from:"dw"



Stefan. bach, You have not actually downloaded it, nobody has!
Unless you are making the assumption that very low bitrate MP3 is the 
same as 24bit flac, there is nothing to discuss.


On 22/11/2014 02:30, Stefan Schreiber wrote:



http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/sounds/255159/


This might be some observation worth for some serious discussion.


___
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] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?


On 22/11/2014 02:43, Stefan Schreiber wrote:


I don't believe that the BBC study is really flawless, BTW. (Günther 
Theile thought the same.)


Günther Theile is not one of my drinking buddies,  I wish he was. BTW 
the Stax demo is not that great..


___
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] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?

I am aware of this, and of positive reports about it. I think the BBC 
may have one..


On 22/11/2014 02:43, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

http://www.smyth-research.com/articles_files/SVSAES.pdf

As example for a "professional" system...

Best,

Stefan

Stefan Schreiber wrote:


dw wrote:


On 19/11/2014 22:12, Stefan Schreiber wrote:




Your posting seems to be meaningless if not arrogant, BTW.


Let me put it in a more positive way then.. Your thinking is 
representative of the state of the art in binaural science.:-)


"Previous work <http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper250> 
has shown that even with the state-of-the-art virtual surround 
systems we don't currently get a big improvement in quality over a 
conventional stereo down-mix. The perceived quality was found to 
vary significantly according to the source material used."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2014/10/tommies-in-3d




I actually have discussed this study with some people. (for example, 
Günther Theile)


Experience with Realiser A8 from Smyth Research and IRT's BRS system 
seems to indicate that binaural systems with head-tracking and 
personalized HRTF  filters < can't be distinguished from real (5.1) 
speakers >.


(They used BRIRs of the listening room and the reference 5.1 speaker 
system, of course.)


I don't believe that the BBC study is really flawless, BTW. (Günther 
Theile thought the same.)

(I am too lazy to discuss this now, have some other stuff to do.)

Your thinking is representative of the state of the art in binaural 
science.:-)




Maybe you should read more than (just) one "paper", before claiming 
that nobody beside you has some clue?  :-D


I also didn't claim to represent "binaural science", if I remember well.

Best,

Stefan



___
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] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?

It claimed to use state of the art applications of binaural rendering.
Because I cited one white paper does not mean I have only read one in my
life, or base my opinions on those of the BBC.

I did not say you '_represent_ "binaural science"'.
I do not pretend to understand it. Others do. I think they are wrong due
to the lack of observational support for the implied predictions of said
theories.

On 22/11/2014 02:34, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

dw wrote:

On 19/11/2014 22:12, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

Your posting seems to be meaningless if not arrogant, BTW.

Let me put it in a more positive way then.. Your thinking is
representative of the state of the art in binaural science.:-)

"Previous work <http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper250>
has shown that even with the state-of-the-art virtual surround
systems we don't currently get a big improvement in quality over a
conventional stereo down-mix. The perceived quality was found to vary
significantly according to the source material used."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2014/10/tommies-in-3d

I actually have discussed this study with some people. (for example,
Günther Theile)

Experience with Realiser A8 from Smyth Research and IRT's BRS system
seems to indicate that binaural systems with head-tracking and
personalized HRTF filters < can't be distinguished from real (5.1)
speakers >.

(They used BRIRs of the listening room and the reference 5.1 speaker
system, of course.)

I don't believe that the BBC study is really flawless, BTW. (Günther
Theile thought the same.)

(I am too lazy to discuss this now, have some other stuff to do.)

Your thinking is representative of the state of the art in binaural
science.:-)

Maybe you should read more than (just) one "paper", before claiming
that nobody beside you has some clue? :-D

I also didn't claim to represent "binaural science", if I remember well.

Best,

Stefan
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20141122/ad6a8a05/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] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?


The above file _does_ work for me. (only?)
Unfortunately for you, if you click the third icon in the player, the 
spectrogram shows no obvious "higher frequency pinna cues".
One of Hugo Zuccarelli's demos does have good height cues for me, and 
many others, but that is the only one in hundreds of binaural recordings 
that I have heard.


On 22/11/2014 02:30, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

dw wrote:

The state-of-the-art finds it very difficult to render sounds below 
the listener. To do it with a 'flat' frequency response, and 
referenced to ground/gravity ie.. unaffected by normal, small head 
movements is a bonus. It is just a pity it might take a while to get 
used to..
I can't tell after being spoilt by 100s of hours of listening to 
various binaural recordings, and not hearing above 12kHz.


http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/sounds/255159/


This might be some observation worth for some serious discussion.

Elevation cues depend a lot on pinnae forms, and are related (mostly?) 
to high(er) frequencies.


The HRTF set you are using might just not do it for you?

Would you notice some changes if you try to find some HRTF set which 
actually "fits" to you? (Provided that you are probably not able to 
measure your personal HRTF data...)


Best,

Stefan
___
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] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?

2014-11-21 Thread dw

The state-of-the-art finds it very difficult to render sounds below the 
listener. To do it with a 'flat' frequency response, and referenced to 
ground/gravity ie.. unaffected by normal, small head movements is a 
bonus. It is just a pity it might take a while to get used to..
I can't tell after being spoilt by 100s of hours of listening to various 
binaural recordings, and not hearing above 12kHz.


http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/sounds/255159/

___
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] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?

2014-11-21 Thread dw


On 19/11/2014 22:12, Stefan Schreiber wrote:



Your posting seems to be meaningless if not arrogant, BTW.


Let me put it in a more positive way then.. Your thinking is 
representative of the state of the art in binaural science.:-)


"Previous work  has 
shown that even with the state-of-the-art virtual surround systems we 
don't currently get a big improvement in quality over a conventional 
stereo down-mix. The perceived quality was found to vary significantly 
according to the source material used."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2014/10/tommies-in-3d

___
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] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?

2014-11-20 Thread dw


On 20/11/2014 17:59, Adam Somers wrote:

We just released our first piece of VR content with ambisonic audio to the
public.  It's a live recording on stage at a recent Paul McCartney
concert.  The audio was captured from the sound board and mixed in
b-format.  Available for Google Cardboard now, Oculus Rift Mac/PC coming
soon.  http://www.jauntvr.com/content/

Adam Somers
Jaunt, Inc.
http://jauntvr.com

If only I had a big telephone.. Wow, Cardboard, Paul McCartney and 
Ambisonics! LIke it!

___
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] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?

On 19/11/2014 23:08, Paul Doornbusch wrote:

On 20 Nov 2014, at 10:01 AM, dw wrote:

On 19/11/2014 22:49, Paul Doornbusch wrote:

Can you give us some links to this please?

Thanks,
Paul

I'll give you a couple. If you record a sound in front of a dummy head, you
would expect to hear it in front on replay through headphones.
If you tilt your head backwards while listening, you would expect the auditory
image to rotate with the head/ears/torso. Neither happens in all cases.. And
then there is the 'externalization' problem.

Can you point me to a paper please?

I read plenty of papers 20yrs. ago where front/back dIscrimination was
little better than chance. I can't afford to pay for AES papers, for
what one would get out of them..

On 20 Nov 2014, at 9:46 AM, dw wrote:

There are numerous examples where the predictions of HRTF localisation are
falsified by observations. What is one to think of the science?

On 19/11/2014 22:12, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

dw wrote:

On 19/11/2014 20:42, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

Binaural recordings have weaknesses:

- They are definitively coloured by the chosen pinnae forms, head-shape (and maybe
torso-shape). The "kunstkopf" approach means that you will have to chose some <
general > HRTFs filters during recording...

That is just what the Herd Science says..

You can do binaural recordings.

I doubt binaural recording techniques fit well to VR applications, mainly
because of the HT/motion-tracking issues.

The citing above was written within this context, showing an existing further
problems.

Herd Science

There is either science or gossip. Please enlighten me and others about the
true situation and science. (If - and this is a big if - you can do this.)

Your posting seems to be meaningless if not arrogant, BTW.

Stefan Schreiber

___
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 --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20141120/69ec9a54/attachment.asc>
___
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 --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20141120/cb248fdb/attachment.asc>
___
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] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?

On 19/11/2014 22:49, Paul Doornbusch wrote:

Can you give us some links to this please?

Thanks,
Paul

I'll give you a couple. If you record a sound in front of a dummy head,
you would expect to hear it in front on replay through headphones.
If you tilt your head backwards while listening, you would expect the
auditory image to rotate with the head/ears/torso. Neither happens in
all cases.. And then there is the 'externalization' problem.

On 20 Nov 2014, at 9:46 AM, dw wrote:

There are numerous examples where the predictions of HRTF localisation are
falsified by observations. What is one to think of the science?

On 19/11/2014 22:12, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

dw wrote:

On 19/11/2014 20:42, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

Binaural recordings have weaknesses:

That is just what the Herd Science says..

You can do binaural recordings.

I doubt binaural recording techniques fit well to VR applications, mainly
because of the HT/motion-tracking issues.

The citing above was written within this context, showing an existing further
problems.

Herd Science

There is either science or gossip. Please enlighten me and others about the
true situation and science. (If - and this is a big if - you can do this.)

Your posting seems to be meaningless if not arrogant, BTW.

Stefan Schreiber

___
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] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?

There are numerous examples where the predictions of HRTF localisation 
are falsified by observations. What is one to think of the science?



On 19/11/2014 22:12, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

dw wrote:


On 19/11/2014 20:42, Stefan Schreiber wrote:



Binaural recordings have weaknesses:

- They are definitively coloured by the chosen pinnae forms, 
head-shape (and maybe torso-shape). The "kunstkopf" approach means 
that you will have to chose some < general > HRTFs filters during 
recording...



That is just what the Herd Science says..


You can do binaural recordings.

I doubt binaural recording techniques fit well to VR applications, 
mainly because of the HT/motion-tracking issues.


The citing above was written within this context, showing an existing 
further problems.


Herd Science 


There is either science or gossip. Please enlighten me and others 
about the true situation and science. (If - and this is a big if - you 
can do this.)


Your posting seems to be meaningless if not arrogant, BTW.


Stefan Schreiber


___
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] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?


I am thinking of FOA above.

___
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] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?


On 19/11/2014 22:01, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

dw wrote:


On 19/11/2014 20:42, Stefan Schreiber wrote:




The VRSFX system can do 2-dimensional head-tracking. At best!






I have a feeling head-tracked nodding is not going to help the 
combination of Ambisonics and binaural.




Completely wrong perspective, in this context.

VR requires head-tracked (3D) video and audio. Because you are 
simulating a real-world experience.
That would depend on the frame of reference for localisation - head or 
ground. Secondly can anyone actually render a sound object around the 
median plane using a combination of Ambisonics and binaural, or even 
Ambisonics using speakers? I don't know.


___
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] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?


On 19/11/2014 20:42, Stefan Schreiber wrote:


Binaural recordings have weaknesses:

- They are definitively coloured by the chosen pinnae forms, 
head-shape (and maybe torso-shape). The "kunstkopf" approach means 
that you will have to chose some < general > HRTFs filters during 
recording...


That is just what the Herd Science says..

___
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] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?


On 19/11/2014 20:42, Stefan Schreiber wrote:



The VRSFX system can do 2-dimensional head-tracking. At best!

I have a feeling head-tracked nodding is not going to help the 
combination of Ambisonics and binaural.



___
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] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?


On 13/11/2014 03:52, Adam Somers wrote:


Still, I've yet to find a solution for b-to-binaural which is as convincing
as some of the BRIR-based object-sound spatialization packages (e.g. DTS
HeadphoneX and Visisonics Realspace).  I think what's primarily lacking is
externalization, which perhaps can be 'faked' with BRIRs.



  I'm thinking of
a 'virtual listening room' where the b-format recording is played through
BRIRs instead of anechoic HRTFs.  Anyone have experience with that?



I can work fine, it did for me.
I did it this way: 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ta5s993akghhtjq/Ambisonic-AudioMulch.png?dl=0


It worked better for natural B-format recordings than anechoic or 
rendered source.
The IRs were made by feeding the HOLMimpulse sweeps into an Ambisonic 
decoder and HT receiver as W,X and Y, and recording wth a dummy head. 
They were in a square about 1 metre from speaker to ear. The speakers 
needed to be placed to better than 1cm. or the image suffered.


I am afraid all the files have been deleted when there was no interest. 
I only have a direct recording of ambisonic playback of mainly John 
Leonard's http://www.ambisonia.com/   aircraft recordings, from a direct 
recording (not convolved) including extraneous noises, like the HT 
relays clicking, and people moving about..

https://www.dropbox.com/s/feum9ks7pay5ohq/Ambisonic%20binauiral%20aircraft.flac?dl=0

 The Z input was not used, left unwired, or dummy IRs used in these 
cases. I later found an improvement from using Z, even without an 
appropriate playback system. KCS75 recommended for playback, 
particularly if you want to compare with speakers without removing the 
earpieces.

 http://www.amazon.com/Koss-KSC75-Portable-Stereophone-Headphones/dp/B0006B486K
___
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] binaural theatre excerpts

2014-11-12 Thread dw


On 11/11/2014 21:39, Bearcat M. Şándor wrote:

I'm impressed. You put these together very well. Only the first one loaded
completely but i was able to hear samples of all 4 streams. I haven't had
much experience with binaural recordings. To me it sounded everything was
in a band that was tight around my forehead but extended to my shoulders.
The far left effect was on my left shoulder and the far right effect was on
my right shoulder. When something moved across the stage in front of me, it
sounded like it slid along my forehead but was never "out in front".

Is this what most people should experience?

"/I didn't mention binaural sound. Because it has one serious flaw that 
I feel is fatal: It doesn't do frontal imaging. Yes, it reproduces space 
magnificently and gives marvelous imaging of sounds to the sides and all 
the way around the rear quadrant; but most listeners hear front-located 
sources as being inside their heads, not in frontal space. Binaural can 
sound impressively realistic...until you compare it with discrete 
surround." - 
http://www.stereophile.com/content/spacethe-final-frontier-letters-2
It is missing the 'key' , with it, it does not behave as expected. 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nbar9xpgq84vmh4/dog%20bone%20fairport.mp3?dl=0

/
___
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.

2014-10-27 Thread dw

I guess the trade descriptions act does not apply to Auntie! The 
'binaural' Lucy Rose vocals sounded like they were recorded with the big 
mic seen in front of her mouth..


On 27/10/2014 22:17, Steven Dive wrote:

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


On 27 Oct 2014, at 11:28, dw  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.



___
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] Tommies 21st October 1914: A 3D immersive listening experience, designed for headphone listening.

2014-10-27 Thread dw


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.

Re: [Sursound] More web surround and binaural from the BBC

2014-10-26 Thread dw

Great effort, with much potential! The streaming part worked for me, 
except that my computer is too slow to do the room response convolution 
'Binaural 2', The combination of anechoic IRs, and an incongruous 
collection of  reverberant sound effects and dry, mono speech did not 
appeal to me.. Pity they did not provide an option for user IRs, and it 
proved too difficult for me to hack.. Here is a short excerpt I recorded 
with a dummy head from the playback of  'surround pass-through' in my 
living room: 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4hdkqmp70pwx7m6/BBC%20S%20S%20trial%20dummy%20head%20recording%20sample.wav?dl=0




On 20/10/2014 15:48, David Pickett wrote:
The BBC is "recasting" Under Milk Wood in 5.1 and binaural -- 
available for 30 days from 25 October.


Technical and other details here: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2014/10/under-milk-wood-in-headphone-surround-sound


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.




___
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] AmbiExplorer version 2 video

2014-10-11 Thread dw

Is it possible to run this on a PC via an Android emulator. If so, how 
does one go about doing so?


On 11/10/2014 00:29, Hector Centeno wrote:

Hello all,

After some delay, version 2 of AmbiExplorer is finally out and available at
the Google Play store:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.hcenteno.ambiexplorer

As always, please contact me if you find any problems.

Best,

Hector Centeno

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Hector Centeno  wrote:


Hello,

I just would like to share here with the community the new features
COMING SOON in version 2.0 of AmbiExplorer.

A walkthrough video is available here: http://youtu.be/gOsfo8or_0E

Please, feel free to make any comments, suggestions or requests in the
list or to my personal email. I'm planning on making the update
available within the next two weeks but I'm willing to delay it if
there are any requests that I think could be implemented easily.

My interest as a sound artist has been very influenced by the
practices of field recording, soundscape based sound art and acoustic
ecology. This is the reason why part of the new features are library
management and library import/export (online/offline) and geotagging
that would allow others to share location based ambisonic sound art
work or field recordings (the exported .ambxp file is a simple CSV
file with a structure described in the help section of the app). The
other major features are Bluetooth head-tracking, HRTF selection from
the LISTEN database and improved UHJ to binaural decoding. More
details below:

NEW FEATURES

- First run user interface tutorial
- New library system for importing 4 channel, dual stereo or UHJ files
- Select an HRTF for binaural decoding from the full IRCAM LISTEN database
- Connection to an external Bluetooth head-tracker with communication
protocol based on the Razor AHRS project:
https://github.com/ptrbrtz/razor-9dof-ahrs/wiki/Tutorial
- Library item geolocation and Map view
- Library item description/title editable
- Create location placeholders using GPS (good for tracking locations
during field recordings) or by long-pressing on the Map View. The
placeholders can later be assigned to ambisonic files
- Playback using automatic location based triggering that also works
while the app is running in the background (with status bar
notification)
- Import and Export libraries as CSV files with extension .ambxp. The
exported libraries include the geolocation and title data.
- Import libraries from internet sources
- Greatly iImproved UHJ to binaural decoding
- Decode B-Format to stereo UHJ
- Improved internal sensors stability
- Several bug fixes and interface improvements

Version 1 demo video: http://youtu.be/EJc85yACwjk

http://hcenteno.net/software.html

Best,

Hector Centeno


-- 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.

Re: [Sursound] Help: Anyone know how to record elevation information when doing binaural recording?

2014-09-07 Thread dw


At the risk of upsetting just about everyone:-) here is my personal opinion:
The science of binaural is a wonderful example of bending observations 
to fit the theory.
I'm not entirely convinced there are any significant _head-related_ 
elevation cues.
There are front/back cues IMO, but they are largely absent with most 
dummy-heads.
You would be hard pressed to find any direction dependent spectral cues 
at all in my latest dummy-head recordings (that aren't there by accident).
Koss KCS75 probably the cheapest and best for binaural that I have tried 
so far with my recordings, Sennheiser hd25 I II better for bass, or if 
you need isolation, 10x price..

http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/




On 04/09/2014 12:57, 霖の wrote:

Hi there,
As we understand, binaural recording can capture both vertical and horizontal information 
for it using the head to encode the soundscape. And someone also says that he listened an 
very interesting binaural recording that you even can recognise the object is fallen from 
his head to feet. However, when i'm using  CS-10EM Binaural microphone for recording, 
there are elevation information contains in the sound file. And I've checked the sound 
file which someone recorded by using 'dummy head', no elevation information as well. 
Anyone know what is the problem ? And anyone have recorded the "elevation 
information" before and how did you made it? ‍


Thank you very much,
Yilin
-- 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.

Re: [Sursound] Listening to FOA B-Format with head tracking

2014-01-22 Thread dw

It worked BTW. If someone can come up with a suitable ascii knob or midi 
interface.


On 20/01/2014 17:04, dw wrote:

On 20/01/2014 02:30, Stefan Schreiber wrote:


For a real-world application (next stage?), you might have to think 
how to connect a headtracker or headtracker-module to your mobile 
phone and other devices. (Interface question)


http://www.instructables.com/id/Use-your-android-phone-sensors-on-the-arduino-/?ALLSTEPS 



I'll see if I can get it to talk to a PC instead, and get a hat..

___
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] Listening to FOA B-Format with head tracking

2014-01-20 Thread dw


On 20/01/2014 02:30, Stefan Schreiber wrote:


For a real-world application (next stage?), you might have to think 
how to connect a headtracker or headtracker-module to your mobile 
phone and other devices. (Interface question)


http://www.instructables.com/id/Use-your-android-phone-sensors-on-the-arduino-/?ALLSTEPS

I'll see if I can get it to talk to a PC instead, and get a hat..

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

[Sursound] Quasi-flat-binaural-IRs.zip

2014-01-16 Thread dw


https://www.dropbox.com/s/valq6l3hhcsj1kq/Quasi-flat-binaural-IRs.zip
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] 'Quasi-flat' binaural

2014-01-12 Thread dw


On 10/01/2014 20:48, Eric Benjamin wrote:

David,

Intriguing, but I don't know exactly what it is that I'm supposed to be 
hearing!  A little descriptive text would be helpful.

Eric Benjamin



I will add another cryptic clue, for the curious.:-)
ITU-T Recommendation P-58 - HATS simulator for telephononometry (1. Scope)
Specifically excludes (the effect of) "vibration conduction paths such 
as bone conduction"
My device does not comply, in this regard, but uses addition 
microphones, and direction dependent filtering to simulate specific 
aspects of said (non) effect.


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

Re: [Sursound] 'Quasi-flat' binaural

2014-01-11 Thread dw


On 10/01/2014 20:48, Eric Benjamin wrote:

David,

Intriguing, but I don't know exactly what it is that I'm supposed to be 
hearing!  A little descriptive text would be helpful.



Apart from being crypic by nature, I did not want to bias expectations. Too 
late now..
I am using the monitor output of a Roland Quad Capture, which sounds 
significantly better than a laptop output.
I am using Koss KSC75 Clip-on stereo Headphones 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Koss-Clip-On-Stereo-Headphones-Smartphone/dp/B0006B486K/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1389441599&sr=8-2&keywords=koss
They are modified with the intent of absorbing reflections between the 
pinna and phones, and "transient evoked otoacoustic emissions in the ear 
canal" Cochlear Mechanics 
<http://147.162.36.50/cochlea/cochleapages/theory/extmid/extmid.htm>by 
inserting a full diameter pad of 16 sheets of horticultural fleece 
underneath the foam pad. This also has the unintended benefit of damping 
the bass resonance. There are probably, ahem, better cans, but at least 
one can replicate part of my listening method, if not my ears.




Eric Benjamin


________
  From: dw 
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 6:23 AM
Subject: [Sursound] 'Quasi-flat' binaural
  


https://www.dropbox.com/s/iga71wluxfcb4i6/Untitled2.mp3
___
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/20140110/bd7125aa/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] 'Quasi-flat' binaural

2014-01-11 Thread dw

If anyone is interested in trying this, it would be useful to know the 
effect of altering the playback speed on frontal localization. This 
would have the effect of shifting the position of any front/back 
directional bands, Better or worse for +/- 10% speed change would be 
good to know. I could then scale the IRs by resampling. This would have 
the effect of a smaller or larger head/ears, which I could then alter on 
the dummy head.
Audacity for example has a speed change facility (top left, green arrow, 
and slider)

Many thanks to anyone playing!


On 10/01/2014 14:23, dw wrote:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/iga71wluxfcb4i6/Untitled2.mp3
___
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] 'Quasi-flat' binaural

2014-01-10 Thread dw


On 10/01/2014 20:48, Eric Benjamin wrote:

David,

Intriguing, but I don't know exactly what it is that I'm supposed to be 
hearing!  A little descriptive text would be helpful.

Eric Benjamin


Many thanks for listening, Eric.
Please see my reply to Eero.
I can't really say the AES has been barking up the wrong tree, for 
years, unless I get some indication that my recordings sound the same to 
some others as the do to me. However this dummy-head should not work at 
all, for anybody! All that I have learnt so far is that there is a 
steady demand for woodpecker sounds.. regards, David.








____
  From: dw 
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 6:23 AM
Subject: [Sursound] 'Quasi-flat' binaural
  


https://www.dropbox.com/s/iga71wluxfcb4i6/Untitled2.mp3
___
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/20140110/bd7125aa/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] 'Quasi-flat' binaural

2014-01-10 Thread dw


Thanks for listening!
Yes, it is good recording, and uses Q-sound. I tried not to spoil it..
The soundfile link is after it has been convolved with binaural IRs from 
my dummy head and room.
The IRs have gone through my speakers, room, dummy head, inverse 
filtering and final eq. Frequencies 100Hz to DC are crossed over to a 
synthetic IR, to replace the mono and room modes from the sub.
Hopefully there will be very little colouration as it has been finally 
equalised to be flat for independent white noise.
I hear the vocals outside the head and to the front (unlike the original 
stereo) regardless of any normal head movement, and even when lying down 
the image remains horizontal. The side images are quite good on the 
original.
After 100s of hours listening to similar dummy heads it will sound 
better to me than anyone listening for the first time. However they are 
not personalised HRIRs (except by tweaking). unless my near-ear IRs are 
close to**a dirac delta function, for a speaker at 45 degrees.

The head itself has more than two microphones (and ears).
Some more info:
http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2013/03/listen-up-binaural-sound.shtml


On 10/01/2014 21:13, Eero Aro wrote:

Isn't Roger Waters' Amused to Death Q-Sound?

Q-Sound was designed to work with both speakers and headphones.
It is not binaural as such. With speakers the stereo stage is very
wide.

However, the album has some very effecive spatial moments.

Eero
___
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] 'Quasi-flat' binaural

2014-01-10 Thread dw


https://www.dropbox.com/s/iga71wluxfcb4i6/Untitled2.mp3
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Beyond MP3: New push for high-resolution music so clear you can hear a pin drop

2014-01-09 Thread dw



http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

On 09/01/2014 17:57, Andrew Castiglione wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/01/09/beyond-mp3-new-push-for-high-resoluti
on-music/?intcmp=features

A 3.5 minute song can be 120MB or more, rather than 3 to 4 in a typical MP3.
24/48 and beyond. ;^)

To spread the word, the Consumer Electronics Association has jumped
headfirst into high-def; on Tuesday it launched the website

http://www.hiresaudiocentral.com/

And like a longtime McDonald's eater who finally tastes foie gras, ears may
be permanently changed.

  


Cheers!!!

  

  


Andrew Castiglione

  


Think awesome, build awesome and be awesome.

  

  


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

___
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] Binaural Experiment

2014-01-08 Thread dw


On 08/01/2014 17:29, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 05:19:53PM +, dw wrote:


I have a problem with band-filtered noise. I don't think it tell you
anything very useful, as the results are only applicable to
band-filtered noise, and often anechoic HRTFS are used too, this
means it has zero relevance in everyday situations. Science! What
can you do with it!

Band-filtered noise can reveal how performance depends on requency
range.

In this test there is a serious problem: all the filtered noise
examples have wideband transients at the start and end. This could
completely invalidate the results. For example it could very well
be that the transients can be located well but the noise itself
not. To avoid that they'd need a short fade-in/out instead of being
switched on and off.
Agreed. I was not sure whether the glitches were my end, due streaming 
or something.


Apart from that, I found all three systems sounded rather horrible.
Agreed.  There was a lot of colouration, and audible reverb without much 
distance, on some, Also you can't really determine direction when sounds 
are close to the head.


Ciao,



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

Re: [Sursound] Binaural Experiment

2014-01-08 Thread dw

I had a similar problem with the BBC's efforts: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio3/2011/12/the-festival-of-nine-lessons-and-carols-in-surround-sound.shtml


In that case I could not dowload them and switch quickly between 
versions. All that I could usefully say is that they all sounded bad, 
and I could not determine which was worst! A bit like voting in an 
election..


I have a problem with band-filtered noise. I don't think it tell you 
anything very useful, as the results are only applicable to 
band-filtered noise, and often anechoic HRTFS are used too, this means 
it has zero relevance in everyday situations. Science! What can you do 
with it!


I liked your voice, music and recording, although I am not a great Cash fan!



On 08/01/2014 16:45, Paul Dirks wrote:

Hey David

Thanks for your time. The survey loads some files very slow this is 
why the were not present.

Not sure if Longcat is going to win, Harpex seems to do is the best
When i listend i thought New Audio was the best.
It's idd unpleasant next time i will take some other samples.

and thanks for the file.

gr Paul




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

Re: [Sursound] Binaural Experiment

2014-01-08 Thread dw

I had a look, but I have a few problems..
I don't seem able to play 1a.
The test is not blind as the curious, like me, can see the file names in
the source.

The Longcat eg.1b is the clear winner.
I cannot force myself to listen to that much filtered noise - it seems
pointless and unpleasant!

I have converted one of your files from Soundcloud to binaural (2x2
convolution with my Dummy head IRs):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k1iyum6zosl6o70/Paul%20Dirks%20-%20Johnny%27s%20Sky%20binaural.mp3

Regards,
David.

On 07/01/2014 14:08, Paul Dirks wrote:

Dear All

I see the most interesting things passing by in this mailing list.
This made me decided to do my thesis about binaural localization.
I have made two experiments to test three different binaural panners
and the accuracy of the localization.

1. New Audio Technology, Spatial Audio Designer
2. Longcat, H3D Binauralizer
3. Encoder: Daniel Courville, Solo2b2
Decoder: Harpex Ltd, Harpex-b

It would really help me if some of you would have 15min for this
experiment for the links below.
In the first one i ask the rate in the localization is good/bad in the
second one i aks the fill in

were the sound is percieved.

http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/1489998/Binaural-Localization-Experiment-1
(10 min)
http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/1488686/Binaural-Localization-Experiment-2
(15 min)

All thanks for your time and you will see hear more from me in the
mailing list

Because we all same a nice and interesting subject.

With Kind Regards, Paul Dirks

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

Re: [Sursound] Motion-Tracked Binaural

2013-12-30 Thread dw


On 28/12/2013 23:25, Aaron Heller wrote:

Dick Duda and Ralph Algazi gave a talk and demo at a San Francisco AES
meeting at Dolby Labs a few years ago.  At that time, they were recording
with a head-sized sphere with either 8 or 16 microphones around the
equator.  They imagined that 8 would be used for teleconferencing and 16
for music recording.

The headphones used a Polhemus tracker to determine orientation.  At low
frequencies, multiple mics were processed to produce the ear signals and at
high-frequencies (where spatial aliasing on the sphere becomes a
consideration) they simply selected the closest microphone to the each ear
location.  Then generic pinna filtering was applied to improve front-back
discrimination.  The immediate impression is the externalization and
solidity of the image.

There is some more recent material here:

http://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/binaural/

Despite the pedigree, it is not the sexiest ewe in the flock, although 
it will turn a few heads..


The _binaural_ demos there don't work at all well for my ears, so I can 
see why they might want to try MTB.


Dick was very helpful to me, more than a decade ago.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Motion-Tracked Binaural

2013-12-28 Thread dw


http://www.google.com/patents/US20040076301

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

Re: [Sursound] Motion-Tracked Binaural

2013-12-22 Thread dw


On 22/12/2013 22:24, Marc Lavallée wrote:

Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:17:27 -0500,
Len Moskowitz  a écrit :


The capture array of microphones pictured in their Rondo video seems
rudimentary. They're soliciting developers.

More links:
http://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/binaural/motion_tracked_binaural_sound.html
http://dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.lasso?id=7886
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100070

Interesting, but why 16 channels from 8 binaural pairs placed
horizontally on a sphere or cylinder (without pinnas), instead of a 4
channels B-format stream from a FOA microphone?


Don't know, but the geometry is about right to place any artifacts due 
to two adjacent microphones that are  tangential to the sound direction 
in an interesting place ( not unlike a a pinna response). Same plan I 
had for my original XTC filter... Dick is capable of such deviousness IMO!




--
Marc
___
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] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related


On 21/12/2013 16:24, Marc Lavallée wrote:
My comprehension of Ambisonics is that the listener's head (in the 
"sweetest spot") is exposed to one coherent approximation of a 
reproduced (or synthesized) sound field, not to a set of directional 
waves coming from the speakers (one directional wave per speaker). 
Understanding Ambisonics is already difficult, and I'm less 
comfortable with this concept based on the "superposition of natural 
HRTFs". -- Marc ___ 
Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu 
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound 


If you LP filter HRIRs sufficiently low, then small delays represent 
small phase changes and you no longer get lumps and bumps in the 
frequency response when you sum the IRs. 'Interpolation' between the 
HRTFs which vary in amplitude (and polarity), with source position, can 
result in the desired ITD, for example.
I think BLaH went through this exercise. It does not mean you don't get 
some 'lumps and bumps' in the direct arrival higher up in frequency. 
With sufficient listening room refections adding incoherently the 
overall frequency response may be ok, although I am quite keen myself on 
the relative response between the two (direct/reflected)


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

Re: [Sursound] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related

On 21/12/2013 13:28, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

dw wrote:

On 21/12/2013 10:58, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

dw wrote:

On 12/12/2013 12:40, Marc Lavallée wrote:

Hi Étienne.

etienne deleflie a écrit :

... and then ambisonics is suddenly available to
masses of people, for very cheap, and with a consistent and quality
spatial experience (assuming the HRTF decoding can be done right).

Etienne

HRTF decoding is the problem here. Finding a proper HRTF profile by
trying many (over of hundred) is not a solution; realistic binaural
reproduction works only when I listen to my own binaural recordings.
So, to enjoy "mass produced" ambisonics, I'd need personalized HRTF
measurements, a service that is not cheap and non-existent for a
majority of "HRTF challenged" people; for us, decoding ambisonics
over

4 speakers is a better option,

It is undeniable that listening to FOA over a bunch of speakers
will mess up your 'personallised (actual) HRTFs' considerably..

???

Frankly, this is a messed up statement. You need HRTFs if listening
via headphones.

When listening over speakers "decoding ambisonics over 4 speakers is
a better option, ", you are listening via the the superposition of
several of your natural HRTFs with varying amplitudes and delays. In
the time domain this is not equivalent your HRIR for any real source.
Interpolation between these several speaker-head IRs will occur at
the sweet spot to give more or less correct ILD and ITD values, but
outside of the sweet spot, and at high frequencies, the resulting IR
is alien.

Or you are just listening to the "model" of a (natural, complete,
ideal) soundfield, even if this soundfield is reduced? , despite

There is NO RECONSRUCTION of the original soundfield, despite the
microphone by that name, and hype, if you understand 'field' to mean a
volume or plane.
At best it reconstructs the sound at a point, (in terms of dimensions in
terms of wavelength) and CREATES a new soundfield, which may be plausable.

you are listening via the the superpositioBun of several of your
natural HRTFs with varying amplitudes and delays.

Does this also happen if you/I attend a concert? I had to ask this
one, for further clarification.

Not normally, but I suppose it could if you were surounded by singers
who were in-phase and in tune. (see Griesinger)
http://www.davidgriesinger.com/Acous...b_sound_3.pptx
<http://www.davidgriesinger.com/Acoustics_Today/Pitch,%20Timbre,%20Source%20Separation_talk_web_sound_3.pptx>

Note that I did not say that it 'mattered' if you listen via an 'alien'
HRTF, but it might. You just don't get your 'own' whether by listening
to a real speaker, or through DSP convolution. At least you can stay in
the sweet spot using headphones, and you get a chance to 'learn' it
before it all changes again!

On 21/12/2013 10:58, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

Just for clarification. (Nobody corrected this.)

The Ambisonic scientologists don't want to play?

"In 1901, Allen Upward <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Upward>
coined /Scientology/ "as a disparaging term, to indicate a blind,
unthinking acceptance of scientific doctrine"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

Naaah. I am just a musician, and I always like to question theories,
including your's - because you have presented a technical/scientific
theory, or at least some interpretation of what happens if FOA is
decoded via 4 loudspeakers! The latter ain't be perfect, but this is
certainly not related to binaural representation. (But I am aware that
we are listening with two ears, at least in the normal case! )

I would never accuse _you_ of not wanting to play, or having a strange
religion, or having undue respect for The Science..

And: I don't adhere to any "Scientologist" community or network...;-)

The < undeniable > tag doesn't help a lot, BTW.

Thanks for that.

De nada! (I just wanted to express my "belief" that most to all
theories are not undeniable. Further reading: Wittgenstein, "Über
Gewissheit". And Karl Popper basically says that theories can be
easily falsified, whereas the < verification > is a more complex
issue. Of course, scientologist philosophers won't prove my
argument...O:-) )

It is pretty undeniable that each driven (working..) speaker in an
Ambisonic array will make a sound which will arrive at each ear... and
is simply summed in the time domain, or must be summed as
vectors/phasors (taking into account phase/delay, as well as amplitude)
in the frequency domain. I would not call this 'theories' and certainly
not mine..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

Best,

Stefan

Just for clarification. (Nobody corrected this.)

The < undenia

Re: [Sursound] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related


On 21/12/2013 10:58, Stefan Schreiber wrote:


Just for clarification. (Nobody corrected this.)

The Ambisonic scientologists don't want to play?

"In 1901, Allen Upward  
coined /Scientology/ "as a disparaging term, to indicate a blind, 
unthinking acceptance of scientific doctrine"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology


The < undeniable > tag doesn't help a lot, BTW.

Thanks for that.

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

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

Re: [Sursound] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related


On 21/12/2013 10:58, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

dw wrote:


On 12/12/2013 12:40, Marc Lavallée wrote:


Hi Étienne.

etienne deleflie  a écrit :


... and then ambisonics is suddenly available to
masses of people, for very cheap, and with a consistent and quality
spatial experience (assuming the HRTF decoding can be done right).

Etienne


HRTF decoding is the problem here. Finding a proper HRTF profile by
trying many (over of hundred) is not a solution; realistic binaural
reproduction works only when I listen to my own binaural recordings.
So, to enjoy "mass produced" ambisonics, I'd need personalized HRTF
measurements, a service that is not cheap and non-existent for a
majority of "HRTF challenged" people; for us, decoding ambisonics over
4 speakers is a better option,



It is undeniable  that listening to FOA over a bunch of speakers will 
mess up your 'personallised (actual) HRTFs'  considerably..



???

Frankly, this is a messed up statement. You need HRTFs if listening 
via headphones.
When listening over speakers "decoding ambisonics over 4 speakers is a 
better option, ", you are listening via the the superposition of several 
of your natural HRTFs with varying amplitudes and delays. In the time 
domain this is not equivalent your HRIR for any real source. 
Interpolation between these several speaker-head IRs will occur at the 
sweet spot to give more or less correct ILD and ITD values, but outside 
of the sweet spot, and at high frequencies, the resulting IR is alien.




Just for clarification. (Nobody corrected this.)

The < undeniable > tag doesn't help a lot, BTW.

Superposition  of IRs is a fact of life.


Best,

Stefan Schreiber
___
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] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related


On 21/12/2013 03:40, David Worrall wrote:

I remember reading that, with exposure, human's audio-processing "hardware" can 
adapt to/learn how to use a non-optimal HRTF, given a bit of time.
Does anyone have a reference for this?


http://128.102.119.100/publications/wenzel_1993_Localization_Head_Related.pdf



David
On 15/12/2013, at 5:57 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:


Hi Dave.

I never tried head tracking while listening to stereo or Ambisonics (I'm
not that much of an "insider"). I'm optimistic about it, even with
virtual microphones; but I suspect that the contribution of head
tracking would then be limited to the interpretation of level
differences and transitions between the left and right.

What I miss is a realistic HRTF rendering experience (without head
tracking). For every HRTF I tried (from the KEMAR and LISTEN sets), as
with stereo, front sources were always "in the head", not at the front;
the front test tone was just louder then the rear one.

I don't know what are the right conditions to experience good HRTF based
localization (in a acousmatic context, without visual cues). I don't
know if using a personal (measured) HRTF would be better; I just assume
that it would be better because my own binaural recordings sound quite
right, but probably just for me (to be verified)  because I experienced
the real sound scenes while recording them.

--
Marc

Sun, 15 Dec 2013 13:50:09 +,
Dave Malham  a écrit :


Hi Marc,
I think it is, perhaps, a little pessimistic to talk of needing to
assess dozens of hrtf's to find the one that's right for for you, if
you have head tracking in use. My experience with this dates back 20
years to the days of the Lake DSP Huron systems when I first heard
this - even without specific hrtfs switching the the head tracking on
was enough to change the system from not working (for me) to working.
The head tracking (done with a Polyhemus sensor controlling the
processing of FOA B format signals prior to decoding) was enough with
no need to select hrtf's. I would suspect that having just a few to
select from would be enough.

Dave

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

__
Prof. Dr. David Worrall
Emerging Audio Research (EAR)
Audio Department
International Audio Laboratories Erlangen
Fraunhofer-Institut für Integrierte Schaltungen IIS
Am Wolfsmantel 33
91058 Erlangen
Telefon  +49 (0) 91 31 / 7 76-62 77
Fax  +49 (0) 91 31 / 7 76-20 99
E-Mail: david.worr...@iis.fraunhofer.de
Internet: www.iis.fraunhofer.de

Senior Adjunct Research Fellow,
Australian National University.
david.worr...@anu.edu.au






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

___
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] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related

2013-12-12 Thread dw


On 12/12/2013 23:10, Peter Lennox wrote:

beg to differ... (paper to follow...)
Dr Peter Lennox


I was wondering where my taxes went..


School of Technology,
Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology
University of Derby, UK
e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk
t: 01332 593155

From: Sursound [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of dw 
[d...@dwareing.plus.com]
Sent: 12 December 2013 23:02
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related

On 12/12/2013 12:44, umashankar manthravadi wrote:

two years ago, I acquired a motor cycle helmet with the intention of mounting 
eight headphones to listen to ambisonics without hrtf. i was going to use it 
with a 20 dollar dolby 7.1 usb device.

It was not one of your better plans.. :-)








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

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

Unsubscribe and Security information contact:   info...@derby.ac.uk
For all FOI requests please contact:   f...@derby.ac.uk
All other Contacts are at http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound



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

Re: [Sursound] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related

2013-12-12 Thread dw


On 12/12/2013 12:44, umashankar manthravadi wrote:

two years ago, I acquired a motor cycle helmet with the intention of mounting 
eight headphones to listen to ambisonics without hrtf. i was going to use it 
with a 20 dollar dolby 7.1 usb device.


It was not one of your better plans.. :-)








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

Re: [Sursound] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related

2013-12-12 Thread dw


On 12/12/2013 12:40, Marc Lavallée wrote:

Hi Étienne.

etienne deleflie  a écrit :

... and then ambisonics is suddenly available to
masses of people, for very cheap, and with a consistent and quality
spatial experience (assuming the HRTF decoding can be done right).

Etienne

HRTF decoding is the problem here. Finding a proper HRTF profile by
trying many (over of hundred) is not a solution; realistic binaural
reproduction works only when I listen to my own binaural recordings.
So, to enjoy "mass produced" ambisonics, I'd need personalized HRTF
measurements, a service that is not cheap and non-existent for a
majority of "HRTF challenged" people; for us, decoding ambisonics over
4 speakers is a better option,


It is undeniable  that listening to FOA over a bunch of speakers will 
mess up your 'personallised (actual) HRTFs'  considerably..
It is debatable whether putting mics in your own ears yields anything 
very useful.
Arguing that HRTFs are like fingerprints misses the fact that the 
detailed individual patterns of fingerprints have no known function 
(apart from forensics) You just have to have 'some', for antislip or 
touch reasons. The analogy might turn out well, after all.




  and streaming ambisonics from a phone
with blutooth to a classic decoder would work. With ambisonics, there's
many solutions.

--
Marc
___
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] VR and cheap headtracking in 2013...

2013-12-03 Thread dw


On 02/12/2013 21:08, Andy Furniss wrote:


Interesting and cheap - not so sure about the magnetometer near speakers.


Less of a problem than eating the baked beans that were stowed next to 
the fluxgate compass sensor, coming down the North Channel one night, 
one would think.


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

Re: [Sursound] VR and cheap headtracking in 2013...

2013-12-03 Thread dw


On 02/12/2013 20:33, Julian Rabius wrote:


Of course, personal HRIRs are to be prefered, but up to now I use these:
https://dev.qu.tu-berlin.de/projects/measurements/wiki/Impulse_Response_Measurements


I came across these KU100 data:
http://www.audiogroup.web.fh-koeln.de/ku100hrir.html
although I have not used them, and there are none I fancy..


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

Re: [Sursound] Hector bird recording - SoundCloud

2013-11-24 Thread dw


That seems to have fixed it. Nobody expects the strange knob position!
Not as big and wet as John's, but very clean and in front,.. she said.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iga71wluxfcb4i6/Untitled2.mp3
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4elj3wj9wzd9rr2/Untitled.mp3


On 24/11/2013 00:08, Hector Centeno wrote:

Hello!

Yes, I gave those recordings to Umashankar before I got the microphone
calibrated. I just uploaded a B-format version converted using
Tetraproc and the preset file that Fons made for me after I gave him
my IR measurements. It's not exactly the same fragment but comes from
the same group of recordings. Those birds make indeed very strange
sounds, they are called Urracas in Mexico, were the recording was
done. This is obviously not a pure nature recording since it was done
in the backyard of a house in the city. I placed the mic right under
the tree where the birds were perching.

http://www.hcenteno.net/extras/Urracas_WXYZ.wav.zip

I'll try to get the music recording processed too by tomorrow.

Cheers!

Hector



On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Eric Benjamin  wrote:

Is the W level correct? I am finding myself turning up my W knob 3-6dB

I'm tempted to agree.  Of course it's difficult to be certain.


____
  From: dw 
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 6:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Hector bird recording - SoundCloud


On 21/11/2013 19:08, Aaron Heller wrote:

I took the liberty of merging them into 4-channel files and putting them on
my server, which might be easier to access than the skydive (the UI was in
Japanese for me, fortunately I recognized the character for 'down')

http://ambisonics.dreamhosters.com/01-Birds_WXYZ-110425_0119.wav
http://ambisonics.dreamhosters.com/05-Music_WXYZ-110425_0127.wav

They sound quite nice.  In Harpex, you can clearly see the locations of the
singers, percussion, and birds.  Impressive!

Thanks...

Aaron (hel...@ai.sri.com)
Menlo Park, CA  US


Is the W level correct? I am finding myself turning up my W knob 3-6dB
relative to other recordings before it sounds good..
___
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/20131122/fb208b96/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



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

Re: [Sursound] Hector bird recording - SoundCloud

2013-11-22 Thread dw


Perhaps witchcraft needs some  strange settings.
For headhones - https://www.dropbox.com/s/iga71wluxfcb4i6/Untitled2.mp3


On 22/11/2013 14:21, dw wrote:

On 21/11/2013 19:08, Aaron Heller wrote:
I took the liberty of merging them into 4-channel files and putting 
them on
my server, which might be easier to access than the skydive (the UI 
was in

Japanese for me, fortunately I recognized the character for 'down')

http://ambisonics.dreamhosters.com/01-Birds_WXYZ-110425_0119.wav
http://ambisonics.dreamhosters.com/05-Music_WXYZ-110425_0127.wav

They sound quite nice.  In Harpex, you can clearly see the locations 
of the

singers, percussion, and birds.  Impressive!

Thanks...

Aaron (hel...@ai.sri.com)
Menlo Park, CA  US

Is the W level correct? I am finding myself turning up my W knob 3-6dB 
relative to other recordings before it sounds good..

___
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] Hector bird recording - SoundCloud

2013-11-22 Thread dw


On 21/11/2013 19:08, Aaron Heller wrote:

I took the liberty of merging them into 4-channel files and putting them on
my server, which might be easier to access than the skydive (the UI was in
Japanese for me, fortunately I recognized the character for 'down')

   http://ambisonics.dreamhosters.com/01-Birds_WXYZ-110425_0119.wav
   http://ambisonics.dreamhosters.com/05-Music_WXYZ-110425_0127.wav

They sound quite nice.  In Harpex, you can clearly see the locations of the
singers, percussion, and birds.  Impressive!

Thanks...

Aaron (hel...@ai.sri.com)
Menlo Park, CA  US

Is the W level correct? I am finding myself turning up my W knob 3-6dB 
relative to other recordings before it sounds good..

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

Re: [Sursound] B-Format test signals 5.1

On 11/11/2013 22:25, dw wrote:

On 11/11/2013 15:39, Andy Furniss wrote:

dw wrote:

There of plenty of reasons why Ambisonics and binaural should not
work well, but it can sound ok to me on My £11 cans..

Interesting can you expand a bit?

Here are some links:

Try again...

http://www.gbcasa.org/cms/audio/Griesinger-Binaural-Hearing-EarCanals-Headphones.ppt

J.A. :"Hrvoje Hrvokic ("Binaural Heard From," June '94, p.23) wondered
why I didn't mention binaural sound. Because it has one serious flaw
that I feel is fatal: It doesn't do frontal imaging. Yes, it reproduces
space magnificently and gives marvelous imaging of sounds to the sides
and all the way around the rear quadrant; but most listeners hear
front-located sources as being inside their heads, not in frontal space.
Binaural can sound impressively realistic...until you compare it with
discrete surround."
http://www.stereophile.com/content/spacethe-final-frontier-letters-2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2013/03/listen-up-binaural-sound.shtml

J.J. :" *Binaural* does not work, btw, because it does not provide
additional cues when you move your head. That's its big failure, that
and the fact that it imposes somebody else's HRTF's on you.
"http://tinyurl.com/ojbtxgy

Linkwitz:
"Binaural sound reproduction can be tonally and spatially very realistic
except for localization in the frontal hemisphere. There it suffers from
in-head localization. The soundstage is usually not perceived as being
outside and in front of the head. I have been told that out-of-head
localization can be learned, but have not spent enough time to find out
if that also works for me. The in-head soundstage follows any head
movement rather than being stationary. This provides a completely
unnatural cue to the brain. It can be avoided by tracking the movement
of the head and adjusting each ear signal according to the head's
position relative to the soundstage. Video game consoles sometimes use
this technique and in combination with a visual image they can give a
realistic spatial rendering."
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/Stereo-recording.htm

BBC:
"But often the quality of binaural recordings is not yet good enough. It
is very difficult to create the impression of sounds coming from in
front of your head, partly because of conflicting visual information and
partly because of a mismatch between the shape of the dummy head and the
shape of your own, which means that the auditory cues are not perfect.
This mismatch of cues also affects the tonal quality of binaural
recordings."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2013/03/listen-up-binaural-sound.shtml

http://www.davidgriesinger.com/Acoustics_Today/Pitch,%20Timbre,%20Source%20Separation_talk_web_sound_3.pptx

http://homepages.nyu.edu/%7Ear137/Publications/AES131_HRTFformat_final.pdf

Now combine these with the fact that each ear gets the superposition
of the HRIRs from each speaker position, convolved with the headphone
response. The result is not going be the HRIR of a real sound at the
source position, except for in the low frequency region.

___
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/2013/8411a859/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] B-Format test signals 5.1


On 11/11/2013 15:39, Andy Furniss wrote:

dw wrote:


There of plenty of reasons why Ambisonics and binaural should not
work well, but it can sound ok to me on My £11 cans..


Interesting can you expand a bit?


Here are some links:
http://www.gbcasa.org/cms/audio/Griesinger-Binaural-Hearing-EarCanals-Headphones.ppt
http://www.stereophile.com/content/spacethe-final-frontier-letters-2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2013/03/listen-up-binaural-sound.shtml
http://tinyurl.com/ojbtxgy
http://www.davidgriesinger.com/Acoustics_Today/Pitch,%20Timbre,%20Source%20Separation_talk_web_sound_3.pptx
http://homepages.nyu.edu/%7Ear137/Publications/AES131_HRTFformat_final.pdf

Now combine these with the fact that each ear gets the superposition of 
the HRIRs from each speaker position, convolved with the headphone 
response. The result is not going be the HRIR of a real sound at the 
source position, except for in the low frequency region.




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

[Sursound] Fwd: Re: B-Format test signals 5.1





 Original Message 
From:   - Mon Nov 11 18:55:53 2013
X-Mozilla-Status:   0001
X-Mozilla-Status2:  0080
X-Mozilla-Keys: 
Message-ID: <52812836.1070...@dwareing.plus.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:55:50 +
From:   dw 
User-Agent: 	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 
Thunderbird/24.1.0

MIME-Version:   1.0
To: Andy Furniss 
Subject:Re: [Sursound] B-Format test signals 5.1
References: 	<5278d54a.8090...@brideswell.com> 
<8d0a84df4f291e0-a10-5...@webmail-vfrr22.sis.aol.com> 
 
<527fba2f.3090...@dlc.fi> <527ff3f2.9080...@gmail.com> 
<527ff837.9090...@dlc.fi> <528013ab.3060...@gmail.com> 
 
 
<5280d223.2050...@dlc.fi> <5280d562.6070...@dwareing.plus.com> 
<5280fa21.3070...@gmail.com>

In-Reply-To:<5280fa21.3070...@gmail.com>
Content-Type:   text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  8bit



On 11/11/2013 15:39, Andy Furniss wrote:

dw wrote:


There of plenty of reasons why Ambisonics and binaural should not
work well, but it can sound ok to me on My £11 cans..


Interesting can you expand a bit?


Perhaps later...
As far as I know it only works well for me, and these:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Koss-Clip-On-Stereo-Headphones-Smartphone/dp/B0006B486K




https://www.dropbox.com/s/4elj3wj9wzd9rr2/Untitled.mp3


May I ask how you made that and which hrtf?


I made it like this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ta5s993akghhtjq/Ambisonic-AudioMulch.png

Where the impulse responses are binaural room IRs of my DIY dummy head,
in my living room, with W, X, and Y as inputs to to a square of speakers
using WigWare(sp?) as the decoder.
http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/




-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2013/294bfc4d/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] B-Format test signals 5.1


On 11/11/2013 14:34, Eero Aro wrote:

David Wareing wrote:

Can't any of you guys actually play it!


Actually I find that a little bit amusing. :-)
Sorry.



The pleasure is alll mine!


But there really is something wrong with my files.
I think I need to delete all of the files from Dropbox.

First: A file player in Audiomulch doesn't open or play my files,
before I change the extension to .wav_ex

Second, as you say, the "LF" file appears to localize at RF.

I don't know why that is so. I made the files in a very simple way:
I connected a mono file player to the B-Pan plugin, which is
recorded by a File Recorder inside AudioMulch. That's all.
All phases and levels seem to be right.

There is a simple solution; just rename the files. :-)


Except that  the rest seem ok and you don't have a LF file...
Your files open in my version of Audiomulch as they are.,,



Eero

___
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] B-Format test signals 5.1


On 11/11/2013 12:48, Eero Aro wrote:

Dave Malham:
Oh - I see, the naming of the files implies LF and simultaneously 
that it

is 330 degrees...which is it, Eero?





The Harpex display shows it (LF 330) at RF 30 deg.. Can't any of you 
guys actually play it!
There of plenty of reasons why Ambisonics and binaural should not work 
well, but it can sound ok to me on My £11 cans..

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4elj3wj9wzd9rr2/Untitled.mp3





Funnily though, Dave. I made it with your B-Pan plugin.

The Azimuth control of the plugin at 330 degrees points to Left Front.

Eero
___
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] Re Storm - dropbox

2013-11-05 Thread dw

This is in my dropbox for a short time, for those without a freesound 
account.

The built-in player there is low bitrate.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gs67gis7br3f5fm/blustery%20showers.mp3
Really good with the right cans!
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

[Sursound] Storm!

2013-11-05 Thread dw


http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/sounds/204958/
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

[Sursound] Need a pee?...

2013-10-30 Thread dw


.. or like wind and rain?
I hope these help:
http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/sounds/204338/
http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/sounds/204325/
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Volume question WRT 7.1 sound recorded at listening position.

2013-09-22 Thread dw


On 22/09/2013 12:51, Andy Furniss wrote:

Hi

I do not have a 7.1 sound system so can't actually test this, also as 
may become apparent I don't know much about sound :-)


I would be grateful if someone could correct/confirm the following.

If I were to mix down a digital 7ch to mono I have to reduce by 1/7 
amplitude to prevent clipping, so one channel will be -16.9dBfs.
This assumes that all 7 channels are driven with the same maximum level, 
in phase, and that this would get past the mastering stage,,

I'm sure they bear in mind the possibility of stereo, or mono mixdown.


If I play the track over one speaker the volume difference between one 
and all channels will be 16.9dB.


If I were to measure the volume at listening position (assuming 
anechoic and equal speaker distance) with a real 7 speaker setup then 
the volume difference, because the speakers are not close, would add 
up using power not amplitude so the difference heard/measured between 
1 and 7 at full power would only be 8.45dB, so there is quite a large 
dynamic range discrepency?


You would add powers if the 7 channels had random relative phase (which 
is less likely with "anechoic and equal speaker distance"




The real reason for this question is more to do with simulation than 
real life, so perhaps that will make a difference - if the speakers 
are infinitely far producing planewaves and a soundfield is at 
listening position would that change anything for what levels the 
virtual omni would "hear".


TIA

Andy.


___
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] Stereo - binaural

2013-09-19 Thread dw

Oh well, forget me trying Ambisionics-binaural periphony then.. Not 
worth the effort.
I'll leave you with some stereo I inadvertently recorded from the telly, 
before I delete it.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o07pwtokung2h8i/Stones%20at%20Glastonbury%20tv%20stereo%20to%20binaral%20%20.mp3


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

Re: [Sursound] ambi playback configution and calibration

2013-09-19 Thread dw


On 19/09/2013 20:50, David Worrall wrote:


(*) Is there a way of searching across 
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/?

You don't even need to subscribe to the list to search it..

http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.audio.sursound
http://www.mail-archive.com/sursound@music.vt.edu/maillist.html


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

[Sursound] Ambisonic-binaural

2013-09-09 Thread dw

There does not seem to be much of this around on Ambisonia/Soundofspace, 
so I thought I would do one, for a handy demo on mobiles etc.


http://soundofspace.com/ambisonic_files/63 (JHROY), converted with 
wvunpack.exe, convolved using ConvolverVST in Audiomulch, with IRs made 
using WigWare, Virtual Cable, HolmImpulse, Quad Capture, diy dummy head 
(6 mics version), Kef KHT3005SE, living room. No EQ anywhere.


Sennheiser HD 219 headphones recommended, for those with less money than 
sense.


MP3 80Mb. (quite long..)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b2blnf0mt4vf2dg/jhroy_fun-fair-ambisonic-binaural.mp3

-DW http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/sounds/189818/


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

Re: [Sursound] Making a standalone 8ch PLayer

2013-05-23 Thread dw


On 23/05/2013 17:17, Simon Edmonds wrote:

Ooops - I'll try that again

Raspberry Pi has HDMI

HDMI supports 8 channels of HD digital audio


I wasted a lot of time trying. I think the RPi only supports two 
channels on HDMI, or did six months ago.

Jackd also seemed to be broken, although some sort of  fix emerged.
BruteFIR worked though :-)





then a breakout box to take the 8 channels of audio to analogue?

Simon Edmonds

Logic Workshop Limited | Strategic, Technical & Creative Marketing Services


Ty Llwyd House | Nantyderry | Abergavenny | Monmouthshire | NP7 9DG | UK


M: +44 (0)7740 194680





___
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] The commercial future of Ambisonics

2013-05-18 Thread dw


O
If we find some convincing ways to reproduce surround via headphones, 
a market could easily be developped. Other people might want to listen 
to (future) surround recordings via 6, "many" or zillions (WFS) 
loudspeakers at home. This never will be a mass market, but if 
(configuration independent) surround recordings can be done and 
distributed via defined formats, people could chose how they would 
listen to these recordings.


On current headphones, neither stereo nor 5.1 sound really convincing. 
Therefore, the headphone companies and - some day - maybe even Apple 
etc. should look for ways to defeat the in-head and listening-fatigue 
effects on current devices. It is actually stunning that so few 
companies have tried to improve the listening experience on 
headphones. (Smyth Research, Beyer, some VR equipment, and who else?)


Head-tracking is currently getting really cheap, and could easily be 
included into such products. (This is not what I or somebody else < 
believe >, it is a fact.)




One reason for binaural in-head localization can be 'faking it' with 
multi-miking.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh4u4IKiXHU

I knew the Tardis was not real, but still...



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

Re: [Sursound] The commercial future of Ambisonics

2013-05-18 Thread dw


On 18/05/2013 02:17, Stefan Schreiber wrote:



On current headphones, neither stereo nor 5.1 sound really convincing. 
Therefore, the headphone companies and - some day - maybe even Apple 
etc. should look for ways to defeat the in-head and listening-fatigue 
effects on current devices. It is actually stunning that so few 
companies have tried to improve the listening experience on 
headphones. (Smyth Research, Beyer, some VR equipment, and who else?)


Stereo works just fine for me via my dummy head and £30 hd219 phones. 
Better than listening direct with my own ears (reduced crosstalk).
Ambisoncs looks very promising too, although the setup is very critical. 
There is limited source material, and none that I have found without 
'precious' copyright restrictions, so it cannot be demonstrated..  A 
Raspberry Pi does (stereo) 2X2 convolution from file to soundcard in 
realtime.

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

[Sursound] Binaural

2013-05-16 Thread dw


Hi all,
Just popped in to do some spamming..
I hope there are still some here with a passing interest in binaural.
I have made a new type of dummy head, and am looking for some feedback 
on whether it works for anyone other than myself.

The samples are here:
http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/
All files are 'public domain' CC0
David.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

This one is vaguely in-head rather than down, and also well-out-of head. 
I am doing these with the my public domain 'stereo' filter, which is not 
ideal for this. I have deleted my stuff as I am turning my back on audio 
for another decade after I tidy up some loose ends.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20268768/sg.wav
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound


On 10/07/2011 19:36, Marc Lavallée wrote:

dw  a écrit :


On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote:


If you can't reproduce full horizontal 360º surround via two front
speakers, then the "binaural via two loudspeakers" approach doesn't
work, and there is no solution to reproduce "3D sound" in this way.
(Your colleague Choueiri claims this on the cited web page, and
with every respect, no way...)

It can work but is not robust. Get a Jambox and don't move your head
in this case.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20268768/auberge-clip.wav - He walks in front
and returns behind for most people.

What so special with the Jambox?


It is one thing that E Choueiri uses for demos, I know it works. It must 
be used very near-field. I don't have an anechoic chamber and that is 
the next best thing.

  I tried with small speakers. The stage
is no larger than 120 degrees. When the walker comes back; he was
probably walking behind, but to me the sound is just louder and there's
less echo, as if we was nearer, not really behind. But it's a nice clip!
--
Marc
___
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] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound


On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote:



If you can't reproduce full horizontal 360º surround via two front 
speakers, then the "binaural via two loudspeakers" approach doesn't 
work, and there is no solution to reproduce "3D sound" in this way. 
(Your colleague Choueiri claims this on the cited web page, and with 
every respect, no way...)


It can work but is not robust. Get a Jambox and don't move your head in 
this case.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20268768/auberge-clip.wav - He walks in front 
and returns behind for most people.


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

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound


On 10/07/2011 11:02, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:10:49AM +0100, dw wrote:


Any microphone capable of separating two sound sources MUST be large in
terms of wavelengths (similar to the diffraction limit for  telescopes)
The soundfield microphone cannot  separate two or more sound sources at
_any_  frequency for this reason.

First this is not true, second it is irrelevant. You don't need to
'separate' sources (i.e. procude signals that each contain one source)
in order to reproduce them.

You snipped the context.

"i don't think that's possible. imagine two similar instruments, one at 
0° and the other at 180°. once recorded in mono, they will be fused 
together irrevocably. you won't be able to separate them with the help 
of any vector metadata."


What is not true? I thought the whole point of higher orders was higher 
resolution so that you could make less efficient use of your speakers..

This does not seem to worry the 'fanboys'.

Indeed it does not.

The problem with higher order mics at LF is of a different nature:
they require very high gains on difference signals if the mic is
small compared to wavelength.

OTOH, high order at low F is not essential for reproduction.
You can produce 3rd order AMB with the Eigenmike. But the
problem is that the frequency range gets limited at both
ends as order goes up. A normal AMB decoder expects full
range signals at all orders, so it will produce a poor
result. It is possible to create a decoder adapted to the
available frequency ranges, i.e. one that changes order in
function of frequency and would be full high order only for
medium frequencies. Problem with this is that there is no
standard way - the decoder depends on the mic.

Ciao,



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

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound


On 10/07/2011 09:00, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:

On 07/10/2011 12:32 AM, dw wrote:

I was thinking more of recording in mono, computing the vectors in
various bands from the output of some large microphone array and then
encoding (the mono sound) into the required number of spherical
harmonics.


i don't think that's possible. imagine two similar instruments, one at 
0° and the other at 180°. once recorded in mono, they will be fused 
together irrevocably. you won't be able to separate them with the help 
of any vector metadata.


Any microphone capable of separating two sound sources MUST be large in 
terms of wavelengths (similar to the diffraction limit for  telescopes)

The soundfield microphone cannot  separate two or more sound sources at
_any_  frequency for this reason. This does not seem to worry the 'fanboys'.


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

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

On 09/07/2011 23:10, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:

On 07/09/2011 11:49 PM, dw wrote:

On 09/07/2011 22:28, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:

ps. I am sure M Gerzon knew that ambisonics (low order) has
theoretical

sweet spot the size of a pea, but it still sounds good to some people,
His fans are still as self-righteous as ever.

i could imagine way worse things than being called a MAG fanboy. there
has been very constructive discussion in the past about why
first-order works way better than it obviously should, and what its
limits are. this exchange however doesn't quite cut it in the
"constructive" department.

So how does this 'human energy-vector-detector" work then?

ok'ish.

ppps How are higher-order microphones coming aloing these days, or are
we still happy truncating the infinite series at one order above an
omni?

higher order microphones work in principle, but are nowhere near as
pleasant as simpler stereo microphones. in addition to coloration
problems, they suffer from noise problems due to the high gains
required.

What you need is a 'virtual' high-order microphone.

the approach i'm exploring is this:
http://stackingdwarves.net/public_stuff/linux_audio/tmt10/TMT2010_J%c3%b6rn_Nettingsmeier-Higher_order_Ambisonics.pdf

skip the intro and jump to section 5.

I was thinking more of recording in mono, computing the vectors in
various bands from the output of some large microphone array and then
encoding (the mono sound) into the required number of spherical
harmonics. I doubt whether there is any advantage in determining the
vectors much better than a human listener can do, although not
necessarily in the same way. If nature can do 'it' with two ears, surely
it can't be too difficult with the benefit of a large array. The vector
has no sound of its own so the sound quality of the array is immaterial.

I am of the firm opinion that audiophiles do not deserve anything better
than the vinyl, stereo, and tweaks they have now, but it is still
interesting to see what is possible.

i used to think that this kind of hack is not really conceptually
elegant (it isn't - nothing beats the simple beauty of a sound field
microphone). but then i learned about all the unholy hacks that are
routinely being employed by respected record labels to produce their
(very nice sounding) surround recordings. i have been very relaxed
about conceptual purity ever since.
but for my work, i still want to have a plausible theory first and
then see what can be done in practice. i dislike stuff that "sounds
nice" whose proponents can't really explain why :) but that's a
personal spleen of mine, not a snide remark at xtc in general.

best,

jörn

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

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound


On 09/07/2011 22:28, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:

On 07/09/2011 11:13 PM, dw wrote:


Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo
recording for me to play with.


well, this kind of stand-off isn't likely to lead anywhere. "sounds 
good" is very hard to define or even test.


i'm not terribly interested in applying xtc to standard stereo, 
because i know that perfect xtc is achived with headphones, and i 
don't like the imaging of stereo over headphones. and before you ask: 
i don't like the imaging of headphones bent outwards so as to benefit 
from my pinna filters, either.

speaker xtc can only be worse than headphones.


ps. You misunderstand the nature of my A-HYBRID filter, I think. I
certainly hope so.


i've browsed the readme on your site - is there some more in-depth 
information about this filter somewhere?


I certainly hope not, apart from what I explained to Fons here, about 
the one I gave away , which was 'HYBRID'.
I think I may 'disappear from the face of the earth' again, shortly. 
I've had enough already.

ps. I am sure M Gerzon knew that ambisonics (low order) has theoretical
sweet spot the size of a pea, but it still sounds good to some people,
His fans are still as self-righteous as ever.


i could imagine way worse things than being called a MAG fanboy. there 
has been very constructive discussion in the past about why 
first-order works way better than it obviously should, and what its 
limits are. this exchange however doesn't quite cut it in the 
"constructive" department.


So how does this 'human energy-vector-detector" work then?

It is not the being a fan that I object to. I am a bit of a fan myself. 
You never objected to the non-constructive and rude comments of others..





ppps How are higher-order microphones coming aloing these days, or are
we still happy truncating the infinite series at one order above an 
omni?


higher order microphones work in principle, but are nowhere near as 
pleasant as simpler stereo microphones. in addition to coloration 
problems, they suffer from noise problems due to the high gains required.




What you need is a 'virtual' high-order microphone.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound


On 09/07/2011 21:38, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:19:07PM +0100, Stefan Schreiber wrote:


Fons Adriaensen wrote:


On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:


The perceived "directional bandwidth" of stereo recordings is better
than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reproduce.

This is again a game of words.

Most stereo recordings are made to be reproduced by two speakers,
seen by the listener at an angle of 60 to 90 degrees, and such that
the signals from either speaker reach both ears. That is the way it
is supposed to work. There is a solid theory behind this. Calling
this 'crosstalk (a term which has a negative connotation as a defect
of audio equipment), and the cure 'crosstalk cancellation' amounts to
gross intellectual dishonesty. The signals you find on the vast majority
of stereo records are _not_ meant to be delivered one-to-one to the
ears.


And people listen to the same stuff via headphones?

The fact that many recordings intended for speaker reproduction
(in particular those using panned mono sources) work also on
headphones is remarkable, and an illustration of how adaptive
our hearing can be. But almost always you can improve the results
on headphones by introducing the sort of 'crosstalk' that a
speaker system would produce. Either using HRTF, or in the
simplest case a highpass filter on the difference signal (which
is a crude approximation). The exceptions are binaural recordings
of course, which should be left as they are.

The simple fact is that there is *fundamental* difference between
signals supposed to be correct when delivered 1-to-1 to the ears,
and those intended to be reproduced using two speakers. The vast
majority of available records are of the second kind.

Ciao,

Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo 
recording for me to play with.
ps. You misunderstand the nature of my A-HYBRID filter, I think. I 
certainly hope so.
pps. I am sure M Gerzon knew that ambisonics (low order) has theoretical 
sweet spot the size of a pea, but it still sounds good to some people, 
His fans are still as self-righteous as ever.
ppps How are higher-order microphones coming aloing these days, or are 
we still happy truncating the infinite series at one order above an omni?

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

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound


On 09/07/2011 18:07, Marc Lavallée wrote:

Fons Adriaensen  a écrit :


And *if* I turn my head, for whatever reason, and the illusion
collapses, I'm not impressed...

I just tried turning my head while listening to XTC. I can turn it more
than 45 degrees in both directions without destroying the stereo image.
So if turning the head is part of the localization process, it does
also work with XTC (to some extent).

XTC brings out a better and larger stereo image from conventional
stereo recordings, just by inserting a filter in the reproduction path
and by using two small frontal speakers (not four or more speakers all
around me as required by ambisonics). That's already impressive.


The problem is that people do not feel the need to set up speakers 
properly and listen to a recent XTC. They are happy to listen on 
internal laptop speakers, a stereo setup, headphones or just condem it 
out of hand, based upon their 'knowledge'.

eg. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archive/index.php/t-1290580.html


I still don't know from experience if ambisonics is better than XTC
for other than practical and ideological reasons. I hope to have a
second epiphany with ambisonics, because it requires more investments
and efforts to install a working system at home. I only heard a few
minutes of ambisonics (rendered with the Harpex filter on a
horizontal/hexagonal speakers setup), and it was interesting...

I would be impressed if ambisonics could provide a better listening
experience from stereo and/or 5.1 recordings. Maybe it can; is there a
way to "up convert" non-ambisonics recordings to horizontal ambisonics?

--
Marc
___
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] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats andtheir viability for actual 360 degree sound


On 09/07/2011 10:03, ch...@chriswoolf.co.uk wrote:
60 degrees seems excessive head movement for someone seated 
listening to

speakers..


Why ? It's a natural thing to do if there is any significant sound
from that direction. Why should being listening to speakers make
any difference ? I like to forget I'm listening to speakers.
And *if* I turn my head, for whatever reason, and the illusion
collapses, I'm not impressed... [Fons]


I'd take that a stage further - the ideal arrangement would allow you 
to move around within the sound field with complete freedom. You 
should indeed be unaware of where any speakers are - and "sweet 
spots", and need to face rigidly in one direction, are anathema to the 
anyone but a dedicated (and perhaps blinkered?) enthusiast.


Listen you! I am at home not Glastonbury. I know when a play a 
recording, or watch TV, that there is nothing actually there! If I hear 
a sound behind am I supposed to get up and walk around, or use a mirror, 
just to look at the  bloody walls. And don't confuse me with an audiophool.




I've only ever had the chance to observe two demos (one Ambisonic, one 
WFS) which have been sufficiently impressive (with the programme 
material available) that the NON-cognoscenti recognised that they were 
in a space that wasn't the same as the physical room.


Chris Woolf
___
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] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-08 Thread dw


On 08/07/2011 22:48, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 09:53:31PM +0100, dw wrote:


One would never be able to locate the source of a gun shot then, since
you don't have time to sample the soundfield.

In anechoic conditions the direction of such a sound could be
ambiguous, apart from pinna coloration if there is enough HF
energy.

And I didn't say that 'exploring the sound field' is required
to have any directional perception at all. The effect of head
movements is to resolve ambiguities (e.g. front to back at LF),
or if the sound field isn't consistent with that of a real source,
to create confusion and destroy the illusion.

Imagine a XTC system reproducing someone speaking at say 60
degrees left. If I turn my head towards the virtual speaker
I expect more or less the same signal in both ears. There's
no way to achieve that with one ear almost facing the speakers
and the other one turned away from them.

Ciao,

60 degrees seems excessive head movement for someone seated listening to 
speakers..
Although head movement is a very useful cue, as is sight for 
'calbrating' auditory cues.


I am fed up with the lack of *head tracking' being used as an excuse for 
poor sound localization performance. I remember so called 'researchers' 
20 years ago recording the sound pressures in ear canals  in an anechoic 
chamber, and then playing the recordings back via earphone or headphones 
in an anechoic chamber, and getting front to back discrimination little 
better than chance. The excuse was 'head tracking' . It did not seem to 
occur to them that they might not be recording anything representative 
of something useful, or that the lack of a diffuse sound field might 
have something to do with the problem.


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

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-08 Thread dw


On 08/07/2011 21:40, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:06:37PM -0600, Bearcat M. Sandor wrote:


  The ear canal is just a tube, so there's no
directionality once the waves are in there.

"Once they are in there". Which is why you can make things
work with headphones plus head motion tracking.

When using speakers, the sound has to get 'in there' first.
And you are allowed to turn and otherwise move your head,
so even when e.g. seated you can (and will) explore the sound
field around it, and your brain will correlate your movements
with the changes of the sound entering your ears. So getting
the right sound 'in there' is not just a matter of recreating
the sound field at the two points where your ear canals would
be if your head were clamped into a vise. You have to create
something matching the field of a real source at least in the
near vicinity. And it turns out you can't do that without energy
arriving from more or less the right direction.

Ciao,

One would never be able to locate the source of a gun shot then, since 
you don't have time to sample the soundfield.


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

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-08 Thread dw


On 08/07/2011 19:09, "Bearcat M. Şandor" wrote:

Folks,

I've been reading up on the various proposals for 3D sound from a set of
stereo speakers. The 3D Audio Alliance is working on such a system.
Astound Surround is getting ready to market, Edward Choueiri is working
on the same idea (see:
http://www.studio360.org/2011/apr/29/adventures-3d-sound/ ) and there
are others. I used to have a Carver pre-amp with Carver's Holography
button but i could never get it to do much.

Has anyone heard a truly 3D/360 surround effect from 2 speakers using
this stuff? Ever heard a fly buzzing around your head, or an object in
the back far-left of you or some such?  Can any of this do as good of a
job as Ambisonics?  Is all of this just related to head transfer
function mathematics?

The public will never make the effort to make this work..

I offer 
http://www.wareing77.plus.com/Filters/Pre-processed-sample-Advanced-HYBRID-Filter-DW8-Private-investigations.mp3
for a blast of sound at about 90 degrees to a pair of closely spaced 
speakers. Speaker centres about 18" apart, listen at about 3ft.




I've listened to some of the headphone applications of this like
binaural and whatever these folks are doing here
http://www.3d60.co.uk/index.php  That demo on the 3D60 page sounds
really cool, however nothing ever sounds like it's more than a foot from
my head and nothing is ever right in front of me. Why can't they create
an effect of something coming from a long distance away and getting
closer and closer behind me? If it's all related to head transfer
function you'd think you could create any sound your ears can hear.

I'm looking at my audio system building options and I'd love to throw my
money/space decor at 2 really good speakers and a good 2 channel pre-amp
instead of 12 speakers in an ambisonic system with all the associated
electronics.

Any thoughts on all this 3D through 2 channel stuff?

Thanks,



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

Re: [Sursound] Jambox & iPad App

2011-06-22 Thread dw


Oopsy daisy. Sorry.
This old email thing is confusing..


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

Re: [Sursound] Jambox & iPad App

2011-06-22 Thread dw

On 22/06/2011 22:37, Ralph Glasgal wrote:

I have tried the Bluetooth wireless Jambox with the iPad 2 running Hotto's
Ambiophonic RACE app. I have also used the app with the iLuv iPad docking
station. You can see pictures of both on the Ambiophonic website. You should
try this for yourselves since my opinion is naturally biased. Both speaker
systems produced a full width stage and positioning was relatively non-critical
compared to using these speakers for plain stereo.

The little Jambox has two one inch speakers four inches apart. Fortunately the RACE parameters are fully adjustable even for this kind of narrow spacing (+/- 5 degrees or so) and for the first time I needed (and was able) to use a delay setting of 45.4 microseconds and an attenuation of 1.9 dB. There may even be better settings which you can research. Of course you need to be within about a meter or less with such closely speakers so you are always listening in the near field to these very very directional speakers which may explain why the results are so gratifying.

I think the sound quality is better when it is used wired, and it can
play louder.
Having listened now on larger speakers, I really miss the loudness on
the Jambox and it sounds compressed.
The jambox up close - I tend to hold it against my chest, has a greater
range of distance in the image compared to the larger speakers.
It makes a good monitor for image quality but I will listen to music on
the LX5s which give more of a cross between 'you are there' and 'they
are here'.

Try a small barrier with the Jambox.

Since the Jambox and others coming are Bluetooth wireless, it is conceivable that a family or bunch of home theater enthusiasts could all hold their own Jamboxes and enjoy the full width stage with the clarity and depth that XTC brings while they all watch same large screen 3D TV. (The iPad does have an HDMI output if you want the normal surround digital audio rather than Bluetooth.) I still need to see whether it is actually possible to drive two or more Jamboxes with the single iPad Bluetooth source. But if this is really a popular application I am sure a Bluetooth hub can be designed and a wire daisy chain is also feasible. A major criticism of Ambiophonics and Ambisonics is their inability to provide the same stage for a roomful of people seated at random. IMAX years ago solved this problem in a similar fashion by providing off the ear speakers for each viewer. The Jambox costs about the same as some of the switching 3D glasses

being sold.

The iLuv has larger speakers and better bass and you can get further away from it but it is not wireless at the moment. I am awaiting a pair of Soundmatters to see if they will also work well this way but eventually there will be too many of these for me to try them all.

Using two Jamboxes, one front and one rear, one could have full-horizontal-plane surround, but for that you need something besides the present App like two miniambios, TacT, etc. although again the iPad HDMI output can provide the raw digitally encoded surround tracks extracted from downloaded movies and video.

Ralph Glasgal

www.ambiophonics.org
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
___
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

2011-06-13 Thread dw

On 13/06/2011 03:44, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> I made an A/B/C switch to listen between direct stereo, BACCH and the
> new DW filters; both filters are cancelling well, but BACCH is less
> coloured.

Not EYCv2L-44.wav, I assume. It must be a high $,$$$ version you have!

I am curious how you manage to switch layouts.

> Also, there's plenty of bass coming out of the BACCH filter,
> more than with normal stereo.

That can happen..
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20268768/EYCv2L-44.png
Ignore "ear" traces which depend on the model used.

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

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

2011-06-10 Thread dw


On 10/06/2011 13:33, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:43:55AM +0100, Paul Hodges wrote:

--On 10 June 2011 10:26 +0200 Bo-Erik Sandholm
  wrote:


Case B : Use a steady state 50 Hz signal and slowly pan it to new
locations.

Of course, as this involves the level from each speaker changing, the
speaker feeds will still have the higher frequency components.  Indeed, I
presume they would appear even if you physically moved the speaker.

Panning an LF signal around at F revolutions per second in a 3rd
order AMB system would mean that the speaker signals have sidebands
at +/-1F, +/-2F, and +/-3F Hz. But no more.

Almost all of that would cancel at the listening position, where
you'd have a constant amplitude pressure and gradient.

Ciao,

The idea of listening for pleasure to bass sounds without overtones or 
transients conjures up an image of a twitcher tracking down a rare, 
three legged sparrow. The public just don't understand..

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

Re: [Sursound] Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation

2011-06-06 Thread dw


On 06/06/2011 01:45, Marc Lavallée wrote:

Le Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:47:23 +0100,
dw  a écrit :


I did a basic experiment with twos subs and a sound generation
software (PureData with the equal_power_pan extension). I panned a
bass sine tone from left to right and back, changing the frequency
between 40Hz and 160Hz. I was able to localize the sine tone at
certain frequencies, depending on my position in the room; at 70Hz
the tone was very easy to localize. So it's definitely possible to
create a sound field with directional bass, intentionally or not.

I suspect you are just modulating the standing wave pattern..

Yes, I was probably just doing that.
Room modes, standing waves, etc. But...

The consumer audio industry stated with authority that bass should just
fill the room, and that that's what sounds good. I was not supposed to
buy a second sub, I was supposed to stick one in some corner and be
happy forever.

One paper caught my attention: "Spatial auditory display using multiple
sub-woofers in two different reverberant reproduction
environments" (easy to google). It studies our ability to localize a
pair of left/right subs and front/back subs, in an anechoic room and a
small domestic room, for frequencies ranging from 40 to 100Hz. In
both rooms, our ability to localize front or back bass tones is very
bad (about 40% accuracy). In a anechoic room we can localize the
left/right bass tone without error. In a domestic room the results are
not as good, but we are still able to localize L/R bass tones down to
80Hz with 80% accuracy. I suppose that the same test in a small room
with bass traps would give better results.

I once asked Fons A. what kind of speakers I should get for Ambisonics
and he replied that full range speakers are mandatory. With my small
room and small budget it was a challenge. It took me a while to figure
how to build lots of bass reflex enclosures for small full-range
drivers, and I was ready to build them. Then I learned that a dedicated
decoder can be used with three subs. Someone mentioned the KEF "Eggs" as
good domestic speakers, and I was lucky to find three sets of
discontinued KEF home theatre speakers at a very good price (with the
smallest "Eggs" and the "Kube-1" sub). The Eggs are excellent. The Kube
doesn't have much bass extension, but it works. So now I am playing
with my new toys, but I'm not ready to install an ambisonics setup (I
need to find a sound card with 16 outputs).

In the meanwhile I am adapting my XTC setup in order to use two
satellites and two subs. I must admit that your filter is my favourite
right now, although I should compare it with the others (RACE, BACCH)
later this summer.


Here is the 'uncut' version, if you would like to compare. I think it
is less suitable for general use, so don't want it to be the offical
distributed version. You seem to be the only one interested. The file
will be removed in a day.

There's a bit more bass coming out of your "uncut" filter, but
there's some cancellation when the bass signal is mono (equal in both
channels). I still prefer when the stereo signal is sent directly to a
pair of subs at +-30 degrees.

Thank you very much for trying it, and your comments. I am a bit 
disappointed that you are the only one who has reported listening to the 
filters. I did not mean that you were the only one interested in bass 
localization.. I plan to get some eggs for myself!
BTW did you try the speakers close up and with a movable baffle between 
them? If you don't get a bunch of clapping Irishmen in your garden with 
my preprocessed sample, it is not working properly yet..

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

Re: [Sursound] Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation

2011-06-03 Thread dw


On 03/06/2011 01:04, Marc Lavallée wrote:

Le Thu, 2 Jun 2011 14:27:24 -0700 (PDT),
Ralph Glasgal  a écrit :


Obviously there is no reason not to use subwoofers with RACE, Wareing,
or Choueiri.

But those filters were designed to work with full range speakers, so
unless the mains are on top of the subs I suppose it is better
not to use the filters with subs that are apart from the mains.


I think we are splitting hairs here.

On the contrary, it's very interesting!


It is
incontroverible that the human ability to localize declines with
frequency.  Based on the Bose experiments and other AES papers
written too long ago to remember, 90 Hz is where localization begins
to become difficult.  This is very hard to verify because all
subwoofers have harmonic distortion and one localizes to that.  Also
in the early days, and even now apparently, the crossovers were not
steep enough to prevent some energy over 90 Hz from reaching the
subwoofers.  I am sure somebody did it before Bose, but as far as I
know he was the first to make a completly passive crossover network
steep enough to allow the subwoofers to remain unlocalizable to
anybody except Fons.

I did a basic experiment with twos subs and a sound generation software
(PureData with the equal_power_pan extension). I panned a bass sine
tone from left to right and back, changing the frequency between 40Hz
and 160Hz. I was able to localize the sine tone at certain frequencies,
depending on my position in the room; at 70Hz the tone was very easy to
localize. So it's definitely possible to create a sound field with
directional bass, intentionally or not.

I suspect you are just modulating the standing wave pattern..
Here is the 'uncut' version, if you would like to compare. I think it is 
less suitable for general use, so don't want it to be the offical 
distributed version. You seem to be the only one interested. The file 
will be removed in a day.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20268768/DW3_no_Xover_L.wav

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

Re: [Sursound] Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation


On 01/06/2011 22:01, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 08:59:30PM +0100, dw wrote:


Computer say " i can give you itd=450us @ 20Hz" off the shelf. That is
very near field, so should be unaffected by the room. I don't know
whether it is true..

It depends on what you start from.

If you have an intensity (panned) stereo LF source at e.g. 30
degrees left (so only in the L channel, assuming a normal stereo
triangle), then reproducing this using two speakers at +/- 7.5
degrees is easy. It only requires a difference channel (L-R)
gain 13 dB or so higher than the sum (L+R) gain, and independent
of frequency. Some power is wasted but it will work.

Things are different when starting with a binaural signal for
for the same source. This will require a very high difference
channel gain (proportional to 1/f, and complex), much more than
could ever be used in practice.

The whole concept of Ambiophonics is based on the idea of
delivering the L,R signals in a stereo recording to the
respective ears without crosstalk to the other. The basic
assumption is that the signals are binaural. But for that
kind of signal it can't work for low frequencies because
it would require much more L-R gain than is possible in
practice. If it works, and it does in many cases, it is
because most recordings are *not* binaural to start with,
but a mix of intensity based stereo (at LF) with *some*
ITD at mid and high frequencies. For example the popular
ORTF technique will deliver exactly that.

For a pure binaural recording, Ambiophonics fails at LF.
For a pure intensity (panned) stereo one, it will fail at
mid and high frequencies because there is no ITD in the
recorded signal (normally spaced speakers would create
the ITD at playback).

It Ambiophonics works well for some recordings it it just
because these are intensity based at LF (requiring only
moderate L-R gain), while still having some ITD at mid
and high frequencies. Presenting it as a system that
delivers binaural signals to the respective ears without
crosstalk is misleading, that is *not* why it works in
practice.

Ciao,

Nobody knows exactly how the ears work! I suggest you get a copy of 
Auberge - Chris Rea, some fine, small studio monitors,  follow the 
instructions I provided and report back.

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

Re: [Sursound] Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation



http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20268768/RACE/ITD.png (temporary link)
This is for the existing filter without the to-mono crossover and with a 
1 sample delay adjustment.

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

Re: [Sursound] Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation


On 01/06/2011 20:38, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 09:42:42AM -0700, Ralph Glasgal wrote:



But, the ear is not sensitive to crosstalk below say 100Hz so

Where do you get this from ? Are you seriously saying that a low
frequency signal delivered to one ear sounds natural ? Just try
it.


What this means is that one is not doing much cancellation as
the frequency gets down to say 90Hz which is okay since one
does not localize well or at all at low bass frequencies anyway.

Now *that* is a fallacy if there ever was one. Agreed, if you
play a 40 Hz sine in a small room without any acoustic treatment
you won't be able to tell where it comes from. And if you put
a piece of sandblasted glass on your computer screen then you
won't be able to read this text.

Things change if you allow them to. Apparently you have never
heard a surround system that does reproduce low frequencies as
they should be. Just plain intensity (panned) stereo gets close
if the room doesn't destroy it. Ambisonic reproduction - even
first order - gets this exactly right (under the same conditions).

Ambiophonics makes a mess of it. Unless you use separate widely
spaced speakers for LF (driven by intensity-based stereo), as
some researchers have already recommended.

To be clear: I don't want to denigrate Ambiophonics - it has
is merits. But it would be better advocated using less pseudo
science and by acknowledging its limits rather than by presenting
it as something perfect invented by the gods and blessed by
Alan Blumlein. In fact it's probably the most 'unnatural' way
to reproduce sound - it's ill-conditioned by definition - even
if sometimes it does work.

Ciao,

Computer say " i can give you itd=450us @ 20Hz" off the shelf. That is 
very near field, so should be unaffected by the room. I don't know 
whether it is true..

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

Re: [Sursound] Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation