Re: [Sursound] Is the LP SV-95002(D) UHJ-encoded?

[Steven Dive]

Hi Martin,

The Discogs site has the DKP 9001 version. Is this of any use?

http://www.discogs.com/Laurie-Johnson-First-Men-In-The-Moon/release/4086074

Steve

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 23:08, Martin Leese  wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I have recently purchased the 1980 LP "First
> Men in the Moon", SV-95002(D) on the
> Starlog/Varese Sarabande label.  This is an
> original motion picture score, conducted by
> Laurie Johnson.  As far as I can tell, this is the
> US release of the Unicorn-Kanchana label LP
> DKP 9001.  DKP 9001 is UHJ-encoded; is
> SV-95002(D)?
> 
> UHJ is not mentioned on the record or sleeve,
> although the sleeve does state that a Calrec
> Soundfield microphone was used.  Could
> there have been different mixes for the UK
> and US releases?  Geoffrey Barton was the
> recording engineer on other recordings in this
> series, so he probably was for this one as well.
> 
> The Ambisonic UHJ Discography lists only the
> UK release DKP 9001; visit:
> http://www.surrounddiscography.com/uhjdisc/ambindex.htm
> 
> Many thanks,
> 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 - 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] Tommies 21st October 1914: A 3D immersive listening experience, designed for headphone listening.

[Steven Dive]

Likewise. I get some vague sense of spaciousness but nothing 3D.

 On 27 Oct 2014, at 11:28, dw d...@dwareing.plus.com wrote:
 
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p028snwx
 Almost all in/near-head, to my ears.
 ___
 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] Encoding a 7.1 audio DVD ?

[Steven Dive]

FWIW, the (expensive) Meridian domestic DSP's can accept and decode Dolby 
TrueHD, which is based upon MLP and one of their boxes can extract 8 channel 
from HDMI. Also, I know from direct experience that a G series decoder can 
accept and decode B-format from one of its sets of line inputs.

On 18 Dec 2013, at 10:21, Andy Furniss adf.li...@gmail.com wrote:

 Stefan Schreiber wrote:
 Andy Furniss wrote:
 
 Nothing to do with this thread and I am not saying that any players
 use it, but I did see the words Ambisonic and WXYZ in the spec, so
 there is some provision for carrying and flagging as special
 b-format in a DTS extension stream.
 
 
 Maybe hidden in the TrueHD spec, but Blu-Ray doesn't support anything
 like WXYZ. Having worked a bit on disc standards before, and never
 saw anything of this...
 
 I don't claim any expertise in anything I write here and am often wrong
 :-) but ...
 
 I would say that's debatable, in that bluray players should accept
 Dolby/DCA and both are specified so that decoders skip
 substreams/extensions that they don't know about.
 
 Additionally if instructed, the player can just pass on bitstreams
 without decoding to a receiver without caring what it contains.
 
 Of course there may not currently exist and decoders that could use
 wxyz, but from a compatibility point of view I don't thing it would be
 impossible for current disks/players to handle a stream with wxyz
 embedded - they wouldn't know or care. Even a normal decoder wouldn't
 care and could just do what it knows about. If a stream with wxyx were
 not primary - and bluray can mux many soundtracks, you could even have
 the core compatibility stream contain sound telling you that you need a
 special setup to use this track.
 
 
 
 ___
 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] UHJ disc discovery?

[Steven Dive]

I have original CD’s of both Watermark and The Celts and cannot see any 
ambisonic symbols on either, CD’s or sleeve notes, sadly. I wonder as well 
whether there was more than one version of one or both albums.

On 5 Nov 2013, at 20:35, Bearcat M. Şándor bear...@feline-soul.com wrote:

 To get back to the Enya question, i remember this too. In fact it was that
 disc that got me interested in Ambisonics in the first place.
 
 In around 2000, i traveled to washington from montana to listen to a pair
 of Meridian DSP6000s.  I'd wanted to hear some for years (knowing i
 couldn't afford them).
 
 After listening to my music for a while, the sales person put an Enya disc
 on. It was either Enya (The Celts) or Watermark i wish i remembered which.
 I noticed that a symbol on the cd was the same as a symbol on the meridian
 preamp we were listening to. I asked about it and he turned on the
 ambisonics processing in the pre-amp. I was blown away. The surround was so
 gentle and the antithesis of what had turned me off from surround sound
 before, even though he only had a 5.1 set up.
 
 So, it's out there, i just don't know which one it is.
 
 When it comes to Ambisonics, might some editions of the disc (original,
 remastered etc) have it and some not? Put another way could the Ambisonics
 be mixed or mastered out of a particular edition?
 
 Also, could an indicator be added to Fons processor to indicate whether a
 stream had UHJ in it or not?
 
 Bearcat
 
 
 On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Richard G Elen re...@brideswell.comwrote:
 
 Excellent, good to know.
 -_R
 
 
 On 05/11/2013 18:57, J. Liles wrote:
 
 May not be entirely relevant, being that it is a rather recent release,
 but
 it may interest some of you to know that my album is UHJ encoded.
 
 http://jonliles.bandcamp.com/album/sad-pretty-girl
 
 
 
 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Bearcat M. Şándor
 Feline Soul Systems LLC
 Voice: 872.CAT.SOUL (872.228.7685)
 Fax: 406.235.7070
 Jabber/xmpp/gtalk/email: bear...@feline-soul.net
 MSN: bearcatsan...@hotmail.com
 Yahoo: bearcatsandor
 AIM: bearcatmsandor
 My public pgp key is included for verification of my identity
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20131105/e1773b50/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] OT: Spatial music

[Steven Dive]

Me for one.

Steve

On 13 Apr 2012, at 08:37, Paul Hodges 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

[Steven Dive]

Meridian may be expensive, too, but at least they are sticking with  
Ambisonics. Full horizontal 1st order B-format is now included in  
their decoders, as well as UHJ, superstereo and Trifield. Oh, and I'm  
a Meridian customer enjoying one of the few (only?) current domestic  
ambisonic decoders. Still damned expensive, so I've not replaced mine  
for nearly 15 years.


I could just about cope with full 2nd order horizontal (6 speakers)  
but not 3rd with eight speakers in my typically small UK sitting room.  
Height is out of the question, People clearly put 5 and sometimes 7  
speakers in their listening/entertainment rooms (in all sorts of odd  
places, though), so G-format should be possible, too (up to 3rd  
order?). For home use, I use superstereo with the TV and, as long as  
the width control is kept narrow-ish, centrally based sounds tie in  
well with what's happening on-screen. Sounds-off, such as doors  
closing and people speaking about to come into the image from left or  
right, can give a nicely widened perspective on a performance. I've  
only really been used to UHJ as a home user so I'm looking forward to  
full 1st order for music, classical and otherwise. I'd love to try UHJ  
with the TV. I suspect the dominance of a large TV image will tend to  
direct (sharpen?) perception of sound source positions on a TV screen,  
as happens anyway with TV speakers placed well off centre. Cinema may  
be a non-starter but not home use.


IMHO I can't see how FOA isn't  clearly worth promoting along with up  
to 3rd order G-format decodes for 5.1/7.1 setups for home users.  
Basically, get UHJ and, while we are at it, superstereo into people's  
homes, then get on with full 1st and higher orders.


Steve

On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:05, Fons Adriaensen wrote:


On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:47:04PM +0200, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:27, Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.org  
wrote:



First order definitely isn't good enough. As long a you insist that
one can't go up in order, just forget about it all.


Tell that Meridian, and all their customers who have enjoyed  
immensely not only listening to horizontal-only 1st order  
Ambisonics, but also to 1st order horizontal-only Ambisonics  
crippled by UHJ matrix-encoding constraints.


First order is certainly fine for classical orchestral music,
and I enjoy that as well even without Meridian's help.
But that will reach a minoriy classical music lovers audience
only. And first order fails rather miserably for anything else
compared to 5.1 which is what people already have and can compare
with. It won't produce a stable front channel for movie sound,
nor has it the the required spatial definition for effects that
work outside a very small sweet spot. And what's the problem with
five or seven channels anyway ?

This has nothing to do with 'elitism'. Try selling 256-color
computer displays to today's consumers. Won't work even if they
would do fine for 99% of all practical computer applications.
It's too late for that. Technology has moved on, and people
know it.

Ciao,

--
FA

A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)

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


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

Re: [Sursound] Fwd: Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation

[Steven Dive]

On 13 Jun 2011, at 09:30, Dave Malham wrote:



On 12/06/2011 00:34, Robert Greene wrote:


Yes that is it!

Incidentally, I would like to add a (nonmathematical)
point. I think dipoles are more or less a  disaster for Ambisonics
Bass is one thing, but what dipoles mostly do is bounce sound off
the back walls(unless you were using them as subwoofers only)
in a way that creates spaciousness, so beloved of stereo loving
audiophlies, but that blurs the actual spatial information.
In the past we had a horizontal array  (they were actually hung  
from the ceiling!) of four Quad Electrostatics. They could work well  
but at other times the image was completely messed up by the  
reflections from the walls of the rear radiation. This was all very  
material dependent. Panning directions could reverse, spurious  
height changes could happen and so on...beautiful speakers, but...




I agree re the Quads' in-room bass. I have two pairs of them (ESL63's)  
on stands in a rectangle 30cm off the floor at 1/7th of the way along  
each diagonal in a 4.8m x 3.55m room. But I am currently limited to  
ambi super-stereo and UHJ and have dropped the bass to the 'statics by  
3.5dB (at 20Hz, about -1dB at 200Hz), making up the level with a mono  
sub half way along a wall on the room's long axis. These 'statics also  
tend to rattle at moderately high bass levels anyway, so the bass cut  
helps reduce this considerably. My room dimensions tend to boost bass  
by around 5dB (1/3rd octave) from about 200Hz downwards. The sub's low  
pass is set at 45Hz (-6dB) for music, at 85Hz for TV, with its output  
set using a dB meter. Not ideal but works fairly well with the  
material I listen to, mainly Nimbus UHJ classical and a lot of studio  
recorded alternative/rock stereo stuff. Ambi and super-stereo imaging  
is really good at least over the upper bass to low treble range. I'd  
like to be able to add at least another sub eventually. And then  
there's that suck-out, at around 200Hz in my case, from the  
electrostatic's floor reflection... Ho hum. Maybe Quad could be  
persuaded to make a narrower range ESL that could be put higher off  
the floor as well. Well maybe not but it's a thought.

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

Re: [Sursound] Why do you need to decode ambisonic/b format signals

[Steven Dive]

One interesting, if odd sounding, effect I found was using superstereo  
on a test track for channel identity for stereo that had someone (Alan  
Wiltshire) speaking from positions full left, half left, centre, half  
right and full right. On my usual setting of 0.5 (range is 0 to 1.5 on  
my decoder in 0.1 increments)), the speaking positions are perceived  
pretty near corresponding to the left to right spacing of my front  
speakers. On the 1.0 setting, the image of full left to full right is  
wrapped around like a horseshoe, with left as rear left and right as  
rear right with centre and 'half' positions stretched around  
accordingly and somewhat broadened. But on the full 1.5 setting the  
apparent speaking positions were fully reversed, with right as left  
and left as right but sounding really quite focussed.


Any thoughts welcome. It darn well surprised me.

Steve

On 25 Jan 2011, at 20:53, Geoffrey Barton wrote:



On 25 Jan 2011, at 17:00, sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu wrote:


Message: 8
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:03:11 -0700
From: Martin Leese martin.le...@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Why do you need to decode ambisonic/b format
signals ?
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Message-ID:
aanlktintvfioetlvgaok3gx7pbx8k0uq5opr30eyh...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Eero Aro eero@dlc.fi wrote:


J?rn Nettingsmeier wrote:
in theory, you can. in practice, you can't, because you'd have to  
know

what stereo technique was used during recording


Yes you can.

Just one word: Trifield.


Steven Dive stevend...@mac.com wrote:
...

I understand that Trifield is derived from the same groundwork as
Ambisonic, which also gives us ambi superstereo. It's a matter of
personal judgement, I think, but do you more knowledgeable theory
folks know if Trifield is therefore as flexible in its use as
superstereo?



From memory, the theory behind Trifield

assumes either Blumlein XY, or pan-potted
multi-track mono.  Perhaps Geoffrey can chip
in, or somebody can look at the paper
(reference below).  Again from memory,
SuperStereo assumes some sort of coincident
mic technique so, in theory, is more flexible
than Trifield.  I don't know of a reference for
SuperStereo; this is a gap in Ambisonic
theory.


It is not essential that the material is Blumlein or pan potted;  
that is just the way MAG handled a virtual 'test signal' in the  
paper; other recording techniques work ok too, but with varying  
results, much as they do over two speakers:-).


The main difference between 'Trifield' and 'Super-stereo' is that  
the former works over a number of speakers 2 across the front  
sector and the latter seeks to use an ambisonic array of speakers  
all around the listener to lock the front in place. There were a  
number of different alignments of 'Super-stereo' in various decoder  
implementations, but in essence they all sought to bend the 'washing  
line' of the in-phase stereo image around the front arc with  
variable width, and anything substantially out of phase generally  
somewhere else, again rather dependent on the source material.


Geoffrey






-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110125/52e2d5cc/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] Why do you need to decode ambisonic/b format signals ?

[Steven Dive]

From my perspective as a home user of a commercial home surround  
decoder (Ambisonic UHJ, Trifield, Dolby etc.), I almost never see any  
info on recording techniques on record labels and I can't foresee any  
record labels ever stating which microphone techniques were used.


The manual for my Meridian 565 decoder says The Trifield processing  
in 565 extracts the M-S (Mono and Surround) component of the original  
recording.. The manual also says it's for reproduction from  
recordings made where the recording has used a small number of  
microphones. So it's very much guesswork and experimentation time for  
us home surrounders. How few is 'few' and how configured I wonder?  
Should Trifield be best used for MS recordings only?


I understand that Trifield is derived from the same groundwork as  
Ambisonic, which also gives us ambi superstereo. It's a matter of  
personal judgement, I think, but do you more knowledgeable theory  
folks know if Trifield is therefore as flexible in its use as  
superstereo?


Maybe Meridian were just suggesting indirectly that people experiment  
to find the most pleasing effect from their black box (literally)  
piece of hi-fi equipment.


Steve

On 24 Jan 2011, at 13:09, Eero Aro wrote:


Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
in theory, you can. in practice, you can't, because you'd have to  
know

what stereo technique was used during recording


Yes you can.

Just one word: Trifield.


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