundfield´s MKV looks beautiful  very interesting too.
Regards,
Gino.


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130926/fc64442b/attachment.html
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound




-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130927/d3ea9ce4/attachment.html
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] [allowed] Re: Recreating a 3d soundfield with lots of mics.....

[Gerard Lardner]

I believe Gilbert Briggs of Wharfedale did something like this in the 
1950s. He hired major concert halls and other public venues in the UK 
and USA to give concerts comparing live with recorded sound. Of course, 
the purpose was to promote his Wharfedale loudspeakers and Quad 
amplifiers (he and Peter Walker of Quad were friends), but the events 
were apparently sold out well in advance. I'm sure I have a reference 
somewhere in one of Briggs' books.



On 17/05/2013 16:53, Augustine Leudar wrote:

Dear Robert - what I am talking about has nothing to do with the
multimicing of orchestras etc which are used to subsequently produce stereo
recordings, 5.1 etc - and it has not been sold to the public by the music
industry at all on account of the fact that to listen to it the  public
would need a lifesize replica of the space the sound installation was
designed for (in this case a church and a bar ) , a multichannel soundcard
they would be unlikely to know how to operate and about 20 very irregularly
spaced speakers.
However I dont see why it wouldnt work for musical instruments as well - as
long as the speakers were placed in exactly the same place as the
instruments were recorded in and the mics didnt pick up any other
instrument apart from the one they are meant to record . I guess instead of
the musicians in the orchestra you would have speakers sitting in their
place - but you would still need an orchestral hall and the speakers would
still need to be in exactly the same places the musicians were sitting - Im
sure somebody must have  tried this - again not something you can listen to
in the living room.



___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] [allowed] Re: Surround formats and lossy compression

[Gerard Lardner]

There is some inconsistency in the standard prefixes. See 
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/prefixes.html. m, M, p, P, y, Y, z, Z with 
appear as upper and lower case, with different meanings, but not k (and 
also not several others).


In general lower case prefixes indicate multipliers less than unity, and 
upper case prefixes indicate multipliers greater than unity; but 'da' 
(deca-), 'h' (hecto-) and 'k' (kilo-) are exceptions in that they are 
lower case but still indicate multipliers greater than unity 
(respectively x10^1, x10^2 and x10^3)


The Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) is the ultimate 
reference and authority for the SI system.


See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix for a clearer (but 
less authoritative) explanation.


Gerard Lardner


On 07/04/2013 02:29, umashankar manthravadi wrote:

always thought only m has both cases. m - millliwatt, and M - megawatt, for 
example. umashankar
   Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 10:41:49 -0600

From: martin.le...@stanfordalumni.org
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Surround formats and lossy compression

Eric Carmichel wrote:
...

Are all lossless formats more-or-less equal in
terms of 'purity'.

Eric B has already addressed this; lossless
means lossless.

...

Unlike kilohertz (kHz), the K is capitalized when
referencing kilobytes (KB) or kilobits (Kb).

In SI unit prefixes there is only a lowercase k.
A capital K, even if popular, is wrong.

Regards,
Martin
--
Martin J Leese
E-mail: martin.leese  stanfordalumni.org
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130407/1c42ee23/attachment.html
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound




___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] NOT The Barber of Seville

[Gerard Lardner]

And, indeed, the virtuoso percussionist Dame Evelyn Glennie, who is 
profoundly deaf, reputedly 'hears' through her feet. Given how 
delicately she can play (she performs barefoot), she must have 
exceptional sensitivity in her feet. She claims to have trained herself 
to hear with other parts of her body than her ears 
(http://www.evelyn.co.uk/Resources/Essays/Hearing%20Essay.pdf).


Gerard Lardner


On 02/02/2013 06:52, Dave Malham wrote:

Hi

On 1 February 2013 22:35, Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.org wrote:


Most systems that try to deliver sound directly to the ears
(this includes binaural, crosstalk cancellation etc.) ignore
the fact that normally a listener is not clamped into a vise.
Even binaural with head tracking only considers rotational
movements, completely ignoring translational.


That's not necessarily true in theory, but certainly is in practice :-)


The ability to move our two acoustic sensors leads to capablities
that are often ignored when describing the way some system is
supposed to work (or not work). For example front/back resolution
(which is not disputed), but in theory also resolving phase
ambiguities well above the usual 700 Hz or so limit, identifying
reflections as such, etc.


The other thing that is widely ignored is that our ears are not the
only way we perceive sound - I'm sure (well, at least I hope) Eric
will confirm that even profoundly deaf people can perceive
(particularly low bass) sounds through their direct effects on our
bodies, which simply aren't stimulated at all by headphone
presentations.

  Dave



___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] What AV Linux distro to use with an old laptop - is it likely to be at all useful

[Gerard Lardner]

PureDyne does look interesting, and being based on Ubuntu is a bit more
familiar to me as I use another Ubuntu distro (CAELinux) on my
engineering laptop. Have you tried using it for ambisonic/multichannel
work? Does it have the preferred 'bits' installed as standard? I am
still at the stage of trying to solve a screen resolution problem, and
so have not been able to explore PureDyne  in any depth yet.

Gerard Lardner

On 06/08/2012 16:35, Michael Chapman wrote:
 [   .  .  .   ]
   * Which distro(s) of Linux are most useful for surround sound
 (Ambisonic) work? And
   * Which (32-bit) distro of Linux is likely to be light enough for such
 an ancient laptop?

 Gerard Lardner
 I've always like Dyne (now apparently puredyne) and 'played'
 with it often, but _never_ used it for a serious project ...

 (I'd welcome comments (+ or -) on puredyne, myself ...)

 AFAIK a laptop doesn't know if it is booting from a CD-CD
 or a CD-DVD...   but anyway why not install on the HD
 (unless you have nostalgia for Windows 1066 ;-)

 Michael

 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound



___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

[Sursound] What AV Linux distro to use with an old laptop - is it likely to be at all useful

[Gerard Lardner]

Pesky things, bank holiday weekends; you end up looking into things that
should best be buried and forgotten. I was clearing out the cupboard in
my office at home recently and came across an old laptop. That got me
wondering if this could be a useful surround sound editing/recording
machine if a lighter/faster OS than Windows was installed.

This laptop is old - very old: ca. 2000. Originally it had Windows 2000
installed, but when I gave it to my godson many years ago he upgraded it
to Windows XP. The laptop came back to me a few years ago when he got a
better machine, and has been languishing in a cupboard ever since. It's
painfully slow trying to run under fully-updated Windows XP, far slower
than when it had Windows 2000 installed, but it runs 32-bit Linux fast
enough, even booting off a live CD. So it occurred to me that it might
make a useful surround sound recording/editing machine if I did not want
to use my newer PCs, which are often busy for hours running CFD and FEM
models for my regular engineering business.

The old laptop is a Dell Inspiron 8000 with a Pentium III processor at
750 MHz and 512 MB RAM. So it will not run any 64-bit OSs, and I am not
even sure if it will actually boot off a DVD, though it does boot off
CDs; but that's another problem, one which can probably be solved with a
little lateral thinking. The immediate questions are:

  * Which distro(s) of Linux are most useful for surround sound
(Ambisonic) work? And
  * Which (32-bit) distro of Linux is likely to be light enough for such
an ancient laptop?

Gerard Lardner

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120805/f93ecf21/attachment.html
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] preferred (small) linux distro for audio?

[Gerard Lardner]

+1 here too.

Gerard Lardner

On 05/07/2012 14:41, Hugh Pyle wrote:
 +1.  If you design a BeagleBone cape with 16 channels out (balanced or
 not, I don't really mind), or a dedicated system that includes the
 CPU, I'll want several :-)

 On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:16 AM, GP ga...@activatedspace.com wrote:
 Put me on your pre-order list already Dave! :-).

 Cheers Garth
 Sent on the Move

 On 05/07/2012, at 19:48, Dave Malham dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote:

 Wow! Fantastic response .. lots to think about. Will let you know how I get 
 on. Part of the problem is hardware as I was unable (at the time I got this 
 board) to find a case with a HD Audio front panel so it currently thinks 
 it's running in AC97 mode, but I'm going to knock something up to get round 
 this. In the mean time I'm going to play with the suggestions people have 
 made (Puppy is currently booting).

 I'm also interested in the paper that Fernando gave us a link to. Although 
 I don't want to use the Mamba hardware, I _am_ interested in the 
 possibilities for a dedicated multichannel player for installation work 
 (another retirement project!) What I'm looking at at present is a 
 multichannel dac linked directly (not via USB or owt like that) to an Arm 
 processor that'll just play a multichannel file off of a USB stick or SD 
 card. For prototyping I'll be using a BeagleBone (as I definitely don't 
 want the extra bells and whistles of the BeagleBoard itself) - I'd prefer 
 to use the RPi but the chip used (at least, according to the manual) 
 appears to have a crippled McASP port that can only handle stereo, whereas 
 the ARM on the BeagleBone has a good enough implementation of McASP that it 
 can do 16 channels at 48k for definite (EAOE) and probably up to 96k 
 without too much trouble. If initial tests prove the concept, I'll look 
 KickStarter funding. The idea is to have an absolutely rock solid box that 
 just plays stuff without any of the hassles of systems relying on computers 
 (ha! That'll be the day))  The most it would have is an on/off switch and 
 play controls - but it would output up to 16 channels, balanced, 24 bits.

   Dave


 On 05/07/2012 07:50, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
 On 07/04/2012 06:40 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
 Fernando Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu  a écrit :

 Single board computers are interesting platforms to create dedicated
 ambisonic players.
 Indeed!

 Let us know how the beagle board perform with a port of Planet CCRMA. ;-)
 I will, I just have to find the time to test. I'm curious whether a small 
 box like that can drive 1/2 of the Mamba box I was driving from a regular 
 desktop. 32 channel playback through an ethernet port[*]...

 -- Fernando

 [*] https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~nando/publications/jack_mamba_lac2012.pdf
 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
 --
 These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
 /*/
 /* Dave Malham   http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */
 /* Music Research Centre */
 /* Department of Musichttp://music.york.ac.uk/;*/
 /* The University of York  Phone 01904 322448*/
 /* Heslington  Fax   01904 322450*/
 /* York YO10 5DD */
 /* UK   'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'   */
 /*http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/; */
 /*/



 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound





___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music

[Gerard Lardner]

I do. I have two classic Ambisonic decoders, a old Meridian in the
sitting room, decoding to 5.1 speakers (the TV shares the speakers), and
an ancient Minim AD10-based system in my office with 4 good speakers
(soon to be extended to a 6-speaker hexagon array).

Both are horizontal-only, obviously; much as I would like a full
periphonic system, I prefer not to invade my living space with more
speakers.

Gerard


On 13/04/2012 08:37, Paul Hodges wrote:
 --On 13 April 2012 03:08 +0100 Stefan Schreiber
 st...@mail.telepac.pt wrote:
 ...
 Actually, I'd be interested to know how many people on this list
 listen to surround recordings on a surround system for simple
 pleasure, as opposed to in the lab or as part of specific
 investigations of the process.

 Paul

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music

[Gerard Lardner]

On 13/04/2012 00:43, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
 The cardboard speakers that ship with affordable 5.1 systems are not suitable 
 for music, and anything halfway acceptable is on a good sale at least 
 $250/speaker, which means with four speakers you're at or above $1k, add a 
 decent four channel amp, cables, speaker stands, etc. and you're well above 
 the typical consumer price level already.
Agreed generally. But it _*is*_ possible to get decent speakers more
cheaply, if you try. I got eight Wharfedale Diamond 8 Pro Active
speakers at prices ranging from £100/pr to just under £200/pr, all new
in their boxes. About half were unopened, still with the original
Wharfedale tape and staples on the boxes; the others were new 'B'-stock
- opened for display, but otherwise perfect. All came with a full
guarantee from the dealer - most of them came from Dolphin Music. Great
value, and no need to spend money on separate power amps. It took me
about a year to get them, buying one or two pairs at a time as they
became available at a price I was willing to pay (the last ones were the
cheapest!).
 Technology hasn't moved on. 5.1 is 4.0 plus a crappy center speaker that has 
 a totally different tonal quality and never blends with the other four lousy 
 speakers, plus a subwoofer to make up for the fact that the other speakers 
 are lousy. Four full-range speakers in a 4.0 configuration is better than 
 what 99% of people have in their homes, and cost near what they could 
 possibly afford. To talk about higher channel count is totally disregarding 
 economic realities.
Again, not necessarily so. I have a '5.1' set of Wharfedale bookshelf
speakers (not the same as the ones mentioned above). Actually it's 5.0
since with four decent bookshelf speakers and a matching, slightly
larger, centre speaker, bass is adequate for TV/videos and surprisingly
good for classical music; so I didn't get a '.1' subwoofer. The
bookshelf speakers all have a 5 bass unit as well as a tweeter; the
centre speaker has 2 x 5 bass units of the same type as the bookshelf
speakers and the same tweeter. Driven via the Meridian preamp, they put
out a nicely balanced sound, provided you don't want too loud; the
Meridian makes sure the bass goes to the 5 normal speakers.

Gerard
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120413/3117c477/attachment.html
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music

[Gerard Lardner]

I ain't objecting to HOA. I'd love to have a HOA system again for normal
listening; I /have/ heard it and agree it is good. But two things argue
against it: 1.) Cost for a home installation. Despite what I wrote in an
earlier message today, it was hard work to assemble even 8 /good/
speakers cheaply. I got them for HOA, but I probably will not use them
for it, at least not for long, because 2) Having lots of speakers on one
room is not compatible with home harmony or with visual aesthetics.
Sadly, that is the killer.

Bandwidth, storage, processing power? Yes, they are all affordable now.
Now we need to find a solution to my point 2 above - and that is not an
Ambisonics problem!

In practice, Ambisonics is most useful as a production tool. Only a
dedicated few will use it in a home environment. Only when the speakers
can be effectively hidden from view without compromising the qualities
needed for Ambisonics and for serious music reproduction will it have
the potential to become part of the home system.

Gerard Lardner


On 13/04/2012 09:07, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
 On 04/13/2012 03:49 AM, Robert Greene wrote:

 While the mode of expression is even more emphatic
 than my own, RCFA is to my mind right all up
 and down the line. Talking about 3rd order is
 just castles in the air. As a theoretical mathematician,
 I spend most of my life building castles in the air.
 But one ought to know that that is what they are!

 you know, for every email you guys write about this tired old topic, i
 have _set up_ and _calibrated_ a higher order ambisonic system, and
 believe me, that's way more exciting.

 can you please stick your heads out the window eventually? it's 2012,
 bandwidth is ridiculously cheap, storage even more so [1]. there is
 absolutely no valid argument to be made against very high orders
 indeed for production and archival. get it in your heads that there is
 a difference between what the consumer uses and what the production
 format is. this is what ambisonics is all about: scalability. you get
 to keep your meridians and your four quad speakers, and everyone can
 just live happily ever after.

 [1] the only thing that's probably even cheaper is opinions.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120413/04d2ec7f/attachment.html
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] UHJ decoding and shelf filters

[Gerard Lardner]

Is BLaH4 available anywhere apart from the AES site? I am not a member,
only curious.

Gerard Lardner

On 16/12/2011 09:34, Richard Lee wrote:
 BLaH4, Design of Ambisonic Decoders for Irregular Arrays of
 Loudspeakers by Non- Linear Optimization Heller et al, preprint 8243
 AES San Francisco nov10, discusses the various trade-offs and presents
 our favoured method. 
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Speaker configs + subwoofers

[Gerard Lardner]

There was a discussion about speakers for Ambisonics a few years ago. I
can't remember exactly when. But I do seem to recall that it was
suggested that speakers having a single axis (e.g. a single, wide-range
driver or concentric drivers) would be better than speakers having
drivers spread relatively widely over the front plane; also that phase
coherence between drivers is important. I have never tried concentric
speakers, e.g. Tannoy Dual-Concentric; too expensive for me; but I have
been able to collect eight Wharfedale Diamond Pro 8.1 Active speakers
for my Ambisonic set-up. They seem to me to be good, but I have not
heard a reference Ambisonic set-up to compare them with.

Gerard Lardner

On 10/05/2011 01:54, Marc Lavallée wrote:
 I found very little information about domestic Ambisonic speakers
 setups. All I know is that it's better to use the same speakers and
 amplifiers for the whole setup... I adopted the layout proposed by
 Bo-Erik Sandholm (10 speakers), and now I have to find the right
 speakers.

 Here's some random thoughts (comments are welcome):

 - Speaker design really is an art form; I can't build very good
   speakers myself, so eventually I will buy two for my main stereo
   system (and they will sound much better than they look).

 - I can build good enough speakers based on tutorials and
   software. I did it and it's worth the effort. Bass-reflex enclosures
   are easier to design and build than quarter-wave enclosures.

 - The frequency response of some good full-range drivers is about
   70Hz-20Khz. They are perfect for near-field listening, and probably
   appropriate for a small Ambisonic setup.

 - For Ambisonic reproduction in a small room, I can't afford to buy or
   build fancy speakers (like quarter-wave), but I can build many (10+)
   speakers using full-range drivers in sealed enclosures.

 - I learned that it's possible to use subwoofers with Ambisonic; but a
   minimum of four subwoofers are required with a dedicated FOA decoder.
   That's a reason why I'd like to build small enclosures for small
   drivers with a limited bass response instead of larger enclosures
   with bass extension (either bass-reflex or quarter-wave).

 - Bass reproduction is important for directional cues. It is influenced
   by the room response (or modes) and the placement of the subwoofers
   (more than their size and quality).

 - Digital room correction and EQ are useful tools; we should use them
   instead of looking for speakers with the best frequency response.

 Is there any web site (article, book) on how to build speakers
 specifically for Ambisonic reproduction?

 --
 Marc
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Speaker configs + subwoofers

[Gerard Lardner]

There's also the Yahoo group Quarter-Wave
(http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/quarter-wave/), where there is
discussion of loudspeaker design, and the related website Quarter
Wavelength Loudspeaker Design (http://www.quarter-wave.com/) where there
is Mathcad software for loudspeaker design. Mostly for transmission-line
designs. Seems to be good; but I haven't built any yet myself.

Gerard Lardner


On 09/05/2011 07:12, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:

  A bit out of topic but if anyone else is into building their own speaker 
 cabinets.
 Let me point you to a document that is very good in explaining the design 
 choices in a cabinet for the bass frequencies.

 http://www.sonicdesign.se/optimum.html

 Regards
 Bo-Erik 

 -Original Message-
 From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] 
 On Behalf Of Bo-Erik Sandholm
 Sent: den 4 maj 2011 13:48
 To: Surround Sound discussion group
 Subject: Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale - Speaker configs.

 From 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization#Evaluation_for_low_freq
 uencies
 Evaluation for low frequencies

 For frequencies below 800 Hz, the dimensions of the head (ear distance 21.5 
 cm, corresponding to an interaural time delay of 625 µs), are smaller than 
 the half wavelength of the sound waves. So the auditory system can determine 
 phase delays between both ears without confusion. Interaural level 
 differences are very low in this frequency range, especially below about 200 
 Hz, so a precise evaluation of the input direction is nearly impossible on 
 the basis of level differences alone. As the frequency drops below 80 Hz it 
 becomes difficult or impossible to use either time difference or level 
 difference to determine a sound's lateral source, because the phase 
 difference between the ears becomes too small for a directional evaluation.

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

[Gerard Lardner]

Actually I don't have an iPhone myself - but it seems to be the
smartphone of choice for this kind of control app. ;-)

Also, I'm not fixated on Ubuntu, but merely I have used GlobalScale plug
computers in a couple of places where I wanted the equivalent of a
single board computer but with power supply and interfaces already built
into a neat package; that plug computer (GlobalScale) comes with Ubuntu
in firmware. For my very basic uses it was easy to configure. If the
decoding software was written to be more agnostic about platform, that
could only be better.

Gerard Lardner


On 01/05/2011 01:44, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
 Gerard Lardner wrote:

 Perhaps something on the lines of a PlugComputer running Plug Ubuntu, a
 USB sound card, Linux software packaged for simple use and having a web
 control interface, and an iPhone app to control it all? The hardware
 (PlugComputer and sound card) then could be $200, I think  (excluding
 the iPhone - but some mobile providers are now giving that away free
 with some service contracts).

 Anyone up to doing it?

 Gerard Lardner
  


 So you want to combine the cheap costs of of a Ubuntu media center
 (needs some programming work, though) with the beauty of your beloved
 iPhone?

  g 

 Stefan Schreiber

 P.S.: Small hint

 It would be better if the Linux software might work for other Linux
 distributions, too...

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

[Gerard Lardner]

I believe I got most of the information I have from your site; indeed I
was delighted to find the instructions there as my AD10, bought on eBay,
came without instructions.

Gerard Lardner


On 01/05/2011 19:18, Martin Leese wrote:
 Gerard Lardner glard...@iol.ie
 ...
 I read in a review that the AD10 was intended to be sold at a realistic
 price of about $600 and the AD7 sold at a bargain $200. That review also
 mentioned that the AD10 used closer-tolerance components that would
 additionally be hand-selected for closer matching. Since the review
 appears to have been written before production was fully under way, I
 wonder if that was indeed done for production AD10 units.
 My recollection from a 1980s telephone
 conversation with Minim was that the
 production AD 10 decoders did not have
 hand-selected components, but the
 reference version of the AD 10 did (and cost
 more).

 Over the years I have found two different circuit diagrams that seem
 both to be for the AD7, but none for the AD10.
 ...
 Does anyone have or know of a circuit diagram for the AD10?
 Sorry, I don't know of one either.  I have
 collected information about the Minim
 decoders, and made it available at:
 https://sites.google.com/site/minimdecoders/

 This includes instructions for the AD 10, and
 a circuit diagram for the AD 7.  If you know of
 more information then please pass it on to me
 so that I can add it to the site.

 Regards,
 Martin
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound