Re: [Sursound] any experience with VAC - in multichannel

[mgraves mstvp . com]

Jim,

I've used VAC, but never for 7.1. Eugene used to be quite helpful, if you reach 
out to him.

I must admin that I largely abandoned VAC in favor of the VB-Audio cables and 
VoiceMeeter. VoiceMeeter comes in several versions,  which support 
multi-channel devices. Also, Vincent Burel (author) is quite helpful. He runs a 
forum and answers questions via FB.

Michael Graves
mgra...@mstvp.com
o: (713) 861-4005
c: (713) 201-1262
sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com

-Original Message-
From: Sursound  On Behalf Of James Mastracco
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 1:23 PM
To: Sursound 
Subject: [Sursound] any experience with VAC - in multichannel

Hello  and hope this post is processed appropriately.   I figured why not after 
all these years. 


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


I've have success with it on almost anything in two channel mode,  but despite 
it's very comprehensive manual, have not been able to get it to work with e.g. 
a 7.1 surround USB card, playing a clearly identifiable and checked 7.1 sound 
file. 


Thanks for let me throw one up on the bulletin boards.



Jim Mastracco

___
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] Binaural rendering of an Eigenmike recording

[mgraves mstvp . com]

That's really good!

Michael Graves
mgra...@mstvp.com
o: (713) 861-4005
c: (713) 201-1262
sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com

-Original Message-
From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Jens Ahrens
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:04 AM
To: Sursound 
Subject: [Sursound] Binaural rendering of an Eigenmike recording

Hello everyone,

… and another post from me. 

Here’s a quick 2-min video of what binaural rendering of an Eigenmike recording 
can sound like for those of you who haven’t heard this before: 
https://youtu.be/qcqeygqjxZ4 It’s 4th order rendered directly in the spherical 
harmonic domain (without a virtual discrete loudspeaker array). The rendering 
was done with ReTiSAR (https://github.com/AppliedAcousticsChalmers/ReTiSAR), 
which is generously funded by Facebook Reality Labs. 

Best regards,
Jens

-- 
Jens Ahrens
Associate Professor
Division of Applied Acoustics
Chalmers University of Technology
41296 Gothenburg
Sweden
+46 (0)31 772 2210
http://www.ta.chalmers.se/people/jens-ahrens/ 

___
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] Software Oscillator

[mgraves mstvp . com]

On Android there's Audio Tool from JJ Bunn. It's a great RTA with tone & sweep 
generation.

Michael Graves
mgra...@mstvp.com
o: (713) 861-4005
c: (713) 201-1262
sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com


-Original Message-
From: Sursound  On Behalf Of jack reynolds
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 10:30 AM
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Software Oscillator

I use an iphone app called Tone Gen Pro, connected by Bluetooth to whatever i 
need to test.

I think it might be 99p!

Jack

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 16:22, Bill de Garis  wrote:

> Would someone recommend a free software oscillator for me?
> I would like to calibrate my playback system (6.0 flat) cobbled 
> together from odds and ends.
> I have a high zoot Radioshack sound level meter.
>
> Bill
>
> Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at 
> close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
> Dylan Thomas
>
> ___
> 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.
>


-- 

07889727365

02036861372

3 Swimmers Lane
Haggerston
London
E2 8FR


www.facebook.com/reynoldsmicrophones

www.sohovr.co.uk
-- 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] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)

[mgraves mstvp . com]

Stephan,

I stand corrected. I'm not political, but I definitely do lean toward open 
source where possible.

The only exposure I've had to EVS is to notice that it's been deployed by 
T-Mobile USA as a late stage part of their LTE rollout.

In contrast, just about everything I use daily is Opus-capable. I do wish that 
Opus implementations were more interoperable. All the various modes do add 
complexity.

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

-Original Message-
From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Stefan Schreiber
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 11:42 AM
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Subject: Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing 
B.S.)

EVS is a full-range codec, covering both speech and music compression.

Alas: the first link I gave includes tests involving both EVS and Opus.

AMR is a clear speech codec; better to see (E)LD-AAC as forerunner of EVS.

(Support included in many operating systems, including iOS and Android.

https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/communication/aaceld.html

Just check compatibility lists?)

I am not doing politics here, please respect this. But I think representations 
have to be

balanced. You could not write a scientific article about LD audio compression 
leaving out

several codecs which are in very wide use.

The patent argument is not relevant in this context. (You were < now > 
introducing the patent 

argument in the sense that people “should” use opus. This is unrelated to the 
claim I was

disputing. Alas, you simply can’t use opus in < every > context. )

Just to clarify a few things.

Best,

Stefan Schreiber 

P.S.: I am definitively positive about Opus, but the person who is doing 
“politics” doesn’t

seem to be me. 

That “EVS is basically a revenue engine” is IMO a biased statement, because it 
has

been chosen to be a 3GPP standard. (Most companies voting not receiving EVS 
revenues.)

And yes, Opus seems to be patent-free. (Or say the SILK patents have been 
donated by

Microsoft. So actually there are some patents, but there are no fees.)

- - - -

Citando mgraves mstvp.com :

> Perhaps "pinnacle" is a bit of an over statement, but the point is sound.
>
> EVS is quite capable, but note that that entire presentation makes no 
> mention of Opus at all. One arises from the 3GPP the other from the 
> IETF. Fundamentally different groups, with very different 
> perspectives.
>
> Like AMR before it, or MPEG, EVS is basically a revenue engine for the 
> various patent holders.
>
> Much of what EVS can do follows Opus, after-the-fact. The real 
> strength of EVS are the compatibility modes with legacy telecom codes 
> (AMR, AMR-WB, AMR-WB+) which virtually ensured adoption in mobile 
> telecom.
>
> Opus is open source and free to use by anyone. It also accommodates an 
> arbitrary number of channels, supporting various surround schemes.
>
> There are those who, fearing the appearance of some patent holder 
> making a claim against Opus, will prefer to pay for a license to use 
> something else.
>
> Michael Graves
>
> mgra...@mstvp.com
>
> http://www.mgraves.org
>
> o(713) 861-4005
>
> c(713) 201-1262
>
> sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
>
> skype mjgraves
>
> -Original Message-
>
> From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Stefan 
> Schreiber
>
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 10:01 AM
>
> To: Surround Sound discussion group 
>
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar 
> marketing B.S.)
>
> (Opus)
>
>> It's basically the pinnacle of audio encoding at this point, having
>>
>> merged the best ideas from CELT, Silk and a few entirely new ones.
>>
>> It would be hard to see how any proprietary codec vendor could 
>> compete
>>
>> except where addressing a very narrow niche.
>
> - -
>
> Low delay AAC, in various versions?
>
> What about EVS?
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anssi_Raemoe/publication/28260514
> 3/figure/fig6/AS:281480141651970@1444121503098/Combined-results-with-a
> ll-72-listeners-and-all-signal-types-with-increasing-bitrate-in.png
>
> Opus is really good. But the “pinnacle”?
>
> http://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=548
>
> “A narrow niche? “      😉🍷
>
> I would see EVS (more or less) as the low-delay version of USAC.
>
> Best,
>
> Stefan Schreiber
>
> - - -
>
> Citando mgraves mstvp.com :
>
>> Chris,
>>
>> Actually, I too come from a broadcast background, having installed
>>
>> graphics systems into production and master controls for over 25
>>
>> years. I completely appreciate the demand for hard real-time and zero
>>
&

Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)

[mgraves mstvp . com]

Perhaps "pinnacle" is a bit of an over statement, but the point is sound.

EVS is quite capable, but note that that entire presentation makes no mention 
of Opus at all. One arises from the 3GPP the other from the IETF. Fundamentally 
different groups, with very different perspectives.

Like AMR before it, or MPEG, EVS is basically a revenue engine for the various 
patent holders.

Much of what EVS can do follows Opus, after-the-fact. The real strength of EVS 
are the compatibility modes with legacy telecom codes (AMR, AMR-WB, AMR-WB+) 
which virtually ensured adoption in mobile telecom.

Opus is open source and free to use by anyone. It also accommodates an 
arbitrary number of channels, supporting various surround schemes.

There are those who, fearing the appearance of some patent holder making a 
claim against Opus, will prefer to pay for a license to use something else. 

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

-Original Message-
From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Stefan Schreiber
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 10:01 AM
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Subject: Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing 
B.S.)

(Opus)

> It's basically the pinnacle of audio encoding at this point, having 
> merged the best ideas from CELT, Silk and a few entirely new ones.
> It would be hard to see how any proprietary codec vendor could compete 
> except where addressing a very narrow niche.

- - 

Low delay AAC, in various versions?

What about EVS?

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anssi_Raemoe/publication/282605143/figure/fig6/AS:281480141651970@1444121503098/Combined-results-with-all-72-listeners-and-all-signal-types-with-increasing-bitrate-in.png

Opus is really good. But the “pinnacle”? 

http://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=548

“A narrow niche? “      😉🍷

I would see EVS (more or less) as the low-delay version of USAC.

Best,

Stefan Schreiber

- - -

Citando mgraves mstvp.com :

> Chris,
>
> Actually, I too come from a broadcast background, having installed 
> graphics systems into production and master controls for over 25 
> years. I completely appreciate the demand for hard real-time and zero 
> latency.
>
> I've tracked Opus since its earliest days in the IETF CODEC working 
> group. The standard has many operative modes. It's absolutely capable 
> of full-bandwidth, in both lossy and lossless modes.
>
> You will find it both in the production/contribution side of the house 
> (remote codecs, STL, etc.) and distribution. It also dominates video 
> conference space.
>
> It's basically the pinnacle of audio encoding at this point, having 
> merged the best ideas from CELT, Silk and a few entirely new ones.
> It would be hard to see how any proprietary codec vendor could compete 
> except where addressing a very narrow niche.
>
> Michael Graves
>
> mgra...@mstvp.com
>
> http://www.mgraves.org
>
> o(713) 861-4005
>
> c(713) 201-1262
>
> sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
>
> skype mjgraves
>
> -Original Message-
>
> From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Chris 
> Woolf
>
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 5:45 AM
>
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
>
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar 
> marketing B.S.)
>
> On 30/05/2019 17:51, mgraves mstvp.com wrote:
>
>> The RF issue of range, carrier frequency, channel width is quite 
>> separate from the deliverable audio path.
>>
>> The Opus audio codec has revolutionized audio coding. It's able to 
>> deliver full-bandwidth audio at bitrates not much more than what was 
>> once typical of a telephone call. This means that the RF band need 
>> not be large to deliver high quality audio over a digital link.
>
> This answer is quite revealing of the different approaches and 
> requirements within our audio field. My background is broadcast audio, 
> so for origination purposes any digital coding has to be lossless, and 
> latency has to be ~very~ low. Lossy coding is fine as a delivery 
> format (and so would be OK for speaker feeds) but if the sound has to 
> be processed en route the psychoacoustic stuff doesn't stand up. 
> Likewise latency of 5-10ms can begin to alter performance, depending 
> upon how the foldback is returned to an artist.
>
> I don't know Opus but having read up its spec (on Wikipedia) it is 
> lossy and so can only be used as a delivery format. I had to smile at 
> 30ms latency being reported as adequate for musicians to feel 
> "in-time" - not for the ones I've ever worked with. Likewise the 
> suggestion that 45-100ms is acceptable for lipsync is laughable - 
> that's up to 5 TV fram

Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)

[mgraves mstvp . com]

Chris,

Actually, I too come from a broadcast background, having installed graphics 
systems into production and master controls for over 25 years. I completely 
appreciate the demand for hard real-time and zero latency.

I've tracked Opus since its earliest days in the IETF CODEC working group. The 
standard has many operative modes. It's absolutely capable of full-bandwidth, 
in both lossy and lossless modes.

You will find it both in the production/contribution side of the house (remote 
codecs, STL, etc.) and distribution. It also dominates video conference space. 

It's basically the pinnacle of audio encoding at this point, having merged the 
best ideas from CELT, Silk and a few entirely new ones. It would be hard to see 
how any proprietary codec vendor could compete except where addressing a very 
narrow niche.

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

-Original Message-
From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Chris Woolf
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 5:45 AM
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing 
B.S.)

On 30/05/2019 17:51, mgraves mstvp.com wrote:
> The RF issue of range, carrier frequency, channel width is quite separate 
> from the deliverable audio path.
>
> The Opus audio codec has revolutionized audio coding. It's able to deliver 
> full-bandwidth audio at bitrates not much more than what was once typical of 
> a telephone call. This means that the RF band need not be large to deliver 
> high quality audio over a digital link.

This answer is quite revealing of the different approaches and requirements 
within our audio field. My background is broadcast audio, so for origination 
purposes any digital coding has to be lossless, and latency has to be ~very~ 
low. Lossy coding is fine as a delivery format (and so would be OK for speaker 
feeds) but if the sound has to be processed en route the psychoacoustic stuff 
doesn't stand up. Likewise latency of 5-10ms can begin to alter performance, 
depending upon how the foldback is returned to an artist.

I don't know Opus but having read up its spec (on Wikipedia) it is lossy and so 
can only be used as a delivery format. I had to smile at 30ms latency being 
reported as adequate for musicians to feel "in-time" - not for the ones I've 
ever worked with. Likewise the suggestion that 45-100ms is acceptable for 
lipsync is laughable - that's up to 5 TV frames adrift. Maybe audiences have 
become inured to low quality standards. Latency for "live interaction" at each 
end of a phone line, and face-to-face a few feet apart in a room require very 
different standards - Opus's suggestion of 150ms for VOIP might just be 
acceptable for the first, but it would destroy the second application.

I don't doubt that it is a clever and well-designed codec, and that it is 
extremely useful, but one must keep in mind what it ~actually~ is rather than 
what it sounds like. Opus doesn't deliver full bandwidth audio, any more than 
other digitally compressed systems do. It delivers something that convinces 
most ears that it is a full bandwidth, full dynamic range signal, but it must 
always be remembered what is missing. 
If you used such a system to deliver sound to speakers (assuming there is a 
technique for maintaining multichannel phase coherence) it should work 
perfectly well. If you used it for passing the output channels of a microphone 
I doubt you would not remain happy for long.

Which also means that the statement "the RF issue of range, carrier frequency, 
channel width is quite separate from the deliverable audio path" must be very 
carefully qualified - it is only correct in very specific circumstances.

Chris Woolf



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
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] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)

[mgraves mstvp . com]

The RF issue of range, carrier frequency, channel width is quite separate from 
the deliverable audio path.

The Opus audio codec has revolutionized audio coding. It's able to deliver 
full-bandwidth audio at bitrates not much more than what was once typical of a 
telephone call. This means that the RF band need not be large to deliver high 
quality audio over a digital link.

There are a diverse range of wireless microphone and monitors. Some have 
multi-channel capability in support of unique pathways for the various artists 
in an ensemble.

Their RF characteristics are made to match regulatory realities in different 
jurisdictions. Some are analog (ex. companded FM) others digital. To my 
knowledge, none are IP-based.

There are folks in the HAM radio space using digital compression techniques to 
deliver wideband audio over extremely low-bitrate links. Think sub-3 kbps for 
voice.

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

-Original Message-
From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Chris Woolf
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 11:08 AM
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing 
B.S.)

Answering this specific question...

On 30/05/2019 10:42, Augustine Leudar wrote:
> ... I had some walkie talkies that had a range of one KM with 
> admitedly terrible audio (surely this could be
> improved) . Whereas Senheiser in ear monitors have a  really short 
> distance range of around 40 metres and use much higher electromagnetic 
> frequencies
> ((863 mhz) . Why is it something cant be done with the same sort of 
> range as the walkie talkies but for.multichammel audio (according to wikipedia
> 30 - 400 mhz)   ?

Walkie talkies run on a 12.5kHz narrow band, and need ~50kHz of channel space. 
Broadcast quality FM (as in radio mics) uses a channel space of ~250kHz. Given 
than channel "skirts" are quite a bit wider multiple local channels cannot sit 
close to each other, and are commonly spaced ~500kHz apart. They also have to 
avoid numerical frequencies which would cause intermodulation. Thus remarkably 
few analogue radio channels can fit into a single (8MHz) TV channel space. The 
usual answer is ~12 at best. Some claim more but range and mutual interference 
may suffer. With digital modulation this can improve to ~20 because the effects 
of interference are reduced.

Range is directly related to bandwidth, transmission power, and RF 
signal-to-noise limitations of the receiver. Narrow band with limited audio 
bandwidth and restricted (audio) signal-to-noise is a much easier task with a 
couple of AA cells than 20kHz audio with 100dB (companded) dynamic range. 
Digital radio mics have been even harder to make that can modulate something 
that equates to full broadcast bandwidth and dynamic range into the the same 
250kHz bandwidth as analogue, and with roughly the same range/battery power.

I've no idea what the .multichannel audio is - can you elaborate? And I can't 
imaging that there is any spectrum clear in the 30-400MHz region.

Chris Woolf



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
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] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)

[mgraves mstvp . com]

When considering wireless links, there are three domains possible:

- Analog
- Digital, not IP passed; DECT, BT, proprietary.
- Digital, IP-based; Wi-Fi, LTE, Wimax.

If latency is the concern I think that non-IP based approaches may have an 
inherent advantage.

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

-Original Message-
From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Augustine Leudar
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 4:43 AM
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Subject: Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing 
B.S.)

Leaving aside the power issue for now and with regard to multichannel audio for 
shows as opposed to home use. I had some walkie talkies that had a range of one 
KM with admitedly terrible audio (surely this could be
improved) . Whereas Senheiser in ear monitors have a  really short distance 
range of around 40 metres and use much higher electromagnetic frequencies
((863 mhz) . Why is it something cant be done with the same sort of range as 
the walkie talkies but for.multichammel audio (according to wikipedia
30 - 400 mhz)   ?


On Wednesday, 29 May 2019, Wim  wrote:

> Dante/AVB have a latency under 5 ms, transporting many channels, even 
> @96 kHz. It can be done. Just not wireless.
>
> The major problem with wireless lays in the re-authentication that 
> occurs after a preset period. That takes up to several hundred 
> millisecs. Not a problem for a download, or viewing a webpage. Big 
> problem for low-latency streaming. Running without any encryption 
> makes it less, but then you also need a good S/R on the wireless side 
> to stop it from having other problems, like switching channels, or speed.
>
> Apple's solution for AirPlay is having a big buffer in their devices. 
> I believe the old Airport Express has 1 to 4 MB allocated for 
> streaming buffer, resulting in seconds of latency. Not a problem for playback.
>
> BT is even far worse, and the range is too limited.
>
> I've tried most of the possibilities, with Apple devices, Raspberry Pi 
> and ESP8266. It works. It's just not reliable. I've used it for a 
> little while, for recording in forests, where there's no neighbouring wifi to 
> be found.
> I've reverted back to VHF wireless mics. Less of a hassle.
>
> Just my 2 eurocents.
>
> Wim
>
> Op wo 29 mei 2019 om 17:41 schreef mgraves mstvp.com :
>
> > Agreed. Most of what I think of as the "local signal processing" is 
> > quite speedy. Packetization delay is never less than 20 ms. 
> > Transmission delay dependent upon the network and distance. Poorly 
> > designed network elements lead to buffer bloat, which increases latency 
> > dramatically.
> >
> > The very latest DECT chipsets are able to deliver a 12.5 kHz audio 
> > path from a microphone. Not sure how that's done. DECT is quite 
> > opaque. It remains the most common approach to a real-time wireless 
> > link built specifically for streaming audio.
> >
> > Michael Graves
> > mgra...@mstvp.com
> > http://www.mgraves.org
> > o(713) 861-4005
> > c(713) 201-1262
> > sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
> > skype mjgraves
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Chris 
> > Woolf
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 10:29 AM
> > To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar 
> > marketing B.S.)
> >
> >
> > On 28/05/2019 19:47, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> > > Le 28/05/2019 à 13:48, mgraves mstvp.com a écrit :
> > >
> > > 
> > > The latency is not only caused by the packetization; the 
> > > transmission chain looks like:
> > >
> > > (microphone -> ADC -> encoding -> BT transmission) -> (BT 
> > > reception ->
> > > decoding) -> (SIP + encoding -> IP transmission) -> (IP reception 
> > > -> SIP + decoding) -> (DAC -> loudspeaker)
> > >
> > True enough, but the ADC, encoding, decoding and DAC elements can be 
> > reduced to <3ms (as happens with some of the best recent digital 
> > radio mics), which does indeed indicate that the intermediate stages 
> > are the
> ones
> > that really do the harm.
> >
> > A while back I had to make a short range speech reinforcer for a 
> > friend with a damaged larynx. It had to use an analogue pathway 
> > because no (affordable at the time) digital path had anything like 
> > low enough
> latency
> > to permit normal, unstilted conversation. A target figure ~has~ to 
> > be
> <10ms
> > to avoid dist

Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)

[mgraves mstvp . com]

Yes, my concern is for live/real-time situations. No post-prod.

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

-Original Message-
From: Sursound  On Behalf Of David Pickett
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 2:22 PM
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Subject: Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing 
B.S.)

At 17:41 29-05-19, you wrote:

>Most of what I think of as the "local signal processing" is quite 
>speedy. Packetization delay is never less than 20 ms. Transmission 
>delay dependent upon the network and distance. Poorly designed network 
>elements lead to buffer bloat, which increases latency dramatically.

But for a signal sent by such a link, latency hardly matters if the signal is 
to be mixed later with other microphones (perhaps the ambisonic mic) that are 
fed directly, as the tracks can easily be aligned in the DAW!

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] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)

[mgraves mstvp . com]

Agreed. Most of what I think of as the "local signal processing" is quite 
speedy. Packetization delay is never less than 20 ms. Transmission delay 
dependent upon the network and distance. Poorly designed network elements lead 
to buffer bloat, which increases latency dramatically.

The very latest DECT chipsets are able to deliver a 12.5 kHz audio path from a 
microphone. Not sure how that's done. DECT is quite opaque. It remains the most 
common approach to a real-time wireless link built specifically for streaming 
audio.

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

-Original Message-
From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Chris Woolf
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 10:29 AM
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing 
B.S.)


On 28/05/2019 19:47, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> Le 28/05/2019 à 13:48, mgraves mstvp.com a écrit :
>
> 
> The latency is not only caused by the packetization; the transmission 
> chain looks like:
>
> (microphone -> ADC -> encoding -> BT transmission) -> (BT reception ->
> decoding) -> (SIP + encoding -> IP transmission) -> (IP reception -> 
> SIP + decoding) -> (DAC -> loudspeaker)
>
True enough, but the ADC, encoding, decoding and DAC elements can be reduced to 
<3ms (as happens with some of the best recent digital radio mics), which does 
indeed indicate that the intermediate stages are the ones that really do the 
harm.

A while back I had to make a short range speech reinforcer for a friend with a 
damaged larynx. It had to use an analogue pathway because no (affordable at the 
time) digital path had anything like low enough latency to permit normal, 
unstilted conversation. A target figure ~has~ to be <10ms to avoid disturbing 
speech, and for most people/environments must be <<5ms. I find it laughable 
that "low latency" frequently seems to mean 30-50ms.

Chris Woolf



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
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] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)

[mgraves mstvp . com]

Marc,



Some time ago I agreed to give a trade show presentation about Polycom's 
HDVoice codecs (Siren 7, Siren 14) being released under a license making it 
possible to use them with the asterisk open source telephone software.

In the way of dog-fooding the presentation, I tried to deliver it via an 
HDVoice capable BT headset (Plantronics Savvy Go) to a soft phone, relayed over 
a SIP link to the house PA. All on local LAN.

The latency inherent to that path made it completely impractical if I was in 
the same room as the audience. I learned the hard way that local wireless 
should not be an IP-based link. Packetization delay is a killer.


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

-Original Message-
From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Marc Lavallée
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 12:40 PM
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing 
B.S.)

Le 28/05/2019 à 13:20, mgraves mstvp.com a écrit :

> Marc,
>
> I'm well and truly intimate with WebRTC. The trouble with IP-based 
> connectivity is then latency involved with packetization.

Then my hack would not be useful if you need reatime connectivity. For a good 
quality 256Kps Opus stream (24bit, 48Khz), latency was ~130ms with a 2.4Mhz 
wifi connection. Maybe it could be improved.

> DECT and BT links don't suffer this, but they tend to be bandwidth 
> constrained (especially microphone freq response.)
>
> It's surprising that there are very few headsets with full bandwidth 
> microphone. Those that are, like the DPA D:Fine service, are offered for 
> stage/theatrical performance. They assume separate belt-packs for microphone 
> vs monitoring.

The market share is probably too small; most wireless headsets are now being 
used with phones.

Marc

>
> Michael Graves
> mgra...@mstvp.com
> http://www.mgraves.org
> o(713) 861-4005
> c(713) 201-1262
> sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
> skype mjgraves
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Marc 
> Lavallée
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 10:37 AM
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar 
> marketing B.S.)
>
> Le 28/05/2019 à 10:48, mgraves mstvp.com a écrit :
>
>> Marc,
>>
>> This is very interesting to me. Did you do this using Wi-Fi or some other 
>> wireless scheme?
>>
>> What I've been seeking is a low-cost, low-latency wireless solution for a 
>> headset.
>>
>> We have good, full-bandwidth solutions for wireless microphones. Also for 
>> wireless performance monitors. Nothing that combines these functions.
> Hi Michael.
>
> My hack was not bidirectional (it could be), but I suspect that the WebRTC 
> standard could be used on a phone, a small standalone computer or some of the 
> newest iOT micro-controller with Wifi and full-duplex audio.
> I have no idea how "better" it would be compared to available Bluetooth 
> headsets. And it would not be cheaper... A good start would be to design an 
> Android WebRTC app for your specific use case, and maybe this app already 
> exist.
>
> Marc
>
>> Michael Graves
>> mgra...@mstvp.com
>> http://www.mgraves.org
>> o(713) 861-4005
>> c(713) 201-1262
>> sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
>> skype mjgraves
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Marc 
>> Lavallée
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 7:20 AM
>> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.
>>
>> Last year I hacked a "low latency" (~100ms) stereo RTP streaming 
>> software between OSX and a Raspberry Pi. A possible solution would 
>> be, as Bo Erik suggested, to stream 4-channel on a musticast wifi 
>> network, then decode it on 4 RPIs (or similar boards), making sure 
>> they are in sync (using PTP). This is on my long list of things to 
>> try, but I would need  a specific project to kick-start this 
>> exploration. I'm in the process of setting up a 4-channel system in 
>> my home office (using two
>> 2.1 DIY "multimedia" system), so it's a good start. We could wait for the 
>> industry to provide something usable, but it would be proprietary, 
>> "professional", and expensive (because of the super-specific gold-plated 
>> hardware, patents, shareholders, marketing, logos, slick web sites, 
>> religious beliefs, etc). Also (who knows) maybe it's already possible to do 
>> it using the jack2 software suite.
>>
>> Marc
>>
>> Le 28/05/2019 à 07:40, Augustine Leudar a écrit :
>&

Re: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)

[mgraves mstvp . com]

Marc,

I'm well and truly intimate with WebRTC. The trouble with IP-based connectivity 
is then latency involved with packetization. DECT and BT links don't suffer 
this, but they tend to be bandwidth constrained (especially microphone freq 
response.) 

It's surprising that there are very few headsets with full bandwidth 
microphone. Those that are, like the DPA D:Fine service, are offered for 
stage/theatrical performance. They assume separate belt-packs for microphone vs 
monitoring. 

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

-Original Message-
From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Marc Lavallée
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 10:37 AM
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: [Sursound] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)

Le 28/05/2019 à 10:48, mgraves mstvp.com a écrit :

> Marc,
>
> This is very interesting to me. Did you do this using Wi-Fi or some other 
> wireless scheme?
>
> What I've been seeking is a low-cost, low-latency wireless solution for a 
> headset.
>
> We have good, full-bandwidth solutions for wireless microphones. Also for 
> wireless performance monitors. Nothing that combines these functions.

Hi Michael.

My hack was not bidirectional (it could be), but I suspect that the WebRTC 
standard could be used on a phone, a small standalone computer or some of the 
newest iOT micro-controller with Wifi and full-duplex audio. 
I have no idea how "better" it would be compared to available Bluetooth 
headsets. And it would not be cheaper... A good start would be to design an 
Android WebRTC app for your specific use case, and maybe this app already exist.

Marc

> Michael Graves
> mgra...@mstvp.com
> http://www.mgraves.org
> o(713) 861-4005
> c(713) 201-1262
> sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
> skype mjgraves
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Marc Lavallée
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 7:20 AM
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.
>
> Last year I hacked a "low latency" (~100ms) stereo RTP streaming software 
> between OSX and a Raspberry Pi. A possible solution would be, as Bo Erik 
> suggested, to stream 4-channel on a musticast wifi network, then decode it on 
> 4 RPIs (or similar boards), making sure they are in sync (using PTP). This is 
> on my long list of things to try, but I would need  a specific project to 
> kick-start this exploration. I'm in the process of setting up a 4-channel 
> system in my home office (using two
> 2.1 DIY "multimedia" system), so it's a good start. We could wait for the 
> industry to provide something usable, but it would be proprietary, 
> "professional", and expensive (because of the super-specific gold-plated 
> hardware, patents, shareholders, marketing, logos, slick web sites, religious 
> beliefs, etc). Also (who knows) maybe it's already possible to do it using 
> the jack2 software suite.
>
> Marc
>
> Le 28/05/2019 à 07:40, Augustine Leudar a écrit :
>> Weve tried local wifi networks at shows before but it was a bit
>> unreliable for droppouts etc then again so is Bluetooth. FOr home us it 
>> would be fine.
>> Four plug sockets  might be a bit more doable than audio cables as well.
>> Wasn't there someone on here who was doing something DIY with the
>> rasberry pie ? Anyway it would nice to bring something commercially viable 
>> to market.
>>
>> On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 09:39, Bo-Erik Sandholm  wrote:
>>
>>> The Speakers won't be wireless as you probably want them to be powered.
>>>
>>> But it should be easy with bluetooth 4.0 or Wi-Fi direct to create a
>>> solution.
>>>
>>> Normal Wi-Fi could be used.
>>> The low cost esp8266 makes this possible in a diy setup...
>>>
>>> Stream a 4 channel audiostream to the 4 speakers.
>>> Have a switch on each speaker to select which channel it will playback.
>>>
>>> Could possibly be solved by streaming 2 stereo channels on 2
>>> different ip ports over WiFi instead. 😎
>>>
>>> Bo-Erik
___
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] Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.

[mgraves mstvp . com]

gt; http://www.ambiophonics.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Aaron (hel...@ai.sri.com)
>>>>> Menlo Park, CA  US
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 4:43 PM Augustine Leudar < 
>>>>> augustineleu...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Douglas -
>>>>>> I dont think he was referring to Atmos soundbars just Atmos in
>>> general .
>>>>>> Atmos will of course work nicely being a 9.1 (or is it 11.1 ?) 
>>>>>> bed
>>> with
>>>>>> objects operating  within that over an unlimited number of 
>>>>>> speakers
>>> (or
>>>>> is
>>>>>> it 128 max)  - as such its true surround (in that the speakers od
>>>>> actually
>>>>>> surround the litener);  .
>>>>>> However its not particularily innovative in that it combines 
>>>>>> stuff
>>> thats
>>>>>> been around for years -  (ambisonics can decode to different 
>>>>>> speaker
>>>>> arrays
>>>>>> from one file for example and I assume the objects move around 
>>>>>> using amplitude panning). Then youve got things like DBAP which 
>>>>>> have the potential to create far more convincing 3D audio scenes 
>>>>>> that ATMOS
>> and
>>>>>> thats been around a lot longer.
>>>>>> But no here we just refer to soundbars in general I think. I find 
>>>>>> it
>>>>> very
>>>>>> unlikely though that an "ATMOS" soundbar would give the 
>>>>>> impression
>> of
>>> a
>>>>>> sound being behind the listener than a basical quad setup where
>> there
>>>>>> actually are two speakers behind the listener.
>>>>>> I agree  placebo definately plays a role in a lot of spatial audio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 22:00, Douglas Murray 
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 27, 2019, at 12:09 PM, mgraves mstvp.com <
>>> mgra...@mstvp.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> See also Dolby Atmos. Yet another triumph of marketing over
>>> reality.
>>>>>>> Dolby is especially good in that arena.
>>>>>>>> Michael Graves
>>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you referring to the Dolby Atmos sound bars and ceiling
>> bouncing
>>>>>>> speakers? If so I agree. But as a film sound designer, I don’t
>>> believe
>>>>> I am
>>>>>>> succumbing to marketing hype when I say that Dolby Atmos in a
>> cinema
>>>>>>> setting, with its full range surrounds and speakers in what were
>>> gaps
>>>>> near
>>>>>>> the screen, is a real improvement over other earlier surround
>>> formats
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> cinema. Clearly Dolby is trying to generate profits from the 
>>>>>>> mass
>>> home
>>>>>>> market rather than only from the small cinema world. It’s 
>>>>>>> probable
>>>>> that
>>>>> any
>>>>>>> sound bar, whether “Atmos” or not, will be an upgrade for 
>>>>>>> whomever
>>>>> buys
>>>>> it,
>>>>>>> so happy customers, even if the hype is not lived up to. Maybe
>> it’s
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> placebo effect that makes these things work?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doug Murray
>>>>>>> ___
>>>>>>> Sursound mailing list
>>>>>>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>>>>>>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - 
>>>>>>> unsubscribe
>>>>> here,
>>>>>>> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dr. Augustine Leudar
>>>>>> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
>>>>>> Company Number : NI635217
>>>>>> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
>>>>>> Belfast BT88LL
>>>>>> www.magikdoor.net
>

Re: [Sursound] Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.

[mgraves mstvp . com]

See also Dolby Atmos. Yet another triumph of marketing over reality. Dolby is 
especially good in that arena.

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



-Original Message-
From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Fons Adriaensen
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 1:45 PM
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 02:44:28PM +0100, Augustine Leudar wrote:

> /beginrant : According to the article below soundbars work not as any 
> kind of knockoff WFS but by "bouncing" sound off the walls tro get it 
> to appear to be behind you. How can it be that this actually sells and 
> is endorrsed by industry "proffesionals" and "experts" ?  when anyone 
> can quite clearly hear the sound does not appear to be behind them
> 
> http://www.build.com.au/how-soundbar-works
> 
>  I have never experienced on that makes the sound appear to be 
> ~"behind" me as the above claims they can do. They can sound nice 
> though but compared to actually having two speaker sbehind you as in a 
> quad setup - no. /rantover

Interesting subject, as I'm currently involved in developing exactly such a 
product. 

The article you refer is obviously BS,pure,liquid, as are all such claims. 
There is no way that bouncing beams on the walls (or ceiling) can produce 
anything comparable to having speakers in the right place.

But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to do something that would satisfy 
the average user watching B-movies with lots of silly sound effects (usually to 
render scenes of gratuitous violence) on his wide-screen TV.

But yes, this is just marketing.

Ciao,

--
FA

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

[mgraves]

Hello All,
 
I've used this software for years. It works very well.
 
It's part of a suite that includes VoiceMeeter, which is a software based mixer 
for windows. There are several versions with differing levels of physical and 
virtual I/O sophistication.

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

 
- Original Message - Subject: [Sursound] VB Audio software
From: "Eero Aro" 
Date: 11/13/17 5:09 am
To: sursound@music.vt.edu

Hi All
 
 I happened to find a couple of interesting donationware programs.
 
 VBAN can send up to 8 channel audio between devices in a network,
 or at least that's what they say. I haven't tried this one yet. Could 
 work for
 a multiroom surround sound system.
 
 https://www.vb-audio.com/Voicemeeter/vban.htm
 
 However, I did install the Virtual Audio Cable. It allows connecting two 
 computer
 applications together.
 
 https://www.vb-audio.com/Cable/index.htm
 
 I used Reaper as a transmitting program and AudioMulch as the receiving 
 part.
 Ta - dah! Now I can do waveform editing and mixing in Reaper and play the
 audio in real time to AudioMulch for multichannel panning, processing 
 and decoding.
 
 The first Virtual Audio Cable can be downloaded and used without making
 necessarily a donation. The next pairs of channels need to be paid for. 
 (Of course
 it it decent to pay also for the first one.)
 
 The latency between the channels should be checked, I haven't done that yet.
 
 The "better" version supports 24bit / 384 kHz audio streams.
 https://www.vb-audio.com/Cable/index.htm#DownloadASIOBridge
 
 VB-Audio has also other applications. I am not sure of I should consider VB
 applications as serious audio tools or not.
 
 Eero
 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Getting rid of a Lake HURON

[mgraves]

Sorry..can't resist. What follows is entirely fictional.
 
"The Lake Huron system feel out of favor after the release of the new Lake 
Superior system. Lake Superior offered far greater depth, although most thought 
it colder than Lake Huron."
 
;-) ;-)

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

 
- Original Message - Subject: [Sursound] Getting rid of a Lake 
HURON
From: "Ben Claridge" 
Date: 9/20/17 12:55 pm
To: sursound@music.vt.edu

Hi,
 
 We are having a clear out and have come across our old Lake HURON which 
 has DSP cards for 16 channels of in/out.
 I believe it is now 20 years old so a real ambisonics antique!
 If anyone out there is interested in taking it off our hands and getting 
 it running again, please send me a message.
 
 Thanks,
 
 Ben
 
 GILLIERON SCOTT
 
 gsacoustics.org
 
 
 
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 

 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Cellphone tetrahedral

[mgraves]

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

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

 On 18 Aug 2017, at 18:57, Wim wrote:
 
 > It's probably USB audio compliant. Requires no drivers on any OS. An iphone
 > or ipad should work with the famous "Camera connection kit" from Apple.
 > With Android, YMMV, but it should also work, in principle...
 > 
 > 2017-08-18 18:35 GMT+02:00 Steven Boardman :
 > 
 >> Well, don't be sure it will work with all Android devices. I have been
 >> there before, but It will also work with a computer.
 >> It's $89 till the end of August, which IS what makes it interesting.
 >> Not sure of the regular price of $179. I need to hear some music recorded
 >> with it first….
 >> 
 >> It's a good choice (for them) to use a ping pong sample, to show the
 >> spatial abilities. A small emitter of mid/high frequency transients, one
 >> already knows which direction it will appear next!
 >> 
 >> Steve
 >> 
 >> 
 >>> On 18 Aug 2017, at 16:04, mgra...@mstvp.com wrote:
 >>> 
 >>> Since it's USB it must be Android-only for the moment.
 >>> 
 >>> Any idea the price?
 >>> 
 >>> Michael Graves
 >>> mgra...@mstvp.com
 >>> http://www.mgraves.org
 >>> o(713) 861-4005
 >>> c(713) 201-1262
 >>> sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
 >>> skype mjgraves
 >>> 
 >>> 
 >>> - Original Message - Subject: [Sursound] Cellphone
 >> tetrahedral
 >>> From: "Steven Boardman" 
 >>> Date: 8/18/17 2:36 am
 >>> To: "Surround Sound discussion group" 
 >>> 
 >>> http://yun.twirlingvr.com/index.php/home/Lite/lite-en
 >>> 
 >>> They were also going to bring out a stand alone integrated recording
 >>> solution.
 >>> Will download the b-format files and listen in the studio later..
 >>> Looks precarious, and prone to falling out/over/off. Especially as most
 >>> usb ports are on the bottom and not that tight.
 >>> 
 >>> Steve
 >>> -- next part --
 >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 >>> URL: > attachments/20170818/1a9c54e3/attachment.html>
 >>> ___
 >>> Sursound mailing list
 >>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
 >>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
 >> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
 >>> -- next part --
 >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 >>> URL: > attachments/20170818/6e71c16e/attachment.html>
 >>> ___
 >>> Sursound mailing list
 >>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
 >>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
 >> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
 >> 
 >> ___
 >> Sursound mailing list
 >> Sursound@music.vt.edu
 >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
 >> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
 >> 
 > -- next part --
 > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 > URL: 
 > 
 > ___
 > Sursound mailing list
 > Sursound@music.vt.edu
 > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
 > account or options, view archives and so on.
 
 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Cellphone tetrahedral

[mgraves]

Since it's USB it must be Android-only for the moment.
 
Any idea the price?

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

 
- Original Message - Subject: [Sursound] Cellphone tetrahedral
From: "Steven Boardman" 
Date: 8/18/17 2:36 am
To: "Surround Sound discussion group" 

http://yun.twirlingvr.com/index.php/home/Lite/lite-en
 
 They were also going to bring out a stand alone integrated recording
 solution.
 Will download the b-format files and listen in the studio later..
 Looks precarious, and prone to falling out/over/off. Especially as most
 usb ports are on the bottom and not that tight.
 
 Steve
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 

 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Multichannel players for permanent installations

[mgraves]

Actually, 802.11at Type 2 supports up to 25w, but requires more effort to 
source power. That is, newer more costly, switches or insertors.
 
The hack you describe isn't really so hack-ish, since there are a number of 
non-802.11 compliant approaches to POE. Including one that's capable of 
delivering up to 90 watts.
 
Here's a unique approach called Digital Electricity. https://voltserver.com/ 
They provide high-power and data over a simple 2-conductor pair. They claim 20x 
the power and distance of 802.11af solutions.
 
Cost is another matter.

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

 
 
 
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Multichannel 
players for permanent installations
From: "Marc Lavallée" 
Date: 6/29/17 11:48 am
To: sursound@music.vt.edu


 The limit is actually more like 13W per device, according to:
 
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimentation_%C3%A9lectrique_par_c%C3%A2ble_Ethernet
 A Raspberry Pi and a DAC would use 5 to 6W, leaving 7-8W to a D-amp. 
 With efficient loudspeakers (and a few of them), 6W could enough
 for a small public installation.
 
 A hackish alternative would be to use only 2 pairs of a CAT5 cable
 for a 100BT link (which is enough to stream audio), and use the 2 other
 pairs to transmit power (as much as required).
 
 Running speaker wires is also a valid solution...
 
 --
 Marc
 
 
 On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:10:12 -0700, mgra...@mstvp.com wrote:
 
 > Hi,
 > 
 > This is an interesting discussion. Common, 802.3af P.O.E. is limited
 > to 15w. Fine for a Raspberry Pi, DAC or DSP, but not enough for much
 > amplification. 
 > 
 > Michael Graves
 > mgra...@mstvp.com
 > http://www.mgraves.org
 > o(713) 861-4005
 > c(713) 201-1262
 > sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
 > skype mjgraves
 > 
 > 
 > - Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound]
 > Multichannel players for permanent installations From: "Dave Hunt"
 >  Date: 6/29/17 11:04 am
 > To: sursound@music.vt.edu
 > 
 > Hi,
 > 
 > I think that you'll find that an active speaker with an AVB input 
 > will require more current than can be supplied over an ethernet 
 > cable. Perhaps for very small speakers with a low power digital 
 > amplifier, but anything decent would require mains (or DC batteries) 
 > to the speaker.
 > 
 > The available current may power the DAC though.
 > 
 > Ciao,
 > 
 > Dave
 > 
 > > From: Augustine Leudar 
 > > Date: 28 June 2017 22:06:52 BDT
 > > To: Surround Sound discussion group 
 > > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Multichannel players for permanent 
 > > installations
 > >
 > >
 > > Hi Richard -
 > > There is lots of things that pan all around the room but the 
 > > soundscape is
 > > designed in pre production for this installation and then its just
 > > a multichannel file (or seperate mono ones). Other installations I
 > > do are
 > > interactive and so sounds are processed and panned in realtime 
 > > around the
 > > space depending on the sensors used etc. Certainly the AVB thing 
 > > might be
 > > good for some less inhospitable environments- I especially like
 > > the way
 > > power can be taken to the the speakers via the ethernet
 > > cable. 
 > 
 > -- next part --
 > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 > URL:
 > 
 > ___ Sursound mailing list
 > Sursound@music.vt.edu
 > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
 > here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
 > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was
 > scrubbed... URL:
 > 
 > ___ Sursound mailing list
 > Sursound@music.vt.edu
 > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
 > here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
 
 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Multichannel players for permanent installations

[mgraves]

Hi,
 
This is an interesting discussion. Common, 802.3af P.O.E. is limited to 15w. 
Fine for a Raspberry Pi, DAC or DSP, but not enough for much amplification. 

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

 
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Multichannel 
players for permanent installations
From: "Dave Hunt" 
Date: 6/29/17 11:04 am
To: sursound@music.vt.edu

Hi,
 
 I think that you'll find that an active speaker with an AVB input 
 will require more current than can be supplied over an ethernet 
 cable. Perhaps for very small speakers with a low power digital 
 amplifier, but anything decent would require mains (or DC batteries) 
 to the speaker.
 
 The available current may power the DAC though.
 
 Ciao,
 
 Dave
 
 > From: Augustine Leudar 
 > Date: 28 June 2017 22:06:52 BDT
 > To: Surround Sound discussion group 
 > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Multichannel players for permanent 
 > installations
 >
 >
 > Hi Richard -
 > There is lots of things that pan all around the room but the 
 > soundscape is
 > designed in pre production for this installation and then its just a
 > multichannel file (or seperate mono ones). Other installations I do 
 > are
 > interactive and so sounds are processed and panned in realtime 
 > around the
 > space depending on the sensors used etc. Certainly the AVB thing 
 > might be
 > good for some less inhospitable environments- I especially like the 
 > way
 > power can be taken to the the speakers via the ethernet cable.
 
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 

 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Small multichannel speakers setup

[mgraves]

 
 
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Small multichannel 
speakers setup
From: "Emanuele Costantini" 
Date: 5/13/16 10:34 am
To: sursound@music.vt.edu

Gallo A'Diva and ORB audio, I think they need an amplfier in order to 
 work, which is not an option due to lack of room space.


 I would bet that the spherical speakers and the requisite amplifier take up 
not more space than most powered speakers. 
 
If you're going cost conscious you can use the small digital amps from the 
likes of SMSL & Parts Express. I have one that delivers 50w/c in 1/4 of 1 RU. 
That is, you can fit 4 into a 1 RU space.
 
Michael
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Small multichannel speakers setup

[mgraves]

My apologies. The link was stripped for my last message. Here it is.
 
http://cabezal.com/~inguz/cube/
 
While the Gallo A'Diva Ti's are not longer made there are similar, newer models.
 
http://www.orbaudio.com/satellitesonly.aspx
 
The availability of flexible mounting arrangements would seem to be handy.
 
Michael Graves
 mgra...@mstvp.com
http://www.mgraves.org
o(713) 861-4005
 c(713) 201-1262
 sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
 skype mjgraves

 
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Small multichannel 
speakers setup
From: mgra...@mstvp.com
Date: 5/13/16 9:13 am
To: "Surround Sound discussion group" 

Back in 2009 a gentleman created a simple, portable Ambisonic cube playback 
environment using Gallo Acoustics small A'Diva spheres.
 
 For the home this seems to be a step above the Logitech approach, but well 
more approachable than Genelecs.
 
 Michael
 
 - Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Small 
multichannel speakers setup
 From: "Ilpo Martikainen" 
 Date: 5/12/16 11:25 pm
 To: "Surround Sound discussion group" 
 
 Hi,
 
 What about the tiny 
http://www.genelec.com/studio-monitors/8000-series-studio-monitors/8010a-studio-monitor
 A little larger with 4 in woofer 
http://www.genelec.com/studio-monitors/8000-series-studio-monitors/8020c-studio-monitor
 and same size with network and room acoustics measurements and calibration 
capabilities 
http://www.genelec.com/studio-monitors/sam-studio-monitors/8320a-sam-studio-monitor
 
 Best regards,
 
 Ilpo
 
 
 On 12 May 2016, at 22:19, Emanuele Costantini 
> wrote:
 
 Hello everyone,
 
 due to the lack of space in modern houses, I am in need to look for small 
speakers to get on with my multichannel projects, here at home and ideally to 
bring them with me in small spaces to playback my works.
 For my stereo projects I have been using Bose ComputerMonitor:
 
 
https://www.bose.co.uk/GB/en/home-and-personal-audio/speakers/stereo/computer-musicmonitor/
 
 and I have been able to deliver final mixes matching bigger systems, or 
needing small adjustments. Ideally I would like to expand that system but I 
find annoying they use specific connectors and they work in couple, so 
connecting it from my RME ADI8 it would be a bit of a trick to do also because 
I will need an odd number of those (5 or 7 ?)
 I've been scouting on the internet and I've seen few options.
 I am intrigued by the JBL LSR305
 
 
http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/recording-broadcast/3-series/lsr305#.VzTQ5mbtZE4
 
 being that brand the standard for cinema sound and that industry being my main 
income, I quite like to get that way, but despite being quite small they are 
still a bit big and heavy, unfortunately.
 I found the Fostex PM03.d and PM 04.d
 
 http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/products/PM0.4d.shtml#content-3-tab-tab
 
 Which are smaller and lighter, but the specifics are not that great, the 04.d 
are better though.
 Adam F5:
 
 http://www.adam-audio.com/en/pro-audio/products/f5/technical-data
 
 They look like the best of the range. Obviously to deliver those 
characteristics they have to be heavy, a bit too much and not that small.
 A friend of mine has a stereo system of MAudio AV42:
 
 http://www.m-audio.com/products/view/av42#.VzSSzWbtZE4
 
 Which doesn't sound bad at all even if they are working in couple they have 
more standard connections, so I could do my own extensions.
 In that case I've been looking at the bigger brothers MAudio BX5 D2, slighlty 
bigger and heavier:
 
 http://www.m-audio.com/products/view/bx5-d2#.VzSUrWbtZE4
 
 I am wondering if anyone has an hint to suggest or other brands/model to 
consider or was surpises by the sound of smaller systems, Bose docet, like... 
ehm logitech? ;-)
 :-)
 
 Thanks a lot in advance for your suggestions.
 
 Emanuele
 
 
 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.
 
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 

 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 

 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

Re: [Sursound] Small multichannel speakers setup

[mgraves]

Back in 2009 a gentleman created a simple, portable  Ambisonic cube playback 
environment using Gallo Acoustics small A'Diva spheres.
 
For the home this seems to be a step above the Logitech approach, but well more 
approachable than Genelecs.
 
Michael
 
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Small multichannel 
speakers setup
From: "Ilpo Martikainen" 
Date: 5/12/16 11:25 pm
To: "Surround Sound discussion group" 

Hi,
 
 What about the tiny 
http://www.genelec.com/studio-monitors/8000-series-studio-monitors/8010a-studio-monitor
 A little larger with 4 in woofer 
http://www.genelec.com/studio-monitors/8000-series-studio-monitors/8020c-studio-monitor
 and same size with network and room acoustics measurements and calibration 
capabilities 
http://www.genelec.com/studio-monitors/sam-studio-monitors/8320a-sam-studio-monitor
 
 Best regards,
 
 Ilpo
 
 
 On 12 May 2016, at 22:19, Emanuele Costantini 
> wrote:
 
 Hello everyone,
 
 due to the lack of space in modern houses, I am in need to look for small 
speakers to get on with my multichannel projects, here at home and ideally to 
bring them with me in small spaces to playback my works.
 For my stereo projects I have been using Bose ComputerMonitor:
 
 
https://www.bose.co.uk/GB/en/home-and-personal-audio/speakers/stereo/computer-musicmonitor/
 
 and I have been able to deliver final mixes matching bigger systems, or 
needing small adjustments. Ideally I would like to expand that system but I 
find annoying they use specific connectors and they work in couple, so 
connecting it from my RME ADI8 it would be a bit of a trick to do also because 
I will need an odd number of those (5 or 7 ?)
 I've been scouting on the internet and I've seen few options.
 I am intrigued by the JBL LSR305
 
 
http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/recording-broadcast/3-series/lsr305#.VzTQ5mbtZE4
 
 being that brand the standard for cinema sound and that industry being my main 
income, I quite like to get that way, but despite being quite small they are 
still a bit big and heavy, unfortunately.
 I found the Fostex PM03.d and PM 04.d
 
 http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/products/PM0.4d.shtml#content-3-tab-tab
 
 Which are smaller and lighter, but the specifics are not that great, the 04.d 
are better though.
 Adam F5:
 
 http://www.adam-audio.com/en/pro-audio/products/f5/technical-data
 
 They look like the best of the range. Obviously to deliver those 
characteristics they have to be heavy, a bit too much and not that small.
 A friend of mine has a stereo system of MAudio AV42:
 
 http://www.m-audio.com/products/view/av42#.VzSSzWbtZE4
 
 Which doesn't sound bad at all even if they are working in couple they have 
more standard connections, so I could do my own extensions.
 In that case I've been looking at the bigger brothers MAudio BX5 D2, slighlty 
bigger and heavier:
 
 http://www.m-audio.com/products/view/bx5-d2#.VzSUrWbtZE4
 
 I am wondering if anyone has an hint to suggest or other brands/model to 
consider or was surpises by the sound of smaller systems, Bose docet, like... 
ehm logitech? ;-)
 :-)
 
 Thanks a lot in advance for your suggestions.
 
 Emanuele
 
 
 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.
 
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 

 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Storage - how do you do yours?

[mgraves]

 Hereabouts we are very enamored of the 4 disk FreeNAS Mini appliance, 
which is a hardware+software solution that includes ZFS.
 
Michael
 
 
 
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Storage - how do 
you do yours?
From: "Ben Bloomberg" 
Date: 4/15/16 1:02 pm
To: "Surround Sound discussion group" 

An HP Microserver with FreeNAS is a great way to get a ZFS cluster running.
 
 ZFS is a great filesystem for archiving media. I have machines running
 pools ranging from 500GB to 144TB.
 They can scale and grow really easily.
 
 You can run pretty nicely with a cheap i3 CPU and a decent LSI HBA. A 16 TB
 system might be in the ballpark of $2000.
 
 $400 - case
 $900 - disks
 $700 - RAM, CPU, Motherboard, etc...
 
 It could be much cheaper, but I like to do server grade components.
 
 ZFS has Raid z which does parity across multiple disks.
 
 Ben
 
 On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:09 PM, John Leonard  wrote:
 
 > A question:
 >
 > Most of my recording is now 4 four or six channel 96/24 and currently, I
 > back up from the recorders to bare hard drives via an eSATA docking
 > station, which means that I have an every-increasing pile of hard drives,
 > as I back up every thing important twice. I've pretty much standardised on
 > 2TB drives; a mixture of Seagate and Western Digital (I keep telling
 > myself that it's cheaper than a reel of 1” Ampex 456, but at the rate that
 > I'm piling the drives up, it's still a bit daunting.)
 >
 > Although this system works pretty well, and I use DiskTracker to keep a
 > record of what's where, It does mean that I just have a shelf full of 3.5”
 > hard drives, which is a) a bit messy and b) a bit of a risk. The cloud is
 > an option - or at least it will be once I get my super-duper-whizzy even
 > faster Virgin upgrade, but even at the current upload rate of 10 MB, a full
 > drive takes days to upload and then it's not exactly quick to get it back.
 >
 > Given that I don't have an educational establishment with huge servers,
 > anyone got any reasonably-priced suggestions for storage?
 >
 > Ta,
 >
 > John
 >
 >
 > Please note new email address & direct line phone number
 > email: j...@johnleonard.uk
 > phone +44 (0)20 3286 5942
 >
 >
 > ___
 > Sursound mailing list
 > Sursound@music.vt.edu
 > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
 > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
 >
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 

 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Dialogue in center channel,,, not always

[mgraves]

It's worth noting  :-) that the Puppy Bowl, which airs this weekend, is being 
presented in VR. I suppose the opportunity for dramatic audio there would be 
limited. :-)  :-) 
 
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Dialogue in center 
channel,,, not always
From: "Augustine Leudar" 
Date: 2/5/16 4:48 pm
To: s...@mchapman.com, "Surround Sound discussion group" 

You set up the wager by knowing the right people, and by being in the
 right place at the right time and undermining your competition ;)
 Part of the problem is that if the the audio gets too 3d or immersive
 then it destroy the illusion of the dated 2d screen. They certainly
 dont want people looking away from the screen and over their shoulder
 to see a dog barking etc
 It certainly sounds like Trond was experiencing the precedence effect
 - which implies the post house just upmixed from not even stereo - but
 from mono. Groan.
 
 On 05/02/2016, Michael Chapman  wrote:
 > Peter Lennox wrote :
 >>
 >> maybe we should sponsor some kind of competition, to see how much
 >> spatiallity can be got into (and out of) Dolby atmos.
 >
 > Sounds worth pursuing . . .
 >
 > Michael
 >
 >
 > Don't want to dilute a good idea : but if the above 'flies' how about an
 > annual prize for the film with the 'best' sound ... the media luv that
 > sort of stuff ...
 >
 >
 > ___
 > Sursound mailing list
 > Sursound@music.vt.edu
 > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit
 > account or options, view archives and so on.
 >
 
 
 -- 
 www.augustineleudar.com
 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Sennheiser Easy 3D Recording and Modeling

[mgraves]

 
 
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Sennheiser Easy 3D 
Recording and Modeling
From: "David Pickett" 
Date: 1/25/16 8:08 am
To: "Surround Sound discussion group" 

At 14:21 25-01-16, Courville, Daniel wrote:
 >
 >http://www.videomaker.com/videonews/2016/01/best-microphone-of-ces-201
 >6-sennheiser-vr-mic
 >
 >This says four caps. OK.
 >

 If that's the case, it looks like a copy of the SF Mike. How can the 
 article say: "This is the first VR Mic we've seen..." ?



 Perhaps because it's written by someone very young and inexperienced?
 
Or perhaps because the lay person doesn't equate "VR" with "surround."
 
Michael Graves
 mgra...@mstvp.com
http://www.mgraves.org
o(713) 861-4005
 c(713) 201-1262
 sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
 skype mjgraves
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Multichannel amps

[mgraves]

At first glance the specs on the Innosonix amp don't look that impressive. 
Rather limited power output.
 
The Crown amp looks decent. I see it listed around $2300 USD, but there are 
refurbished units offered for $1250.
 
Michael
 
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Multichannel amps
From: "Augustine Leudar" 
Date: 12/27/15 4:27 pm
To: "Surround Sound discussion group" 

Any idea of the cost I couldn't see it ?
 
 On Sunday, 27 December 2015, Gregorio García Karman <
 ggkar...@musicologia.com> wrote:
 
 > Hi Augustine,
 >
 > just came across this 32-channel unit, it is being sold as a solution for
 > 3D multichannel sound installations and has DANTE/MADI interconnectivity,
 > presumably not in the requested price range though
 >
 > http://www.innosonix.de/ma32-lp.html
 >
 > G
 >
 > Am 27.12.2015 um 10:06 schrieb Iain Mott  >:
 >
 > > Can't remember the price but the Crown CT8150 is very good. Has balanced
 > > inputs and does 125W into 8 ohms. Only eight channels, but is very slim
 > > and rack mountable so 4 units won't take up much space:
 > >
 > > http://www.crownaudio.com/en-US/products/ct-8150
 > >
 > > Iain
 > >
 > >
 > > Em Dom, 2015-12-27 às 00:55 +, Augustine Leudar escreveu:
 > >> Frank can I ask what speakers you used with this ?
 > >> cheers,
 > >> Augustine
 > >>
 > >> On 29 October 2015 at 13:27, Frank Ekeberg  > wrote:
 > >>
 > >>>
 > >>> I have a couple of Dayton MA1240a that I've used for multichannel sound
 > >>> installations, that I can recommend. The MA1240a is a 12 channel
 > amplifier
 > >>> with quite decent sound quality. Solidly built, too. I paid just below
 > $500
 > >>> per amp at one of the online discount electronics stores in the US.
 > >>>
 > >>>
 > http://www.daytonaudio.com/index.php/ma1240-multi-zone-12-channel-amplifier.html
 > >>>
 > >>> -- frank
 > >>>
 > >>> On 29.10.2015 10:29, Augustine Leudar wrote:
 > >>>
 >  please bear in mind that I can buy 22 active speakers for around 1000
 >  pounds for this project - so no suggestions of £4000 amplifiers
 > please !
 > 
 >  On 29 October 2015 at 09:07, Augustine Leudar <
 > augustineleu...@gmail.com >
 >  wrote:
 > 
 >  Dear all,
 > > I am looking to build a budget passive multichannel system - can
 > anyone
 > > recommend a good value amplifier - maybe 22 channels up to 32
 > channels ?
 > > Any speakers that would do well with it (preferable waterproof !). Is
 > > there
 > > a wireless system yet ?
 > >
 > > --
 > > www.augustineleudar.com
 > >
 > >
 > 
 > 
 > >>> ___
 > >>> 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.
 >
 
 
 -- 
 www.augustineleudar.com
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 

 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Wireless speakers

[mgraves]

- Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Wireless speakers
From: "Marc Lavallée" 
Date: 12/17/15 9:20 am
To: "Surround Sound discussion group" 

On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 08:03:33 -0700, mgra...@mstvp.com wrote:

 > The latest Chromecast Audio seems like it could be part of a modular
 > solution. It would take some code to piece it together, but ti's
 > pretty accessible. For those proposing RaspberryPi solutions there is
 > the HiFiBerry DAC which comes in analog and SPDIF output versions. It
 > even comes in a version with a 25w onboard amplifier, but I'm not
 > certain what that gets you. If it could be powered over Ethernet, and
 > achieve suitable output levels, that could reduce the cable
 > requirement to one per RPi+amp+speaker. Wireless is never really
 > wireless when power is something other than batteries. Michael Graves

 About Power Over Ethernet: it's good to know that 802.3af is limited to
 15.3W per device, while 802.3at can provide up to 25.5 W per device:
 http://www.rhyshaden.com/eth_poe.htm



 Indeed. I've used POE for IP phones and surveillance cameras for years. It's 
further complicated by upstream power limits of the network switch. It may only 
support full power on a limited subset of its ports.
 
Still, given efficient digital amplification it could suite some applications. 
There is a POE shield for the RPi that was a Kickstarter project...not yet 
delivering but in process.
 
Michael
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Wireless speakers

[mgraves]

- Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Wireless speakers
From: "Marc Lavallée" 
Date: 12/17/15 7:34 am
To: "Surround Sound discussion group" 


 A solution would be to encode all required channels in one
 multi-channel stream, using the Opus codec, then broadcast this single
 stream using a multicast IP wifi transmitter (with the UDP protocol to
 avoid delays), to be received by individual decoders made with small
 wifi equipped computers (maybe cheap android phones). This is a
 scheme that would ensure that all receivers get all channels
 simultaneously, to minimize delays between decoded channels (helped
 with a precise "world clock" protocol like PTP). I don't know if this
 specific solution exists (more googling required at this point), but
 there is one commercial solution partially based on the same idea to
 transmit distinct stereo streams (instead of one multi-channel stream):
 http://www.audiotxmultiplex.com/



 The latest Chromecast Audio seems like it could be part of a modular solution. 
It would take some code to piece it together, but ti's pretty accessible.
 
For those proposing RaspberryPi solutions there is the HiFiBerry DAC which 
comes in analog and SPDIF output versions. It even comes in a version with a 
25w onboard amplifier, but I'm not certain what that gets you. If it could be 
powered over Ethernet, and achieve suitable output levels, that could reduce 
the cable requirement to one per RPi+amp+speaker.
 
Wireless is never really wireless when power is something other than batteries.
 
Michael Graves
 mgra...@mstvp.com
http://www.mgraves.org
o(713) 861-4005
 c(713) 201-1262
 sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
 skype mjgraves
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Spatial sound turns into an experience | Lithuania

[mgraves]

This is curious. I can see the stream, but there's no audio at all at present. 
Just a room full of people, with a woman speaking at the podium.
 


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

 
- Original Message - Subject: [Sursound] Spatial sound turns 
into an experience | Lithuania
From: "Jurgis Jarašius" 
Date: 11/18/15 5:27 am
To: sursound@music.vt.edu

Dear all,
 
 Starting this Thursday (19.11.2015) Lithuanian Music Innovation Studies
 Center organizes spatial sound shows. During this event the spatial sound
 will be transmitted through three-dimensional microphones from the 3D head
 installation.
 
 It is very important for us to receive listeners comments about the quality
 of sound and music of these broadcasts. For this reason we would like you
 to forward this e-mail to all the workers of your company.
 
 We are sending this e-mail to different organizations and universities in
 the world. However it is not a social research. We are an academic,
 non-profit organization with the goal to reach better internet sound.
 
 Place and time of the broadcasts:
 www.misc.lmta.lt
 

 
 (The stream is already active.)
 
 Every 50th listener who would give us a comment to m...@lmta.lt
 

 will
 receive the prize of the Center - the record of Lithuanian contemporary
 music collection.
 
 Thank you for forwarding this to your colleagues and friends.
 
 Best regards,
 
 -- 
 Music Innovation Studies Center
 Lithuanian Academy of Music and Theater
 Vilnius
 LT
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 

 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

[Sursound] Google Files Trademark for ‘360-Degree Spherical Audio’ Software

[mgraves]

>From yesterday's tech news headlines: Google Files Trademark for '360-Degree 
>Spherical Audio' Software
 
http://www.omgchrome.com/google-dynamic-virtual-surround-sound-trademark
 
Sadly, no technical details offered.

 Michael Graves
 mgra...@mstvp.com
http://www.mgraves.org
o(713) 861-4005
 c(713) 201-1262
 sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
 skype mjgraves
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] ambisonic.xyz

[mgraves]

Isn't this what AmbiExplorer does on Android devices? It renders B format files 
into binaural, allowing you to reposition your perspective. I know that it 
supports rendering to a file.
 
Michael Graves
 mgra...@mstvp.com
http://www.mgraves.org
o(713) 861-4005
 c(713) 201-1262
 sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
 skype mjgraves

 
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] ambisonic.xyz
From: "Marc Lavallée" 
Date: 5/25/15 12:37 pm
To: "Surround Sound discussion group" 

On Mon, 25 May 2015 13:40:23 + (UTC), Martin Richards wrote:
 > Hi Marc,Thanks for your reply. I suppose I misunderstand what this is
 > all about. I'm looking for a way of converting B format to binaural
 > either via the web or a program and since so far as I know Harpex is
 > the only suitable program but for my limited use I'm reluctant to
 > buy...Are you making a tool available to convert B to binaural as
 > shown in your demo?Thanks,Martin 
 
 Hi Martin.
 
 Now I understand.
 
 What I did is a player, but what you need is a converter. The
 principles are the same, except the first is realtime (for listening
 and interacting) while the second could be much faster but would have
 to be streamed to a file.
 
 The Web Audio API does support offline audio rendering that could
 potentially be faster than realtime :
 http://webaudio.github.io/web-audio-api/#the-offlineaudiocontext-interface
 
 But I don't know if the result could be streamed to a file.
 To be verified. Thanks for the idea. 
 --
 Marc
 
 > From: Marc Lavallée
 >  To: sursound@music.vt.edu Sent: Monday, 25 May
 > 2015, 12:17 Subject: Re: [Sursound] ambisonic.xyz On Mon, 25 May 2015
 > 08:43:25 + (UTC), Martin Richards wrote:
 > > I make a limited number of live recordings of concerts as a hobby
 > > and have some recent ambisonic recordings made with the
 > > coresound/Tascam DR680 combo of classical (baroque) chamber music
 > > (by professional performers). I'd like to make a binaural version
 > > available to the players in addition to the stereo version. Is
 > > there a freeware version out there for windows (don't have mac)? I
 > > may be able to make some of the recording available to
 > > ambisonic.xyz and will look into this depending on their
 > > willingness.Thanks,Martin Richards 
 > 
 > Hi Martin.
 > 
 > What software are you referring to?
 > 
 > As for for the ambisonic.xyz player, I made it as an companion for a
 > future version of ambisonia.com (which is too old to me maintained in
 > its actual form); I was in the process of migrating ambisonia.com to a
 > static version (as an intermediate version), when I realize how a web
 > player could be done. So, the real project is ambisonia.com with a
 > player...
 > 
 > --
 > Marc
 > 
 > 
 > >  From: Bo-Erik Sandholm 
 > >  To: Surround Sound discussion group  
 > >  Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015, 8:54
 > >  Subject: Re: [Sursound] ambisonic.xyz
 > >
 > > http://elevr.com/audio-for-vr-film/
 > > They seems to have made progress during the latest months, I had not
 > > read the site for a while, so please do read the website, it looks
 > > like a good opportunity if we can assist them. Some of us have the
 > > knowledge, can we assist them in a "open source" way?
 > > 
 > > Best Regards
 > > Bo-Erik
 > > 
 > > -Original Message-
 > > From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of
 > > Bo-Erik Sandholm Sent: den 25 maj 2015 09:00
 > > To: Surround Sound discussion group
 > > Subject: Re: [Sursound] ambisonic.xyz
 > > 
 > > Hi Marc
 > > 
 > > How hard is it for you to take it one step further? 
 > > 
 > > That is to have a full screen 360 degrees panorama picture instead
 > > of the rotating head?
 > > 
 > > Then follow this up by these additions:
 > > Control the view direction using a 3D directional headtracker bvia a
 > > Javascript that is receving the direction information via either:
 > > - This solution implemented by Mathias
 > > http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/?p=2091 using OSC messages
 > > - Or the same sensor Hardware with addition of Bluetooth and
 > > other transmission protocol used by Hector Centeno
 > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOsfo8or_0E
 > > 
 > > Then you can give me a low cost VR experience if I hang an IPad in
 > > front of my eyes on a stupid looking holder :-)
 > > 
 > > The next step is to add full support for height in ambisonics and
 > > Spherical panoramas like google street view,  maybe you can
 > > duplicate the control signals and couple the view control of a
 > > google street view with a background ambisonic soundtrack from
 > > another website?
 > > 
 > > Us ambisonics guys could record a few environmental could tracks for
 > > a few  locations,
 > > https://www.instantstreetview.com/@59.329495,18.072078,145.92h,3.88p,1z
 > > I can provid a recording for this location if wanted :-)
 > > 
 > >  - and the ultimate version is of course Stereoscopic video ,
 > > Ideas around this can be seen here
 > > http://elevr.com/aud

Re: [Sursound] Infra sound & Sub bass

[mgraves]

Amen, brother!
 
Your argument is further supported by the evolution of the state of high-power 
silicon. Once upon a time  a 200w/c amplifier was a mammoth. There are power 
amplifiers now that can deliver 90%+ of the power available from the line to 
the load. These sorts of amps made their debut in bandwidth limited 
applications like subs, but have migrated all the way to full-band applications 
in recent years.
 
While I might be inclined to generalise in describing them as "digital 
amplifiers," some are in fact, analog amps but with digital tracking power 
supplies. Quite recently I read about a multi-channel power amp for home 
theater applications that requires 2 x 15 A circuits. It delivers 7 channels 
capable of 300 w/c each.
 
Things can be done with the express purpose of reproducing music, or for 
effect. Getting < 40 Hz seems to be more about effect.
 
Michael
 
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Infra sound & Sub 
bass
From: "Richard Lee" 
Date: 4/25/15 3:27 am
To: "'Surround Sound discussion group'" 

The question isn't whether 'music' has frequencies below 1/zillion Hz. 
 It's whether such content adds to the MUSIC.
 
 This is the case ONLY with organs reproduced properly.
 
 You can check this with DBLTs. The speaker that has come out top in every 
 single DBLT it has been in nearly 2 decades (some dozen tests in all) was a 
 small 6.5 ltr reflex with 70Hz cutoff. It was usually up against MUCH 
 larger & expensive speakers. No one has complained about its bass though 
 some remark it's a bit down. As we did ABC (33% chance if guessing) rather 
 than ABX (50% chance) tests, the probability that this result is chance is 
 extremely small.
 
 There's also a lot of myth about how to design speakers for "better defined 
 & more energetic beat". None of this comes out in DBLTs and this little 
 ported box with "terrible LF ringing" always has comments like "tuneful, 
 well defined bla bla bass" attributed to it.
 
 Going from 70Hz to 40Hz cutoff will more than triple the size and cost of 
 the speaker .. and to go to 20Hz will more than double that again. You 
 need to decide if you are getting any MUSICAL gains.
 
 The organ example ... differentiating 'pressure in the head' and 
 'velocity' (trouser flapping) sensations is an important part of the MUSIC.
 
 For percussion in modern music (??!), Bruce Willis destroying the universe 
 & other 21st century stuff, single subs are acceptable as they are all 
 'pressure in the head (and other parts of the anatomy)' sensations. 
 Distributed subs fed with a mono signal allow this over a larger area.
 
 There's another myth that it's difficult to produce LF in small rooms. If 
 all you want to do is dinosaur footsteps et al, this isn't the case. It's 
 easier to pressurize a small room than a large one as you have to stuff 
 less air in & out.
 
 But a similar sensation is obtained by having someone beat you over parts 
 of your anatomy with a blunt instrument. In a large venue this is cost 
 effective because the required staff are already there. They are called 
 bouncers.
 
 What IS difficult is to produce Velocity (trouser flapping) at LF. You 
 have to MOVE all the air in the room.
 
 I have no comment on mixes with loadsa stuff below 30Hz that overload the 
 majority of playback systems without any MUSICAL benefit ... whether its to 
 cheat a A-weighted meter or not.
 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] 3D Sound Labs Neoh headphones

[mgraves]

- Original Message -  Subject: Re: [Sursound] 3D Sound Labs 
Neoh headphones
From: "Stefan Schreiber" 
Date: 4/22/15 12:05 pm
To: "Surround Sound discussion group" 

Stefan Schreiber wrote:

Ok, they could be a bit clearer. They could refer to anything specific 
 "above" 5.1/7.1, what they avoided. They could maybe have mentioned 
 Ambisonics, but most people never heard about.

 Therefore "3D audio formats" and "immersive".

 They could connect the headphones to a (binaural...) Mpeg-H 3DA decoder, 
 but same story here: The potential customers probably never have heard 
 of "Mpeg 3DA". The music industry or what remains doesn't know a lot if 
 anything, etc.

 In fact: 3D Sound Labs should license (or obtain) a few real 3D audio 
 recordings, for demonstrational purposes. (We are getting into marketing 
 related questions.)

 Best,

 Stefan

 P.S.: Which gives some urgency to the question how to improve Ambisonics 
 decoders, and especially binaural Ambisonics decoders. You know that I 
 have said this again and again. Don't want to complain too much "in 
 public", even if... ;-)

 P.S. 2: "You have been living in a flat dream-world, Neoh..." :-D



 What really irks me are the binaural conference services, like 
BT+Dolby Voice or Voxeet. They pitch their service as being 3D audio, but they 
lack any concept of the vertical dimension. When I call them on that matter I 
get accused of being too fussy.
 
In reality, the "3D" aspect of their marketing is really just something sweet 
to attract large enterprise or VC flies. 
 
Michael Graves
 mgra...@mstvp.com
http://www.mgraves.org
o(713) 861-4005
 c(713) 201-1262
 sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
 skype mjgraves
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] AmbiExplorer version 2 video

[mgraves]

In recent day there have been a few articles posted online detailing how to run 
any Android app as a Chrome extension. This process is not yet simple, but it's 
getting better.
 
http://lifehacker.com/how-to-run-android-apps-inside-chrome-on-any-desktop-op-1637564101
 
 
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] AmbiExplorer 
version 2 video
From: "dw" 
Date: 10/11/14 2:54 pm
To: sursound@music.vt.edu

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

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

Re: [Sursound] www.michaelgerzonphotos.org.uk offline?

[mgraves]

 Original Message -  Subject: Re: [Sursound] 
www.michaelgerzonphotos.org.uk offline?
From: "Paul Hodges" 
Date: 7/31/14 9:56 am
To: "Surround Sound discussion group" 

--On 31 July 2014 10:17 -0400 Daniel Courville
  wrote:

 > Seems that www.michaelgerzonphotos.org.uk is offline.

 I am currently looking into whether it will be possible to revive this,
 or at least to repair specific links to images.
 
 Do you need a new home for this site? If so, what sort of traffic is involved? 
I may be able to add it to a host that use for my SOHO tech blog. They are a 
Wordpress specialist based in Chicago.
 
Michael


 Michael Graves
 mgra...@mstvp.com
http://www.mgraves.org
 o(713) 861-4005
 c(713) 201-1262
 sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
 skype mjgraves
-- 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] [slightly OT] Positional audio for stereo conferencing

[mgraves]

My scope of interests spans both surround sound and IP telephony. It seems that 
there is  finally starting to be some convergence between these spheres.
 
For example, several companies have recently launched "3D" audio conferencing 
services for business. Dolby Voice is offered by BT Conferencing. Voxeet offers 
a purely software based approach.
 
Of course, these are not actually 3D audio as they proclaim. They lack any 
conception of height, making them at best some sort of planar surround. It may 
be most appropriate to refer to them as binaural conferencing.
 
Freeswitch is one of the leading open source telecom switching projects. They 
recently launched a project they call "Verto". It's a binaural conferencing 
engine that build upon prior implementation of WebRTC and the Opus audio codec.
 
You can reach it by pointing the Chrome web browser at 
https://webrtc.freeswitch.org/
 
I was on one of the very first public calls where Verto was used. Some 
participants were connected via the web. Those people participated in stereo, 
hearing the various participants arrayed around their sound stage. Those people 
generally liked what they heard. There were no technical issues with the sound.
 
Others connected using more traditional mono end-points, including hardware IP 
phones, cell phones, or soft phones on computers. These people often didn't 
like what they heard. For them the mono sum of the stereo soundstage was a 
jumble, most typically with poor control of levels.
 
I joined by way of a Polycom VVX-600, which is a high-quality, albeit mono, IP 
phone. I was connected over G.722.1C, so I had a 14 KHz usable audio path. To 
my ear some participants sounded a lot lower in volume and also with the high 
frequencies dramatically rolled off. It sounded a lot like problematic use of 
an old "vocal eliminator" tool.
 
I am not a software developer, nor was I prepared to question the dev team on 
the call about the specifics of their spatial manipulations. Given 
unsatisfactory results for many, on that first call they simply disabled the 
spatial trickery so that the call could continue in a productive manner.
 
However, I thought that I might ask this group if Ambisonics, in one fashion or 
another, would be helpful in allowing such a project to preserve a coherent 
mono down-mix for those participants to join a call using traditional means?
 
The alternative may be to hold separate, parallel conferences; mono & binaural. 
This would be transparent to the end-users, but may be more resource intensive 
fort the host hardware. Perhaps also more difficult to manage.
 
Michael Graves
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] parallella board

[mgraves]

Indeed that is an interesting board. However, hidden in a comment trail on the 
blog they note that there was limited funding for the production run of the 64 
processor board. This resulted in higher cost/unit and a very limited quantity 
being produced. The net of that is that all that were made are already 
committed, so none with be available for purchase.
 
Michael
 
- Original Message - Subject: [Sursound] parallella board
From: "JQ Adams" 
Date: 5/13/14 1:59 am
To: "Surround Sound discussion group" 

Hi all.
 
 Does anyone have any experience or plans to perform audio-related
 processing using one of these boards with the Adapteva 16-core coprocessor?
 
 http://www.parallella.org
 
 It's cheap and low power (RaspberryPi-esque) but seemingly quite capable of
 significant workloads (especially the upcoming 64-core version).
 
 I figured it may be useful for many channel decoding of B-format to speaker
 feeds, or doing some heavy lifting in FIR calculations for
 room-equalization, etc.
 
 I have in mind echo cancelers and convolving out the room contribution for
 VC applications. However I don't know enough about chip architecture to
 know whether this would be a good choice over more conventional (SHARC)
 DSPs. I see that this is only 32-bit float capable in hardware, whereas
 math functions in the SHARC ar 40-bit precision. For proper scientific
 computing, double floats (64-bit) are usually desired, but I'm uncertain
 whether this applies to the audio domain.
 
 Any thoughts?
 
 Cheers,
 JQ
 -- next part --
 An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
 URL: 

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

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

[Sursound] NAB2014 Sighting; 360 degree camera arrangement very like a Soundfield microphone

[mgraves]

While at NAB2014 in Las Vegas earlier this week I stumbled upon a small company 
(http://www.video-stitch.com/)  with a 360 degree video product offering. Their 
product was actually software running on a computer that stitches together the 
streams from four video cameras.
 
The resulting stream is fed into an Oculus Rift VR headset. You can look around 
the scene in a very natural way, the systems rendering the stream that most 
correctly reflect your current perspective.
 
The camera arrangement very closely resembled the  tetrahedral array of 
microphones common to Soundfield mics. I took a pic with my phone.
 
http://www.mgraves.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2014-04-07-11.31.15.jpg
 
The company had no knowledge of Ambisonics, but said that processing audio 
corresponding to the spherical video was on their wish list. I gave them a 
brief introduction and showed them a picture of a Core Sound Tetra mic to get 
them started down the path.
 
They seemed to be quite enthusiastic about it.
 
Michael
-- 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] Question about UHJ

[mgraves]

- Original Message -  Subject: Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
From: "David Pickett" 
Date: 3/17/14 5:15 pm
To: "Surround Sound discussion group" 

At 23:03 17-03-14, mgra...@mstvp.com wrote:
 >
 > Weren't the first digital recorders actually adapted helical scan video
 > ones? Because, I mean, those things are line accurate by necessity, so
 > that once you have them time coded, you ought to be able to get sample
 > accurate registration of the converted audio, when driven from house
 > time. In many ways things like DAT and DASH might be trickier than that.
 >
 > 
 >
 >The helical scan recorder to which you likely refer was the Sony
 >PCM-F1. It was a two part device that had an audio processor (aka PCM
 >adapter) connected to a portal Betamax transport.
 >
 >http://www.thevintageknob.org/sony-PCM-F1.html
 >http://mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1981-sony-pcmf1/
 >
 >I don't believe that most Betmax systems had the ability to lock to
 >standard SMPTE time code. That didn't usually happen until one was
 >faced with 3/4" Umatic VTRs. Even then it was only on the broadcast
 >models (BVU series) not the lesser "industrial" machines of the VO Series.
 >
 >I think that the PCM-F1 was basically an adapter that presented
 >something that the recorder could handle as a nominal video signal. As
 >such it may have been used with various recorders, but it's most often
 >associated with the SL-2000 model. That pair were cosmetically mated
 >and made a nice portable (relatively) package.

 Use of BVU Umatics ante-dated the PCM-F1. This could only be used 
 with VHS recorders if an adjustment was made to avoid the replacement 
 of bad lines with the previous line. In essence, DAT was the same as 
 16-bit PCM-F1 with the VCR and adapter in the same box, although it 
 was 16-bit, rather than (14+2)-bit.
 
 That's quite likely the case. At that time we had only Sony SL/SLO series and 
older EIAJ 1/2" open reel decks.
 
We did edit using SLO series Betamax, but it was control track editing, nothing 
with reference time code. It was much later before I encountered anything that 
could be locked to proper SMPTE time code.
 
Michael
-- 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] Question about UHJ

[mgraves]

 Original Message - Subject: Re: [Sursound] Question about UHJ
From: "Sampo Syreeni" 
Date: 3/17/14 4:39 pm
To: "Surround Sound discussion group" 

On 2014-03-17, Eero Aro wrote:

 > The DASH format was published by Sony and Studer in 1982: 
 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Stationary_Head

 Weren't the first digital recorders actually adapted helical scan video 
 ones? Because, I mean, those things are line accurate by necessity, so 
 that once you have them time coded, you ought to be able to get sample 
 accurate registration of the converted audio, when driven from house 
 time. In many ways things like DAT and DASH might be trickier than that.
 
 
 
The helical scan recorder to which you likely refer was the Sony PCM-F1. It was 
a two part device that had an audio processor (aka PCM adapter) connected to a 
portal Betamax transport.
 
http://www.thevintageknob.org/sony-PCM-F1.html
http://mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1981-sony-pcmf1/
 
I don't believe that most Betmax systems had the ability to lock to standard 
SMPTE time code. That didn't usually happen until one was faced with 3/4" 
Umatic VTRs. Even then it was only on the broadcast models (BVU series) not the 
lesser "industrial" machines of the VO Series.
 
I think that the PCM-F1 was basically an adapter that presented something that 
the recorder could handle as a nominal video signal. As such it may have been 
used with various recorders, but it's most often associated with the SL-2000 
model. That pair were cosmetically mated and made a nice portable (relatively) 
package.
 
At around that time I was a teenage volunteer at a local cable channel that had 
Sony industrial Betamax infrastructure. We lusted after the PCM-F1.
 
Michael
-- 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] AmbiExplorer

[mgraves]

 
 
- Original Message - Subject: [Sursound] AmbiExplorer
From: "Michael Chapman" 
Date: 1/22/14 3:15 am
To: sursound@music.vt.edu


 Persuaded one of my daughters to download AmbiExplorer --very impressed
 with what worked!
 (The rotatig head is great.)
 
 However it does not play.
 
 It's a few weeks ago, but IIRC we got a status bar (?) and a clock.
 Besides getting no sound neither of those two budges.
 No error messages.
 
 It was a SAMSUNG Galaxy SIII mini GT-18190
 runing Android 4.1.2
 
---
 
I've tried it on a Nexus 4, Nexus 7 92012) and nexus 7(2013). All run Android 
4.4 Kitkat. It ran on all three, but the audio level on the older Nexus 7 was 
extremely low. Sadly, while the author put some code in to try and trap the 
cause of that situation I had since given away that older tablet.
 
Since then he has also added the ability to decode UHJ tracks, which is 
something that i had asked for given my small library of old Nimbus CDs. I've 
yet to try that out. Perhaps this weekend.
 
Michael Graves
-- 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] Very inexpensive surround speakers

[mgraves]

I see a used set of 4 of the Cambridge SoundWorks FPS1000 cubes on Ebay
for $40 USD.

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

>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Very inexpensive surround speakers
> From: Sven Thebert 
> Date: Wed, September 25, 2013 3:23 pm
> To: Surround Sound discussion group 
> 
> 
> I like the Creative/Cambridge SoundWorks FPS1000 a lot.
> You can only get them used. They're cheap and not nice to look at, but they
> have great sound.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:45 PM, David Pickett  wrote:
> 
> > At 15:47 25-09-13, Alessandro Fogar wrote:
> >
> > >I'k like to monitor some work of mine realized mainly using ATK and Sc3
> > >i.e. first order ambisonics.
> > >
> > >Could you plase suggest me some very small and inexpensive speakers ?
> >
> > How about two pairs of these: http://www.stereophile.com/**
> > content/pioneer-sp-bs22-lr-**loudspeaker<http://www.stereophile.com/content/pioneer-sp-bs22-lr-loudspeaker>
> >
> > David
> > __**_
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<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/20130925/fc0399bc/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] Calrec mics in "tetrahedral" formation

[mgraves]

These link generate a 404 error for me now.

Michael Graves
mgraves  mstvp.com
o(713) 861-4005
c(713) 201-1262
sip:mjgra...@mstvp.onsip.com
skype mjgraves

>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Calrec mics in "tetrahedral" formation
> From: Paul Hodges 
> Date: Fri, December 03, 2010 3:14 am
> To: Surround Sound discussion group 
> 
> 
> --On 02 December 2010 18:26 -0800 Eric Benjamin  wrote:
> 
> > Wow.  That huge one, when I opened it up in Paint, uses up so much
> > resources  that I now can't close Paint!
> 
> Oops, sorry - I just put up the original scan.  "Huge" is now a reasonable
> 1MB or so, and the image doesn't justify more.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> -- 
> Paul Hodges
> 
> 
> ___
> 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