Re: [Sursound] The Sound of Vision (Mirage-sonics?)

[umashankar mantravadi]

i think there are a few indian musicians who have an absolute pitch sense. 
indian musicians set their pitch before each performance (apart from a few 
instruments like the veena where it is fixed) so it is possible that the 
existence of an absolute pitch sense has no relationship to the setting of a 
concert pitch standard. umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:22:00 +0100
> From: richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] The Sound of Vision (Mirage-sonics?)
> 
> On 12/06/2012 11:55, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> > On 06/12/2012 11:32 AM, Richard Dobson wrote:
> >> It is also a concept that
> >> needs clarification not least with respect to questions of temperament -
> >> do people with absolute pitch insist on 12T Equal Temperament based on
> >> A=440? Or it is a broad categorical distinction, like recognising red as
> >> red and green as green?
> >
> > a co-student of mine who has absolute pitch perception expressed
> > difficulty in sight-reading (and singing) old music at A=415 Hz (much
> > like transposing on sight on a piano), but felt no discomfort on a bar
> > piano at 437 (plus minus a few beers that had been poured in over the
> > years) or on a crisp concert grand at 442.
> >
> >
> 
> Interesting. While definitely not having absolute pitch, I count myself 
> among the musicians (generally not string players) who for whatever 
> reason find 440 a tad high, and who left to our own devices may well 
> gravitate towards the old "Philharmonic" pitch standard of 435. The 
> Berlin Phil regularly played and recorded at anything up to 452, roughly 
> corresponding to the old English "sharp pitch".
> 
> The historical antecedents would be a great research topic; given that 
> absolute pitch at least appears to be in whatever way a selective but 
> innate (genetic?) faculty, it must have existed in one form or another 
> well before pitches became standardised. It is well known, for example, 
> that even within the same town, different churches would operate at 
> different pitches, and that flute players, for example, had to carry 
> around several alternative middle-joints ("corps de rechange") in order 
> to comply with widely varying pitch standards. Therefore, in those 
> times, "absolute pitch", if recognised at all, must itself have been 
> somewhat relative.
> 
> Richard Dobson
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

[umashankar mantravadi]

as a location sound mixer, i exploited the visual reinforcement of sound in 
many situations. if you are recording half a dozen people speaking, and the 
camera focus on one - provided the sound is in synch - the person in picture 
will sound louder, nearer the mic, than the others. it is a surprisingly strong 
effect, and one side benefit is you can check for synch very quickly using it. 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 03:09:40 +0100
> From: augustineleu...@gmail.com
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)
> 
>  I once had a piece played atspatial audio concert and some people came to
> visit. Afterwards one guy came up to me and said - the sound was right
> there - right there in front of my face ! Was it ambionics ? Im pretty sure
> he just heard what he expected or hoped to hear -  simply because he
> thought it was "ambisonics" and thats what he expected. I didnt get os
> dramatic an effect and I made it !
> I think a really good related example of this sort of thing  is WALLACH, H.
> (1940) The role of head movements and vestibular and visual cues in sound
> localization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 339-368. which
> demonstrates that visual cues can completely overide audio cues when it
> comes to sound localisation.
> Im beginning to think that people often hear what they believe they are
> going to hear and that the context in which you put the sounds can be as
> important as the filtering etc you apply to the sounds.
> 
> 
> the argument essentially says that for something to appear real it has to
> > fit people's *pre-conception* of what is real, rather than fit what
> > actually is real. In other words, throw out veridicality (coincidence with
> > reality), instead try to satisfy people's belief of reality. This is an
> > other argument for questioning the extent to which physical modelling has
> > the capacity to create illusions of reality in sound.
> >
> > It is perfectly possible that a more accurate illusion is actually
> > perceived as less real than a less accurate one.
> >
> > Etienne
> > -- next part --
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120601/e589e92b/attachment.html
> > >
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] microphone epiphany ?

[umashankar mantravadi]

dear aaron thank you umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 14:09:28 -0700
> From: hel...@ai.sri.com
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] microphone epiphany ?
> 
> One set of gains that works is
> 
> 0.23570.23570.23570.23570.23570.2357
> 1.   -1.0.0.0.0.
> 0.0.1.   -1.0.0.
>  0 0 0 01.   -1.
> 
> I put a write up on how to derive those at:
> 
>   http://www.ai.sri.com/ajh/ambisonics/umashankar_velan.html
> 
> --
> Aaron (hel...@ai.sri.com)
> Menlo Park, CA  US
> 
> 
> On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, umashankar mantravadi
>  wrote:
> >
> > assuming all six capsules have same gain, and all are contributing to W, 
> > how much should be the attenuation? umashankar
> >
> > i have published my poems. read (or buy) at 
> > http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
> >  > Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 18:25:04 +0200
> >> From: netti...@stackingdwarves.net
> >> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [Sursound] microphone epiphany ?
> >>
> >> On 05/26/2012 04:51 PM, Augustine Leudar wrote:
> >> >> Hi Michael,
> >> >> thanks for the reply - there is no doubt Ive missed something !
> >> >> I am aware of the need for W coordinate and have included it in my 
> >> >> encoder
> >> >> as instructed although I have to admit I am still not clear on its
> >> >> function  - but my question specifically relates to the information 
> >> >> gained
> >> >> from the 3 fig of eight patterns gained form a mic design such as this 
> >> >> one :
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.shapeways.com/model/143678/velan-140-internals.html
> >> >>
> >> >> Am I right in thinking the W component gives you enhanced distance
> >> >> information for a given sound source ?
> >>
> >> we cannot hear absolute phase, so if you are listening to a figure of
> >> eight microphone, there is no way to tell whether the sound you're
> >> hearing was coming into the (positive) frontal lobe or the (inverted)
> >> rear lobe. hence, the only information we can get from a lonely fig8 is
> >> "it's obviously not coming from the side".
> >>
> >> now if you add an omni to the equation, all of a sudden you have the
> >> possibilty to discern between the two lobes of the fig8: one is in-phase
> >> with the omni, the other isn't.
> >>
> >> thus, the 0th order component helps you resolve the ambiguities of all
> >> the 1st order signals.
> >>
> >> btw, if you move to second order, the situation is the same: with a
> >> cloverleaf directivity, you only know "it's either coming from
> >> front-or-back, or from left-or-right". only with the first-order
> >> information, the ambiguity can be resolved.
> >>
> >> W also has a subtle role in distance coding, but its main job is really
> >> to help us make sense of the fig8s.
> >>
> >>
> >> to wrap up, three real fig8s won't ever give you ambisonics. but if you
> >> obtain the fig8s by subtracting two back-to-back cardioids, you can also
> >> add them, which then gives you a nice omnidirectional component. note
> >> that you will have to attenuate the resulting omni signal according to
> >> the number of capsules you used.
> >>
> >>
> >> best,
> >>
> >>
> >> jörn
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jörn Nettingsmeier
> >> Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
> >>
> >> Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
> >> Tonmeister VDT
> >>
> >> http://stackingdwarves.net
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Sursound mailing list
> >> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> >
> > -- next part --
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: 
> > <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120527/db077b8f/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
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120528/a87d2ddb/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] microphone epiphany ?

[umashankar mantravadi]

assuming all six capsules have same gain, and all are contributing to W, how 
much should be the attenuation? umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 18:25:04 +0200
> From: netti...@stackingdwarves.net
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] microphone epiphany ?
> 
> On 05/26/2012 04:51 PM, Augustine Leudar wrote:
> >> Hi Michael,
> >> thanks for the reply - there is no doubt Ive missed something !
> >> I am aware of the need for W coordinate and have included it in my encoder
> >> as instructed although I have to admit I am still not clear on its
> >> function  - but my question specifically relates to the information gained
> >> from the 3 fig of eight patterns gained form a mic design such as this one 
> >> :
> >>
> >> http://www.shapeways.com/model/143678/velan-140-internals.html
> >>
> >> Am I right in thinking the W component gives you enhanced distance
> >> information for a given sound source ?
> 
> we cannot hear absolute phase, so if you are listening to a figure of 
> eight microphone, there is no way to tell whether the sound you're 
> hearing was coming into the (positive) frontal lobe or the (inverted) 
> rear lobe. hence, the only information we can get from a lonely fig8 is 
> "it's obviously not coming from the side".
> 
> now if you add an omni to the equation, all of a sudden you have the 
> possibilty to discern between the two lobes of the fig8: one is in-phase 
> with the omni, the other isn't.
> 
> thus, the 0th order component helps you resolve the ambiguities of all 
> the 1st order signals.
> 
> btw, if you move to second order, the situation is the same: with a 
> cloverleaf directivity, you only know "it's either coming from 
> front-or-back, or from left-or-right". only with the first-order 
> information, the ambiguity can be resolved.
> 
> W also has a subtle role in distance coding, but its main job is really 
> to help us make sense of the fig8s.
> 
> 
> to wrap up, three real fig8s won't ever give you ambisonics. but if you 
> obtain the fig8s by subtracting two back-to-back cardioids, you can also 
> add them, which then gives you a nice omnidirectional component. note 
> that you will have to attenuate the resulting omni signal according to 
> the number of capsules you used.
> 
> 
> best,
> 
> 
> jörn
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jörn Nettingsmeier
> Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
> 
> Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
> Tonmeister VDT
> 
> http://stackingdwarves.net
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] Why do you invert the phase of one channel of multi capsule microphones ?

[umashankar mantravadi]

dear augustine
 
x y and z represent three figure of eight microphones. the way to generate a 
figure of eight microphone out of two opposed cardioids is to invert the phase 
of one, and sum them.
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 

> Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 10:57:35 +0100
> From: augustineleu...@gmail.com
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: [Sursound] Why do you invert the phase of one channel of multi 
> capsule microphones ?
> 
> Hello all,
> I am building a six capsule ambisonic microphone. I have been told
> that with the opposite capsules (ie up/down, left/right,
> forward/backwards) I should invert the phase of one of the channels
> and then add them to get the X,Y,Z for the ambisonic b format. I've
> been struggling to find a good explanation - I was wondering if
> anyone could explain why this is in detail ?
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] audio point / audio plenum

[umashankar mantravadi]

for me, this is where ambisonics (or surround sound) really comes in. we have 
been recording dry (even with blumlein) and hoping the speakers at home will 
create enough 'ambience' of some kind. one reason we are forced to do this is 
because in the real world reverberation is three dimensional; it rarely comes 
from the same direction as the primary sound. in stereo, the reverberation has 
to be reproduced in the same direction as the primary sources and from nowhere 
else. a stereo recording done from the 'best seat' is distant and overly 
reverberant.  done with a first order A format and even approximately decoded 
to an eight speaker system, the reverberation is natural (the recording as 
whole sounds like it did on location.) i have been recording with my home build 
zoom+tetrahedral microphones for over two years now, and have an eight speaker 
system (100 watt digital amplifiers, but 4 inch 50 watt full range loudspeakers 
in sealed boxes -cost is the primary concern). the recor
 dings have been of folk music (mostly in rajasthan) classical (sarod) and 
semiclassical vocal north indian music, and locations have varied from a 15th 
century temple to the India International Centre lawns. apart from clean 
reproduction of reverberation, i note the speakers do not have to put out much 
power - compared to the same recording converted to stereo and played from a 
conventional pair of speakers. is this a dataset that could sell ambisonics? 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:48:34 -0700
> From: gre...@math.ucla.edu
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] audio point / audio plenum
> 
> 
> It is interesting how this more or less obvious point-
> that localizing discrete sources and localizing all the(often  multiple(
> reflections that make up the whole spatial impression would be
> one supposes related--has escapted the popular press especially
> of the "High End" ilk.
> 
> They are all wound up about "soundstage" versus "image"
> and claim eg that Blumlein stereo does image but it is spaced omni that
> does soundstage and so  on.
> 
> Apparently it has not occurred to people that if you
> blur things enough to create "spaciousness" artificially
> you will also blur the direct images, too. And the other way around
> that if you reproduce where everything is correctly,
> you will also reproduce where all the reflections come from.
> 
> That being said, there is some issue in stereo recording
> about creating the illusion/impression of diffuse field,
> which of course is considerably more than half the sound
> heard at natural audience locations in a concert hall.
> Most of the time the diffuse field is inadequately represented
> in the recording--they are far too dry in effect through being too close-- 
> so that one ends up trying to synthesize them from the listening room--
> which of course comes out all wrong, if one is trying to get
> a sound like a big hall. Thus one ends up with things like Bose
> direct/reflecting and dipoles used not to reduce side wall reflections in 
> the listening room so much as generate back wall reflections and so on and 
> on and on, "soundstage" descriptions ad nauseum.
> 
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012, J?rn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> 
> > On 04/18/2012 11:38 PM, Peter Lennox wrote:
> >> I wasn't kidding! - the higher the order, the better you can
> >> control spatial imaging / de-imaging.
> >> 
> >> I know we normally think that increased directional resolution
> >> corresponds to improved pin-point images, but thinking of it the
> >> other way around - increased directional resolution corresponds with
> >> with decreased 'accidental phantom imaging' is alsp true
> >
> > absolutely. and i'm happy to welcome you as a honorary whippersnapper among 
> > the ranks of the HOA snobs conspiracy :)
> >
> > -- 
> > J?rn Nettingsmeier
> > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
> >
> > Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio)
> > Tonmeister VDT
> >
> > http://stackingdwarves.net
> >
> > ___
> > 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
  
-- 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] OT: Spatial music

[umashankar mantravadi]

that is a question i had been meaning to ask. can a tetrahedral mic be used to 
create a room (correction) impulse response in B format? and how? umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > From: rica...@justnet.com.au
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 09:31:00 +
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
> 
> > I've recorded with Tetramics and I've set up an HSD 3D system
> 
> Mark, what is this HSD 3D system?
> 
> Can it play Aaron's B-format recordings?
> 
> If you have been following the BLaH series, what we've found is that hardly 
> any software decoders do plain FOA properly.
> ___
> 
> I tend to agree with Ronald.  The main music business today is iStuff, ie 2 
> channel.  That's why we need UHJ.
> 
> The only "surround" niche is films.  Maybe a growing market for games.
> 
> But what we need is to secretly put loadsa proper (see BLaH) Ambi enabled 
> devices on the market.
> 
> The most important feature of the Super Ambisonic Decoder is PLAYS STEREO, 
> 5.1 .. ZILLION.1 BETTER THAN THEIR NATIVE PLAYERS.
> 
> The technology to do this is for a universal media player like VLC is nearly 
> here.  This is what the BLaH series is about.  Ambi technology can ..
> 
> - make the speaker positions less critical.  Automatic detection and design 
> of matched decoder.
> - make up for lousy, unmatched speakers
> - incorporate Room EQ beyond the naive strategies used today
> 
> all this with an inexpensive version of TetraMic.
> 
> Can this be done?  It already is!
> 
> The Trinnov Optimizer for studio use is largely Ambi inside.  It is sold as 
> Super Room & Speaker EQ allowing speaker layouts to depart from mythical 
> ITU-R 5.1  No mention of Ambi
> _
> 
> Oh.  And if you click on a ...
> 
> *.uhj
> *.amb or 
> *.[new HOA format file which will appear in the next millenium when the 
> experts come to an agreement]
> 
> .. the Super Ambisonic Decoder will decode these to good surround too.
> 
> But don't bother with this until you do the 5.1 stuff better ...
> 
> And the guy who puts this tech into VLC gets to decide the *.HOA format 
> regardless of what the experts say.
> _
> 
> I'll pass on the ...
> 
> "all you need for Dead White Men's Music is stereo and you can just 
> synthesize ambience and squirt it from another 2 speakers"
> and
> "What you must have is a dodecahedron of speakers, anechoic chamber + HOA"
> 
> Just point out that de-pinnaeing and a Greene/Lee neck brace solves most 
> problems.
> __
> 
> PSThe most immediate need at the moment, and it is crucial, is to 
> re-surrect Ambisonia.com.  Otherwise, the best evidence that Ambi is worth 
> pursuing goes down the drain.  GV Malham, I hope you have this in hand before 
> you hang up your pointy hat.
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music

[umashankar mantravadi]

folks i just looked out of my window and it is 1975! Wireless World gave up 
waiting for the third part of MAG's article and started publishing somebody 
called Ivor Catt, who wanted to fight Maxwell in single combat. umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:40:31 -0700
> From: gre...@math.ucla.edu
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
> 
> 
> I disagree with this. I suppose for some things like
> pop vocals that do not have a natural acoustic venue
> surrounding them, surround is not helpful.
> But for large scaled acoustic music like orchestral
> music(which of course some people here would
> dismiss as a niche market) it really does help
> generate a better facsimile of the real experience.
> The problem is that practically none of the commercial
> material available does it right.
> But anyone who knows anything about acoustics
> knows that the concert experience of orchestral
> music has a very large amount of diffuse field sound
> involved--in energy terms, there is more diffuse field
> than direct arrival at most audience locations, quite
> a lot more. The precidence effect to some extent
> conceals this fact from people who listen superficially.
> But the reality is that stereo presentation of orchestral
> music is very much wrong. It can be pleasing, even beautiful,
> but it is always wrong.
> 
> Surround can be right, or closer to right. But it usually is not, 
> actually, as it is currently practiced.
> 
> In most cases, you would be better off to take a stereo
> recording and make it into surround yourself.
> 
> Quite disappointing situation, actually.
> But then people in contemporary High End audio do not
> seem to want to think about how music actually works in concert.
> It is not that the information is not available. I wrote
> this
>   http://www.regonaudio.com/Records%20and%20Reality.html
> more than twenty-five years ago in The Absolute Sound.
> But not very many people seemed to understand the essential
> message--that a LOT of what you hear in concert ie
> diffuse field reverberation.
> People should have been trying to figure out how
> to generate that effect at home all along, but they
> mostly were not. And they still are not. They are
> worrying about other things entirely.
> 
> Robert
> 
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, newme...@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > Ronald:
> >
> >> Wrong. They would want it, if they ever heard it.
> >
> > Sorry.  I've heard surround and it's just not good enough to  matter -- for
> > MUSIC.
> >
> > I've heard "Dark Side" and I've heard "Kind of Blue" . . . and most of the
> > rest of the SACD and DVD-A releases.  Some are fabulous, some are not but
> > none of it was enough.  Good try.  Experiment failed.
> >
> > I've recorded with Tetramics and I've set up an HSD 3D system, on which I
> > enjoyed the 3RD DIMENSION of music -- height -- but none of this is  enough.
> >
> > Amibsonics (i.e. FOA) is fabulous for AMBIENCE but, alas, not for  MUSIC
> > (due to the lack of frontal emphasis) and c'mon . . . we all know  it.
> >
> > The reason why Ambisonics hasn't succeeded -- after all this  time -- for
> > MUSIC is that it's not *good* enough to make a  difference.
> >
> >
> > That's why the HOA "debates" happened.  Smart people with well-trained
> > ears KNOW that FOA isn't good enough.
> >
> >
> > It has nothing to do with MAG or the British government or bad timing or
> > bad business decisions -- it doesn't *improve* the listening to MUSIC enough
> > for  people to care.  Seems that Apple also figured that out.
> >
> > I also know many people in the music *business* and they also heard it
> > (indeed, spent a lot of money on it) and have universally come to the same
> > conclusion.
> >
> > Case closed.
> >
> > Mark Stahlman
> > Brooklyn NY
> > -- next part --
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: 
> > 
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> >
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
  
-- 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] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[umashankar mantravadi]

well, i always thought first order b format as a natural extension of blumlein. 
one immediate result i noticed first time i managed to play a recording with 
eight loudspeakers was how little work the speakers to had to do to produce a 
rich full bodied sound in my (somewhat small). the speakers no longer had to 
excite the room. the reverberation came with the recording. i think it is 
linked to this, that i could also record from much further away than i ever 
could in stereo. because the reverberation is not limited to the two speakers 
producing the audio, there could be much more of it without making the 
recording sound distant. i have just last week recorded a performance of 
vaishnavite bhajans, in a three hundred year old temple  (built of stone, with 
a rusting sheet metal sun shade over part of the portico. a difficult 
situation, with two large drums and two singers. i have recordings in stereo 
(ortf on the floor) and a format to Zoom H2 about three times as far. i have to 
 listen to the recording on eight channels, but even folded down to stereo very 
crudely it sounds good. umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:26:40 -0700
> From: gre...@math.ucla.edu
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?
> 
> 
> Because it is good! It keeps people from making really
> wrong meaningless recordings by spacing microphones
> a long way apart!
> Robert
> 
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Eero Aro wrote:
> 
> > Robert Greene wrote:
> >> 2 Forces people to use one point miking
> >
> > Actually I don't understand why you list one point miking in the "Goods". 
> > :-)
> >
> > However, from quite early on, it was possible to use mono and stereo
> > microphones and to encode them into UHJ with the Audio & Design
> > Transcoder and into B-Format with the Pan/Rotate unit. Another thing is,
> > why people didn't find the A&D gear. It wasn't more expensive than other
> > studio gear.
> >
> > However, the "need for one point miking" is a confusion that might have made
> > Ambisonics less attractive for the recording studios. They may have thought 
> > that
> > you _must_ use a Soundfield. I think people got this picture because Nimbus
> > Records were advertising their recordings as "one microphone" recordings.
> > Minimalist recordings were attracted by some high end circles and it of 
> > course
> > was a marketing factor.
> >
> >> (I have tried to write about Ambisonics
> >> for the general audio public--no dice, people did not get it even
> >> though I thought what I wrote was clear as crystal)
> >
> > I also tried that and also thought that what I wrote was clear as crystal.
> > I sometimes saw a certain smile on the face of some of my colleagues after 
> > they
> > had read my articles. :-)
> >
> > - - -
> >
> > I also thought of another thing: The original group published their first 
> > articles
> > about Ambisonics in electronics hobbyist magazines, such as Wireless
> > World and Elektor. As far as I know, the first article in a respected 
> > science
> > magazine was that by Peter Fellgett in Nature. Many pro audio magazines also
> > published articles about Ambisonics before Gerzon gave out papers for the 
> > AES.
> >
> > Eero
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> >
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
  
-- 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] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[umashankar mantravadi]

for me, ambisonics (or a soundfield microphone) is the tool to use for acoustic 
measurements, to archive the sound of spaces as they exist before they get torn 
down, burnt or modified into shopping malls. but then, i got into ambisonics 
through attempts to measure the acoustics of ancient archaeological sites. (i 
have been a sound recordist for 40  years, been recording ambisonically - 
usually as a second recording - for about four.) umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:45:41 -0700
> From: gre...@math.ucla.edu
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?
> 
> 
> I did not say it should(be played in front)! It just is. 
> Of course there are instances when antiphonal effects
> are used, and very well they can work too.
> 
> But I think that using this sort of thing as a way
> to persuade people they ought to have 16 channels
> of playback or something is wrong headed. It won't
> work, I think.
> 
> Only someone who was a little unhinged
> on the subject would go to the trouble to set
> up high order Ambisonics in order to hear the tiny
> fraction of the repertoire where actual sources are
> behind or to the sides.
> Surround is great--because it creates (when done right)
> the concert hall--and that really is all around you.
> But direct sources that are totally nonfrontal--
> not important.
> 
> I think the big mistake of Ambisonics in practical terms
> is that it emphasized homogeneity--a mathematical nicety
> but a nonstarter as a musical matter. And it makes it complicated
> and ineffective except with great effort at relatively simple
> things, or things that should be relatively simple.
> 
> I suppose many of you know the classic men in a balloon joke
> popular among mathematicians(who do not mind laughing at themselves):
> 
> Two men are flying in a balloon and they are lost. As they sail
> over a man standing in a field they call out "Where are we?"
> The man in the field says nothing until finally as the balloon
> is almost out of earshot , the man in the field calls out
> "You are in a balloon".
> One of the men in the balloon says to the other, "That fellow
> in the field must be a mathematician".
> "Why do you say that?"
> "We asked him a simple question ,
>   he thought for a  very long
> time about the answer, his answer was absolutely correct,
> and  his answer  was completely  useless."
> 
> I would not say that Ambisonics was useless and it is surely
> intriguing as an application of mathematics. But I do think
> only a truly impractical person would have decided that in
> practice homogeneity was a vital criterion for reproducing music
> as it is.
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, David Pickett wrote:
> 
> > At 14:33 31/03/2012, Paul Hodges wrote:
> >> --On 31 March 2012 12:53 -0400 newme...@aol.com wrote:
> >> 
>  Music of the ordinary sort is in front . . .
> >>> 
> >>> Yes it is!  Which is why Ambisonics makes *no* sense for the FRONT in  a
> >>> musical reproduction system.
> >> 
> >> "Music of the ordinary sort" being the music that's in front, I guess, 
> >> making that a tautology.
> >> 
> >> I frequently listen to, and record, music in churches (commonly with an 
> >> organ behind or to one side), and concerts with music surrounding the 
> >> audience in the round (in places as varied as Walthamstow Town Hall, The 
> >> Union Chapel Islington, and the Royal Festival Hall).
> >
> > I shall never buy into the concept that music should come only from the 
> > front. One of the most exciting recordings I have is the Tallis Scholars' 
> > later version of the Allegri Miserere, which is available as a 5.1 high 
> > definition download. The distant choir in the rear is magical. Of course, 
> > the 
> > performance is also magical, but the physical disposition of the performers 
> > makes it feel much more like a live event to me. All to whom I have played 
> > this have also been impressed.
> >
> > I dont think this particular recording was made with the SF mic, but my 
> > point 
> > is that there is much music that benefits from direct sound in the rear. I 
> > have many Tacet.de recordings that use the rear channels for direct sound, 
> > also to great musical effect in my opinion.  The same repertoire is 
> > available 
> > in 2-channel stereo if that is the listener's preference, so why not do 
> > something different?
> >
> > David
> >
> > ___
> > 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
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

Re: [Sursound] Ambisonic-Binaural piece using Brahma mic (was Re: Great responses to my post--thanks!)

[umashankar mantravadi]

dear hector just listened to the recordings, they sound great. on my Sony MDR 
V6 headphones, i did not hear the front back reversal. umashankar

 > From: hcen...@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:52:14 -0500
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Ambisonic-Binaural piece using Brahma mic (was Re:
> Great responses to my post--thanks!)
> 
> Thank you Fons for your comments. What parameters did use for zita-bls1? The 
> default ones?
> 
> I guess I could use a different HRTF measurement to avoid the front/back 
> reversal. IRCAM's Spat comes with other impulse SDIF files that are 44.1kHz 
> only so I wonder if anyone knows how to resample them to 48kHz, which is what 
> I use.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Hector
> 
> 
> On 2012-01-12, at 5:18 AM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:49:12PM -0500, Hector Centeno wrote:
> > 
> >> Following up on this thread, I just uploaded a soundscape
> >> piece I made using the Brahma mic, presented here in a
> >> binaural version. The recordings were converted from A
> >> to B-Format with Tetraproc (thanks to Fons for the
> >> calibrated preset), ambisonic decode with Ambdec (using
> >> the extended cube preset extcube-1h1v, which is a regular
> >> cube plus speakers on the centre of each face) and then
> >> binaurally processed with a Max/MSP patch that uses the
> >> IRCAM Spat objects (I also programmed head tracking in
> >> this patch). I wonder if using that Ambdec preset would
> >> be the best for creating BInarual versions so any comments
> >> are welcome.
> >> 
> >> http://soundcloud.com/hcenteno/world-listening-days-2011
> > 
> > Nice work ! Usually for me binaural without head tracking
> > just produces in-the-head sound. This one is different:
> > on headphones everything seems to be _behind_ me ! Except
> > for the airplane at the end which appeared where on could
> > expect it.
> > 
> > I also listened on speakers, using zita-bls1 to do the 
> > conversion. This worked quite well, producing some scenes
> > with an uncanny sense of realism.
> > 
> > 
> > Ciao,
> > 
> > -- 
> > FA
> > 
> > ___
> > 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
  
-- 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] Nowt new under t'sun

[umashankar mantravadi]

incredible it even uses the word 'sound field' umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:59:24 +
> From: dave.mal...@york.ac.uk
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Nowt new under t'sun
> 
> And this http://www.google.com/patents/US1892646 from May 29 (again!) 1931 
> would be (minus the thermocouples, etc) a full 3D native B format mic!
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> On Dec 21 2011, dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote:
> 
> >Folks,
> >  There is truly nothing new under the sun. (translation by Goggles). I 
> >just came across the following patent 
> >http://www.google.com/patents/US2173219 for what is essentially a native B 
> >Format microphone using ribbon microphones. The filing date? May 29th, 
> >1937! (Actually, I was trying to pinpoint the date when figure of eight 
> >microphones were first available - anyone know?)
> >
> >   Dave
> >___
> >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
  
-- 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] Great responses to my post--thanks!

[umashankar mantravadi]

dear hector that sounded very good indeed on my sony mdr5 headphones. did you 
record with brahma? umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 21:40:26 -0600
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> From: d...@fugato.com
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Great responses to my post--thanks!
> 
> At 21:29 04/12/2011, Hector Centeno wrote:
> 
>  >Here is an example recording I made:
>  >
>  >http://soundcloud.com/hcenteno/kids-running-in-the-wychwood-barns
> 
> Thanks! It sounds good to me played on earbuds...
> 
> David
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] problem with jconvolver on osx

[umashankar mantravadi]

brahmavolver is a standalone program, not  a vst plug in. or so i thought/ (i 
have version .71 for windows with me)umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:58:40 -0700
> From: hel...@ai.sri.com
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] problem with jconvolver on osx
> 
> For N x M channel convolutions on MacOS (or Windows), there's
> BrahmaVolver.  It is a VST plugin, that I've used with Bidule on MacOS
> with good results.
> 
>   http://www.aurora-plugins.com/Public/Brahma/Brahmavolver/
> 
> It comes up as a 2x2 initially, but you can adjust that in the Setup
> panel.  Then you have to delete that instance and make another one.
> 
> 
> As far as multithreaded, cross platform stuff, I've switched to using
> the Intel Threaded Building Blocks (TBB) for my image processing and
> machine learning work.  It let's you code at a higher level of
> abstraction (functors, multidimensional iterators, parallel for-loops,
> flow graphs, and so forth), and then manages the threads and
> synchronization for you.  There is a free and open source version,
> licensed under GPLv2 with the runtime exception.  See
> 
>http://threadingbuildingblocks.org/
> 
> I haven't studied zita-convolver in any detail, so I don't know how
> amenable it would be to that kind of approach.
> 
> Best...
> 
> Aaron Heller 
> Menlo Park, CA  US
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] Soundfield-type mics: inverting or not?

[umashankar mantravadi]

i forgotten how, but in school, we use to make very annoying clickers out of 
pieces of photofilm. even if i can remember how to make it, where will i find 
photofilm? umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:49:11 +0100
> From: dave.mal...@york.ac.uk
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Soundfield-type mics: inverting or not?
> 
> On 10/10/2011 10:42, Neil & Marcia Adams wrote:
> >
> > Who is old enough to remember the Keith Monks 'Phaserite' Checker 
> > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14586505/Keith%20Monks%20Phaserite.pdf ? I last saw 
> > one 'in the flesh' 
> > 30-odd years ago.
> >
> > If you live in Europe or U.S. you might be able to locate one, or maybe 
> > they're still made?
> >
> 
> I have to admit I remember when this first came out - the modern equivalent 
> is the Optogate 
>  which is about 110 ukp. We 
> couldn't justify buying a 
> Phaserite way back then but it did inspire me to  knock up something I named 
> the "in-phase". 
> Basically a sinewave generator (discrete transistors!) feeding a half-wave 
> rectifier so that only 
> the positive peaks come out. With a scope, a microphone and a bit of care, 
> it's possible to check 
> speaker polarity (or cable/amp/whatever polarity). The box, being small and 
> battery powered, still 
> regularly gets used for quick'n'dirty checks on systems.
> 
> These days I'm tending to include a Raised Cosine Pulse generator in  my 
> plugins - in code it's 
> easier to make RCP's  with separations that are much greater than than the 
> pulse width which in turn 
> makes it easier to spot polarity on speakers. You still need to be careful to 
> allow for the fact 
> that some cross-overs use driver inversions to even responses in the 
> cross-over region, because this 
> can really confuse the issue. If used for checking microphone polarity, and 
> you don't have a known 
> unit with positive electrical out for positive pressure in, you need to use a 
> battery (or similar) 
> applied directly (but via a current limiting resistor) to the speaker 
> terminals to determine that 
> the cone is going out (increasing the pressure in the room) for positive 
> voltage in, before you use 
> the RCP generator - don't forget to use a scope to check that the pulse 
> polarity at the input to the 
> speaker is correct!
> 
> All that having been said, a clicker is easier! I used to have one that was 
> given out at a trade 
> show (AES?? APRS?? - can't remember) as a "Free Acoustic Tester" but it 
> eventually collapsed on me 
> and I keep meaning to get a new one but, as yet, I haven't replaced it.
> 
>   Dave
> 
> -- 
>   These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
> /*/
> /* Dave Malham   http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */
> /* Music Research Centre   */
> /* Department of Music"http://music.york.ac.uk/";   */
> /* The University of York  Phone 01904 432448*/
> /* Heslington  Fax   01904 432450*/
> /* York YO10 5DD */
> /* UK   'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'   */
> /*"http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/"; */
> /*/
> 
> -- 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

Re: [Sursound] Soundfield-type mics: inverting or not?

[umashankar mantravadi]

yes speech is best (the only negative going sound we can make is om, which 
should be said while breathing in. umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > From: geoffreybar...@mac.com
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:13:58 +0100
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Soundfield-type mics: inverting or not?
> 
> 
> On 9 Oct 2011, at 17:00, sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu wrote:
> > 
> > Message: 7
> > Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 09:39:36 +
> > From: Fons Adriaensen 
> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Soundfield-type mics: inverting or not?
> > To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> > Message-ID: <20111009093936.gb11...@linuxaudio.org>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > 
> > On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 10:16:22AM +0100, dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote:
> > 
> >> Does anyone know, of the top of their heads, 
> >> if a film set type clapper board reliably provides a positive going 
> >> leading edge to it's impulse? I can't see it not, but I'd prefer that to 
> >> be confirmed by repeatable experiments.
> > 
> > I wouldn't rely in it. There's some air being squeezed out, but
> > that would be a low-F thing. The real 'clap' is the sound of two
> > pieces of wood hitting each other - I wouldn't make any guess
> > as to the polarity of that wavefront.
> 
> With larger clapper boards it is a bit of a mess, especially if you are a 
> long way from the mic.
> 
> Dog training clickers (search dog clicker on Amazon) work very well; you can 
> get a pretty good idea of the frequency response too by an fft as the click 
> is quite sharp and short. Drilling a hole in the back of it helps. The one I 
> use produces a better click when you release the button than when you press. 
> They are hopeless for dog training, our labrador regards it as a cue to grab 
> the clicker from my hand and run off with it.
> 
> Peter Fellgett used to burst a balloon (compressed air, not helium) at centre 
> stage. This always produces positive pressure.
> 
> Actually, with speech you can usually see polarity (we speak using positive 
> pressure, usually), so just talking to the mic from centre stage is better 
> than nothing.
> 
> Geoffrey
> 
> > 
> > If you have a piece of bubble plastic around, making on of the
> > bubbles burst should produce a 'positive' pulse...
> > 
> > Ciao,
> > 
> > -- 
> > FA
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> > 
> > 
> > End of Sursound Digest, Vol 39, Issue 4
> > ***
> 
> -- 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

Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent

[umashankar mantravadi]

when i was a child my grandaunt told me the story of a demon who lived in old 
banyan tree. he would swoop down on unwary travellers, but the travellers 
always ran away. one day, one traveller could not run, and the demon stopped 
him. he said, sit down under the tree, and learn everything i know. that is the 
only way i can stop being a demon. i was turned into a demon for refusing to 
teach what i knew. i want to be freed of that curse. umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:06:38 -0700
> From: gre...@math.ucla.edu
> To: richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk; sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent
> 
> 
> RD's analysis was very interesting. But about "Informantion wants to be 
> free":  People certainly deserve protection for the value of their 
> intellectual work. But greed transforms this plausible principle
> often enough into abuse.
> 
> Let me give an example: Scientific  research papers and textbooks. 
> Publishers in the past had to charge money for journals, just to pay for 
> the cost of distriubtion and physical production of the journal in the 
> first place.  Same with books.
> Now along come changes. First of all,technology made  the things 
> cheaper to produce,
> for example because authors supply not typed material that needs type 
> setting
> but computer ready copy where the type-setting is just a matter of pushing 
> a button. Second, the distribution becomes free.
> Moreover, older papers and books are free to the publisher-the publisher 
> already owns them.
> 
> So what ought to happen? Books ought to get cheaper, the authors ought to 
> get more of what they do cost(the authors are now doing some of the work 
> that formerly was done by the publisher), and old papers ought to be free 
> entirely on line.
> 
> Did this happen? Well, somewhat. Some older parts of mathematical journals 
> are free on 
> line now. But not all. The AES is charging for old papers on line and so
> is Springer for example for mathematical journal articles, even old ones.
> 
> And books are not cheaper at all. Textbooks for example are a deliberate
> money scam, with texts on ancient unchanging subjects like calculus going 
> through frequent multiple editions with only meaningless changes to make 
> sure that
> used copies cannot be used by students. This is a deliberate attempt to 
> work the students over and extract money for nothing. (The changes are 
> trivial but are such that 
> students can no longer use an old eidtion, e.g., changes in the numbering 
> and details of homework exercises).
> 
> Publishers in short are being greedy, as are textbook authors. In a big 
> way. Well, it is the publishers' last
> hurrah. Soon they will cease to exist and they deserve to. In a way, that 
> is too bad. I
> like books. But many publishers are running a scam on the public. They 
> deserve the fate that will soon be upon them.
> 
> I was looking the other day for a cheap old calculus book to use as a 
> text. The subject of 
> couse and also how it is taught have not changed in the last fifty years 
> or so so I figured I could find an old cheap textbook still in print but 
> reissued cheap in paperback that I could use instead of asking the already 
> financially stressed students(suffering from the collapse of public 
> funding for public education in the USA) to spend nearly $200 on a
> new and unnecessarily expensive textbook.
> 
> This search has failed , so far. Such is the greed of people that even 
> books by authors long dead are still being offered, forty years later, at 
> full price. The authors are no longer even around but their grandchildren
> (or whoever constitutes their estate) are still trying to make money
> out of books written in the 1960s.
> 
> Fie upon them. The authors of calculus books were in those days, befor the 
> thing became an industry, were not even making a living out of writing the 
> books. They were taking time from being university professors, already (at
> that time) well paid and trying to make more money. This is all quite 
> contrary to the proper academic spirit.
> 
> Information really ought to be free, in many cases. The opposite approach 
> serves only to entrench the culture that says that only the rich have 
> access to much of anything.
> 
> Robert
> ___
> 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] new technology?

[umashankar mantravadi]

just read about this in the asa newsletter. anyone knows anything about it? 
http://www.visisonics.com/Products/AudioCamera.html umashankar 
i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar   
  
-- 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] Ambisonics on the cheap?

[umashankar mantravadi]

mass production will not happen so easily, but if you dont count your computer 
in the cost, 200 dollars for first order, without height is very possible. 
there are many 7.1 channel cards, some of them on usb, which are based on an 
eight channel d-a convertor. if you ignore the software provided with them, and 
use asio4all, the computer will see eight asio audio channels (i am talking 
PC). i would have said computer home theatre systems, but they have too much 
cross talk (i think deliberate) and they are really poor. but buying them for 
boxes and putting in better drivers (i am at the moment using 3.5 inch vifas, 
which cost 10 dollars each, is very possible, and if your are little more 
ambititions, it is not difficult to make 1 litre sealed boxes for these vifas 
(using mdf or even layers of corrugated cardboard).a four channel car amplifier 
should be enough to start with. and there is plenty of decoding software. 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 05:57:34 +0300
> From: de...@iki.fi
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Ambisonics on the cheap?
> 
> On 2011-07-29, Sarang S. Dalal wrote:
> 
> > I've been lurking for only a day, but Sampo's note gives me the 
> > courage to go ahead and ask the first question I was hoping this group 
> > might help me answer.
> 
> And good it was. No? ;)
> 
> My question then is, how to do ambisonic even cheaper. I sort of 
> undertand the theory, and I've had the fortune of knowing a couple of 
> researchers/enthusiasts who could show me their rigs. The problem is, 
> those rigs aren't precisely affordable, even when built up from spare 
> parts. So how do we come up with a complete, affordable, ambisonic rig, 
> with the minimum of four (effective) speakers for first order, at an 
> affordable price? Say, below 200 or even 100 euros? Including speakers, 
> full digital decoding for the usual layout variation, and all that?
> 
> If we could somehow do that, and mass reproduce it, the rest should be 
> pretty easy. So how do we do that?!?
> -- 
> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
> +358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
  
-- 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] Ambisonics on the cheap?

[umashankar mantravadi]

going to order one and see.  umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > From: b...@mit.edu
> Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 00:07:12 -0400
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Ambisonics on the cheap?
> 
> Has anyone tried anything from ESI audio? It looks too good to be true.
> 
> http://www.esi-audio.com/products/gigaporthd/
> It seems like they can be had for around $100.
> 
> ben
> 
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Dave Malham  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On 29/07/2011 11:30, Michael Chapman wrote:
> >
> >> Now I would like to construct a higher-order sound system, ideally with
> >>> consumer-level (and consumer-priced) components. I don't need a big
> >>> dynamic range, high power, or the best sound fidelity possible, I just
> >>> need a working prototype. This is the part I have found very little
> >>> information on in my research�
> >>>
> >>> My understanding is that 8 channels is the minimum needed for stable 3-D
> >>> Ambisonics (rather than planar surround).
> >>>
> >> There was a recent reminder, on this list, within the last month, that
> >> one could use 6 channels (the mid points of the faces of a cube).
> >> I've never heard anyone say they've done it, let alone say it was 'nice'.
> >> (The engineering would, also, not be fun ... though you are not obliged
> >> to place speakers mid-wall/ceiling/floor ... you can tilt the cube!)
> >> So I'd stick to eight unless you are really adventurous.
> >>
> >>  We've used it in the dim and distant past and it's not to be recommended
> > as it is right at the limits of usability (very unstable image, incredibly
> > tiny sweet spot and so on). I would compromise on the quality of the
> > speakers so that I could buy eight, rather than buy only six better ones
> > (ditto for the audio interface and amps)
> >
> >  Dave (signing off for now as I'm off on vacation, hurrah!)
> >
> >
> > --
> >  These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
> > /***
> > **/
> > /* Dave Malham   
> > http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/**research/dave-malham/*/
> > /* Music Research Centre */
> > /* Department of Music"http://music.york.ac.uk/"; */
> > /* The University of York  Phone 01904 432448*/
> > /* Heslington  Fax   01904 432450*/
> > /* York YO10 5DD */
> > /* UK   'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'   */
> > /*
> > "http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/**mustech/3d_audio/"
> > */
> > /***
> > **/
> >
> > __**_
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound
> >
> -- 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

Re: [Sursound] Distance perception (really speaker wire discussion!)

[umashankar mantravadi]

certain kinds of sounds (like the hindu om, which has to produced while 
breathing in) or known to slow the universe down, including the electrons in 
loudspeaker wires - even extremely snake-y wires. the result after a time is 
that the electrons pool in the wire and form a bose-einstein condensate. (no i 
did not read about this in the wireless world). i dont like bose loudspeakers 
so it is not subliminal advertising either. umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 07:57:48 +0100
> From: dave.mal...@york.ac.uk
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Distance perception (really speaker wire discussion!)
> 
> Arghhh - I shouldn't have let this out of the bag - there's clearly a 
> _massive_ EU research funding opportunity here - now, how do I go about 
> obtaining time on the large Hadron Collider???
> 
> Dave M.
> 
> On Jul 28 2011, dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote:
> 
> >Hang on, hang on - if the electrons exceed the speed of light then either
> >
> > a: their mass will go infinite and the cable will implode into a mini 
> > black hole
> >
> >or
> >
> >b: they will decay into tachyons resulting in the sound coming out of the 
> >speaker before it has even been recorded
> >
> >
> >Dav M.
> >
> >On Jul 27 2011, David Worrall wrote:
> >
> >> I have been browsing this list long enough to observe that this 
> >> phenomena only occurs (or at least is only reported, on this list, 
> >> albeit with annual regularity) in Northern Hemisphere summers.
> >>
> >> Down under, the summers are so hot that the electrons want to pass 
> >> through cable as quickly as possible, so they exhibit an exact opposite 
> >> characteristic: Temporal Intensification Dilation (also DIT, 
> >> unfortunately); thought to be the caused as them exceeding the speed of 
> >> light in order to 'get the f*** outa there'.
> >>
> >> The phenomena can be reversed, or at least alleviated from a 3rd person 
> >> perspective, by plugging the cables into a live mains socket and biting 
> >> hard on the other end.
> >>
> >>David
> >>On 28/07/2011, at 3:42 AM, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2011-07-27, umashankar mantravadi wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> havent you heard of tired electron distortion ? (TID). the electrons 
> >>>> in speaker wire get tired moving back and forth and not going 
> >>>> anywhere. the solution is to disconnect the speaker every few hours 
> >>>> connect a battery one side and short the other, so all the old 
> >>>> electrons can be flushed out (i think i read this in the wireless 
> >>>> world)
> >>> 
> >>> Alternatively you can have spare cables, and slowly drain them over 
> >>> night in an upright position.
> >>> -- 
> >>> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
> >>> +358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
> >>> ___
> >>> Sursound mailing list
> >>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> >>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> >>
> >>_
> >>Dr David Worrall
> >>Adjunct Research Fellow, Australian National University
> >>david.worr...@anu.edu.au
> >>Board Member, International Community for Auditory Display
> >>Regional Editor, Organised Sound (CUP) 
> >>IT Projects, Music Council of Australia 
> >>worrall.avatar.com.au   sonification.com.au
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- next part -- An HTML attachment was 
> >> scrubbed... URL: 
> >> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110728/bffc3272/attachment.html>
> >>  
> >> ___ Sursound mailing list 
> >> Sursound@music.vt.edu 
> >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> >
> >
> >___
> >Sursound mailing list
> >Sursound@music.vt.edu
> >https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> >
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110728/128da6a3/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Distance perception (really speaker wire discussion!)

[umashankar mantravadi]

? 
>   > 
>   > The bottom line is that the speaker cable DC resistance should by rule 
> -of-thumb present no more than  5% of the impedance load presented by the 
> speaker, and hence the ONLY real issue of concern is the resistance of the 
> selected wire per foot. The speakers I use most often have a rated impedance 
> of 4 Ohms, hence we do not want to see a DC resistance greater than 0.2 Ohms 
> for the cable run. 
>   > 
>   > In general the distance run per wire gauge recommendations I use are as 
> follows:
>   > 
>   > Up to 40 feet : 14AWG
>   > 40-60 feet: 12 AWG
>   > 60-100 feet: 10 AWG
>   > 
>   > - Neil
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:03 AM, umashankar mantravadi wrote:
>   > 
>   > > 
>   > > years ago (no decades ago) i found what a huge difference it made if 
> the wires were reasonably thick, and cut to be exactly same length. cutting 
> them to same length is problematic with eight loudspeakers (unless the amp 
> sits in the sweet spot) but my next rig, in my own house, in bangalore next 
> year, will have same length wires to all the speakers. umashankar
>   > > 
>   > > i have published my poems. read (or buy) at 
> http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
>   > >> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:57:49 -0700
>   > >> From: d...@dgvo.net
>   > >> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
>   > >> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Distance perception
>   > >> 
>   > >> On 26/07/11 3:41 p.m., Sampo Syreeni wrote:
>   > >>> On 2011-07-26, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>   > >>>> I certainly don't want you to waste your money on fancy speaker 
> cables.
>   > >>> Never thought otherwise. That's obviously never been what we do here. 
> ;)
>   > >>>> But resistance does matter, so a good cross section such as 2.5 mm^2 
> puts you on the
>   > >>>> safe side.
>   > >>> 
>   > >>> What I was trying to ask is, what's the real problem with resistance, 
> especially with
>   > >>> regard to a passive speaker and a modern, A/B class solid state end 
> stage? I mean, I
>   > >>> don't really see cable resistance shifting their operating point 
> much, even with
>   > >>> feedback, within the audible range.
>   > >>> 
>   > >>> What is it that I'm missing?
>   > >> I swapped out some lamp cable on the speakers of a stereo setup some 
> years back with 
>   > >> some cheap stranded speaker cable I bought at Costco. Each core of the 
> cable was about 3 
>   > >> times the cross sectional area of the lamp cord (each core of the 
> speaker cable was 
>   > >> about 3/16" in dia). The distances were not great, 5 or 6 feet.
>   > >> The improvement in stereo imaging was huge.
>   > >> Previously the image had wandered around between the speakers 
> seemingly at random, now 
>   > >> it was rock solid at the point wherever it was when I recorded it.
>   > >> ___
>   > >> Sursound mailing list
>   > >> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>   > >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>   > >  
>   > > -- next part --
>   > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>   > > URL: 
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110727/2a25f5c3/attachment.html>
>   > > ___
>   > > Sursound mailing list
>   > > Sursound@music.vt.edu
>   > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>   > > 
>   > 
>   > -- next part --
>   > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>   > URL: 
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110727/bbcdd993/attachment.html>
>   > ___
>   > Sursound mailing list
>   > Sursound@music.vt.edu
>   > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>  
>   -- next part --
>   An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>   URL: 
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110727/54bed32c/attachment.html>
>   ___
>   Sursound mailing list
>   Sursound@music.vt.edu
>   https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> 
> 
>   -
>   No virus found in this message.
>   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>   Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3790 - Release Date: 07/26/11
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110727/f67c98a2/attachment.html>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110727/96c6b373/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Distance perception (really speaker wire discussion!)

[umashankar mantravadi]

havent you heard of tired electron distortion ? (TID). the electrons in speaker 
wire get tired moving back and forth and not going anywhere. the solution is to 
disconnect the speaker every few hours connect a battery one side and short the 
other, so all the old electrons can be flushed out (i think i read this in the 
wireless world) umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > From: neil.water...@asti-usa.com
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:20:02 -0400
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Distance perception (really speaker wire discussion!)
> 
> I wrote the following as a guide for internal use at my work-place a few 
> years back:
> 
> One "don't" that I hold close is this: Don't be mislead by the many "snake 
> oil and, smoke and mirrors" cable vendors that seem to imbue speaker cables 
> with magical (and astronomically expensive) properties. No matter what 
> Monster Cable, Audioquest, or Cardas claim (or any other esoteric speaker 
> wire manufacturer for that matter), there has never been any proof in any 
> unbiased listen test that there is any benefit from using these "snake oil, 
> and smoke and mirrors" inventions. [I still stand absolutely by this 
> statement... if you are one of the sad souls that believe they can hear a 
> difference, then you deserve to waste ALL your money on magical items - I 
> have some acoustic candles for sale > they cost $1000 each and you must use 
> one per speaker in your listening room the benefits are "when lit, you 
> can find each speaker when you turn the lights off").
> 
> The most amusing claim is that some speaker wires are directional... yes, 
> some manufacturers have decided that their cables must be installed in a 
> particular orientation (usually indicated by an arrow printed on the outer 
> jacket of the cable indicating the direction from the amp to the speaker that 
> the wire is "designed" to be used. All sorts of claims are made trying to 
> justify this. However speakers are inherently AC (Alternating Current) 
> devices, and hence the electrons in a speaker wire spend just as much time 
> traveling in one direction, as they do the other, so there is no fathomable 
> reasoning that explains just how a speaker cable can possibly be directional, 
> well excepting possibly being able to charge 10 times more to cover the cost 
> of printing the arrows...  In fact if you consider this claim further, the 
> more you realize the "wacko" aspect to this - if the cable truly did work 
> better in one direction versus the other, then the resultant sound cannot 
> possibly be an
 yt
>  hing other than distorted when the electrons are flowing in the reverse 
> direction!
> 
> Another odd claim heard for some of the astoundingly expensive speaker 
> connects on the market* is that 'normal' speaker cables exhibit some 
> resonance in the audio band, due to their claimed transmission line 
> properties (since it is common to model a cable as an RLC network). While the 
> RLC model is not invalid, the (usually unsubstantiated) claim that the 
> resonance occurs in the audio band (most often mentioned is 1.5kHz), is very 
> easily proven through basic electronic math to be hopelessly incorrect, and 
> even for a long 50 foot 10AWG cable of quite humble specification, the 
> resonant frequency calculates out to be 2.02MHz (some 2 magnitudes beyond 
> human hearing)! In reality cables  DO NOT  resonate at all! The model 
> represented here is single RLC lumped circuit for simplicity and is only 
> accurate at audio frequencies for circuit analysis. A speaker cable is 
> actually a distributed element and should be represented as infinite number 
> of lumped RLC models. As an infinite number
  o
>  f lumped RLC circuits are modeled becoming its true distributed form factor, 
> we see the resonance frequency go to infinity. 
> 
> In order to shorten this discussion the most basic don't is, don't buy any 
> cable that claims anything other than the simple design goal of connecting an 
> amplifier to a speaker.
> 
> So what does matter? 
> 
> The bottom line is that the speaker cable DC resistance should by rule 
> -of-thumb present no more than  5% of the impedance load presented by the 
> speaker, and hence the ONLY real issue of concern is the resistance of the 
> selected wire per foot. The speakers I use most often have a rated impedance 
> of 4 Ohms, hence we do not want to see a DC resistance greater than 0.2 Ohms 
> for the cable run. 
> 
> In general the distance run per wire gauge recommendations I use are as 
> follows:
> 
> Up to 40 feet : 14AWG
> 40-60 feet: 12 AWG
>

Re: [Sursound] Distance perception

[umashankar mantravadi]

my favourite visual image is of a boeing 747. it always  seems to fly so slow. 
we seem to have, in our brains, a 'size' for aircraft, so we can use that to 
compute speed from angular momentum. so small aircraft wiz by and big ones 
lumber. what models do we create for sound objects? umashankar
i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > From: davehuntau...@btinternet.com
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:01:32 +0100
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Distance perception
> 
> 
> On 26 Jul 2011, at 17:00, sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu wrote:
> 
> > Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:18:42 -0400
> > From: Marc Lavall?e 
> >
> > After reading this difficult thread (I'm replying with a new title),
> > I have simple questions about room sizes and speaker distances.
> >
> > Imagine two rooms with proper acoustic characteristics and treatments
> > for ambisonics reproduction: the first is 3mX4m and the other is four
> > times larger in surface (9mX12m). In both rooms there's a
> > horizontal hexagon of speakers, and 5 speakers are against a wall.
> >
> > When NFC is applied in both rooms, do they sound the same in terms of
> > distance perception when playing the same recording? Or is the same
> > "sound object" appear to be twice as far in the largest room?
> 
> As J?rn has pointed out, the effect of the different acoustics of the  
> rooms is hard to eliminate, and speaker placement relative to walls  
> and other surfaces also has audible consequences. Anechoic rooms are  
> hard to achieve, and are rather unpleasant and disturbing to be in.  
> It is would be difficult to do an A/B comparison.
> 
> So, it is a rather hypothetical, if relevant, question. A better test  
> would be two identical or similar outdoor rigs at different distances  
> matched in level, with the ability to switch between them.
> 
> The "40' geese" phenomenon has been mentioned many times. John  
> Leonard's recording, obviously fairly close perspective, when played  
> on large systems gives the impression of very large geese. No-one  
> seems to have an explanation for this. Possibly it is due to  
> conflicting perceptual cues, visual as well as aural. Even without  
> any visual aspect close sound sources seem 'bigger'. Aural  
> perspective is not the same as visual perspective, though there are  
> some similarities. Visual distance acuity is probably not much better  
> than aural distance acuity. Both rely on comparison, experience and  
> supposition.
> 
> My hunch, which I cannot back up with formal theory, is that distance  
> perception is  relative rather than absolute. So, I would expect the  
> two 'rooms' to sound broadly similar though not identical, assuming   
> 'proper acoustic characteristics' and appropriate NFC. Distance  
> perception would be consistent, though different, in each 'room'.
> 
> > Apart from widening the listening sweet spot, are larger rooms  
> > "better"
> > at reproducing distance cues when using the same speaker  
> > configuration?
> 
> It has been said several times on this list that the size of the  
> sweet spot is related to wavelength and not the size of the speaker  
> rig, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to disagree.
> 
> Certainly larger rooms have later and lower level reflections, with  
> lower frequency resonant nodes and a more even frequency distribution  
> of the harmonics of those nodes. Speakers can be more easily located  
> away from walls and corners, resulting in direct sound sound from  
> them arriving earlier and being louder than reflected sound.
> 
> > Is distance perception directly related to speaker distances?
> 
> I suspect that that it is related in the case of ambisonics, though  
> not directly. This is more psychoacoustics than just physics or  
> acoustics.
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> Dave Hunt
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] Distance perception

[umashankar mantravadi]

years ago (no decades ago) i found what a huge difference it made if the wires 
were reasonably thick, and cut to be exactly same length. cutting them to same 
length is problematic with eight loudspeakers (unless the amp sits in the sweet 
spot) but my next rig, in my own house, in bangalore next year, will have same 
length wires to all the speakers. umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:57:49 -0700
> From: d...@dgvo.net
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Distance perception
> 
> On 26/07/11 3:41 p.m., Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> > On 2011-07-26, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> >> I certainly don't want you to waste your money on fancy speaker cables.
> > Never thought otherwise. That's obviously never been what we do here. ;)
> >> But resistance does matter, so a good cross section such as 2.5 mm^2 puts 
> >> you on the
> >> safe side.
> >
> > What I was trying to ask is, what's the real problem with resistance, 
> > especially with
> > regard to a passive speaker and a modern, A/B class solid state end stage? 
> > I mean, I
> > don't really see cable resistance shifting their operating point much, even 
> > with
> > feedback, within the audible range.
> >
> > What is it that I'm missing?
> I swapped out some lamp cable on the speakers of a stereo setup some years 
> back with 
> some cheap stranded speaker cable I bought at Costco. Each core of the cable 
> was about 3 
> times the cross sectional area of the lamp cord (each core of the speaker 
> cable was 
> about 3/16" in dia). The distances were not great, 5 or 6 feet.
> The improvement in stereo imaging was huge.
> Previously the image had wandered around between the speakers seemingly at 
> random, now 
> it was rock solid at the point wherever it was when I recorded it.
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] Opinions on the Brahma soundfield mic kit

[umashankar mantravadi]

dear all i am the person who makes brahma microphones. the photographs and 
description on the oomagamma site are of one early version. the capsules are 
cardioid 14 mm, mounted on a drilled out sphere. (it was not very successful.) 
while oomagamma sells some of the microphones i had made, brahma is not one of 
them. that is because as it stands, i am not providing calibration files or 
software, so it cannot be a truly commercial venture. for almost a year now, i 
have been making my parts using shapeways, so it is now possible for me to make 
accurate assemblies using a variety of capsules from 6 mm onwards. the capsules 
are cardioids, an the arrangement a tetrahedron. most of my recent experiments 
have been on mounting the capsule assembly inside a metal mesh sphere, now 
internallly shockmounted. this is because i realise the real limitation of many 
of the tetrahedral microphones around is their susceptibility to wind, 
electrical interference and handling noises. there is no poi
 nt making a perfect microphone if every recording i make is vitiated by 
noises! i have made half a dozen of these microphnes so far this year (all 14 
mm) along with modified zoom H2 recorders. but my next brahma microphone is 
going to use large (25 mm) capsules and is meant to be an upgrade in terms of 
audio quality. that means phantom power and balanced outputs as an option.  all 
the shapeways parts i have designed for brahma are available for purchase from 
shapeways.com. i will help which ever way i can for those who want to make 
their own. i have posted a photo essay on the zoom H 2 modification and can 
provide links. i would like to encourage people to make their own. i will of 
course build one for anyone who wants it, but as i have said before, they will 
have to figure how they will calibrate the microphone. there is brahmavolver a 
free program produced by angelo farina's group for the original 14 mm brahma 
kits i had made for aida. (there were ten of them). it is also 
 possible to buy a fuly calibrated brahma from AIDA, which is part of Angelo 
Farina's university i have posted links to files on skydrive. the folder called 
ambisonics has recordings using six mm capsules. the one called brahma 140 has 
recordings made by hector centano, who is a member of this group. he measured 
his brahma and sent the files to fons adriansen, who created calibration files 
to be used with tetraproc softare. umashankar  

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:54:27 +0100
> From: d...@db-av.co.uk
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Opinions on the Brahma soundfield mic kit
> 
> Has anyone done any A/B comparisons of the Brahma with other mics such as
> the tetra mic and the STS200?
> 
> I'd love to hear the results of a 'soundfield' mic shootout.
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/07/2011 20:00, "Eric Benjamin"  wrote:
> 
> >Dan Andrew
> >> whats the catch?
> >
> >I'm not sure that there is a catch, as such.
> >
> >It's apparent that the Brahma is an 'A-format' microphone, in which it is
> >the 
> >capsule signals that are recorded and not the Ambisonic B-format.  To get
> >B-format will require some matrix processing (sum and difference of
> >capsule 
> >signals), and some equalization to restore flat frequency response.  Not
> >only 
> >that, but the microphone array appears to be made up of omnidirectional
> >signals 
> >which means that the difference signals (B-format X, Y, and Z) will need
> >to have 
> >the low frequencies boosted substantially to give any semblance of flat
> >frequency response.
> >
> >Perhaps the Oomagamma folks can supply some commentary, and much better
> >than 
> >that, perhaps they can supply some A-format demonstration files.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >- Original Message 
> >From: Dan Andrews 
> >To: Surround Sound discussion group 
> >Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 4:36:34 AM
> >Subject: [Sursound] Opinions on the Brahma soundfield mic kit
> >
> >Im looking to buy a mic for b-format recording and wondered if anyone on
> >the
> >mailing list has had any experience with Brahma soundfield mic kit?
> >
> >http://www.oomagamma.com/brahma_kit/brahma_kit.html
> >
> >This kit includes the mic, a modified 4ch Zoom 24/96 recorder, cables, a
> >shockmount, 2 wind shields and a wooden case to put it all in, all for 729
> >euro
> >
> >This all seems far to good to be true, whats the catch?
> >
> >All the best
> >
> >Dan
> >
> >
> >-- next part --
> >An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >URL: 
> > >2815fb6/attachment.html>
> >
> >___
> >Sursound mailing list
> >Sursound@music.vt.edu
> >https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> >
> >___
> >Sursound mailing list
> >Sursound@music.vt.edu
> >https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

[Sursound] umashankar mantravadi has shared documents with you

[umashankar mantravadi]

 umashankar mantravadi shared the folder brahma 140 with you on Windows Live.
<http://profile.live.com/cid-3aeeea022e2ad294?Bsrc=EMSHOO&Bpub=SN.Notifications>
"here are  the two recordings by hector i intended to send"
View folder
<http://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=3aeeea022e2ad294&page=browse&resid=3AEEEA022E2AD294!227&type=6&Bsrc=EMSHOO&Bpub=SN.Notifications>
Notifications preferences
<http://profile.live.com/options/notifications/>
Microsoft privacy statement
<http://g.msn.co.in/2privacy/enin>
Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110711/7f52871a/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

[Sursound] umashankar mantravadi has shared documents with you

[umashankar mantravadi]

 umashankar mantravadi shared the folder ambisonics with you on Windows Live.
<http://profile.live.com/cid-3aeeea022e2ad294?Bsrc=EMSHOO&Bpub=SN.Notifications>
"here are to B format recordings (four wave files each) recorded and processed 
by hector centano.  using the brahma 140 microphone with modified zoom H2."
View folder
<http://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=3aeeea022e2ad294&page=browse&resid=3AEEEA022E2AD294!204&type=6&authkey=9imRr2LuD0M%24&Bsrc=EMSHOO&Bpub=SN.Notifications>
Notifications preferences
<http://profile.live.com/options/notifications/>
Microsoft privacy statement
<http://g.msn.co.in/2privacy/enin>
Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110711/e5df5c12/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] HOA mics [was] "the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and ..."

[umashankar mantravadi]

just a thought (please shoot me down if i am talking air). all the microphones 
we currently use (except for some cell phone microphones, according to the 
patents) are first order microphones the patterns just a combination of omni 
and figure of eight in various ratios. there are various second order (and 
higher order) design patents, usually using some way of bringing the rear 
diaphragm into a front facing path. would putting 32 cardioid (or 
hypercardioids) on a sphere allow one to generate high order ambisonics. ( i 
suspect 32 omnis on the surface of a rigid sphere might). umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:15:21 +
> From: f...@linuxaudio.org
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] HOA mics [was] "the recent 2-channel 3D   sound   
> formats and ..."
> 
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 08:26:03AM -, Michael Chapman wrote:
> > "Fons Adriaensen"  wrote
> > on Sat, July 9, 2011 at 10:55 pm
> > 
> > >> ppps How are higher-order microphones coming aloing these days, or are
> > >> we still happy truncating the infinite series at one order above an
> > >> omni?
> > >
> > > There are none ATM that can produce full frequency range higher order,
> > > and I doubt there will ever be. But we don't really need them either.
> > 
> > I find "[b]ut we don't really need them either" a fascinating comment.
> > Would be delighted if you could expand on it, Fons.
> 
> It just means that not having a full range higher order mic does not
> stop us from creating higher order content. But of course it would be 
> good to have such a mic, I just don't see it happen any time soon, and
> when it happens it will be expensive.
> 
> There is one being developed using two spheres: a solid one with 
> 32 mics on the surface, plus 32 mics in free space on a larger
> diameter sphere. This will ease some of the problems we have at
> LF with e.g. the eigenmike. But it requires 64 channels...
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> -- 
> FA
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] Portable ambisonics setup, or "how do you mount speakers on tubes?"

[umashankar mantravadi]

i would agree with that (arent there too many wires already?) but i found a 
cheaper solution in chinese made digital amplifier cards. 50 dollars including 
shipping for four channels! you need to build a box etc of course. there are 
switched mode power supplies too. (search for sure electronics on ebay) i use 
light weight home made speakers with a metal hook on the back. just now they 
hang on walls, but can easily hook them up otherways. i would make a ring and 
hook assembly which can slide up the stands and locked in place. umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:53:22 -0400
> From: jmo...@brown.edu
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Portable ambisonics setup, or "how do you mount 
> speakers on tubes?"
> 
> I don't have an answer to your question. But i would consider using passive
> speakers and a separate amp setup. That will take some weight off your
> stands, and, the bigger advantage, you won't have to run power and and audio
> cables to every speaker location - just to the amp setup. Simple speaker
> wire (lamp cord) goes out to the speakers.
> 
> we've been using this amp with some small behringer 1C monitors (JBL control
> 1 knock offs - more or less) for an inexpensive solution that performs
> surprisingly well (a bit lo-fi - especially the monitors):
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/597468-REG/Pyle_Pro_PCA3_PCA3_Mini_2_x.html
> 
> we have a bunch of stereo kits that can be combined for multichannel use or
> used separately.
> 
> -
> 
> something like this is more pro:
> Rane MA4 4-Channel, 4 x 100W Amplifier MA 4 B&H Photo
> Video
> 
> and there are a lot of surround sound receivers that will do the trick
> nicely with 5 or even 7 channels of amplification in a single unit. Many
> even have calibration routines built in. But it's hard to find them with
> discreet analog input these days -  I would look for that or be prepared to
> deal with getting a digital multichannel input to the receiver.
> 
> jim
> 
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Franck M.  wrote:
> 
> > I'm designing a mid-size (8 to 12-ch) ambisonics setup, using small active
> > near-field studio monitors such as Fostex PM04, Focal CMS40, BM-5A...(the
> > exact model will depend on the funding I'll get for this project).
> >
> > As it is supposed to be "portable" (well, transportable would be a better
> > term) I'm planning to put the speakers on stands (such as lightning
> > roll-stands from Manfrotto) that can be easily folded and put in some car
> > (mine).
> >
> > For example, the 12 speakers setup would have 3 speakers per stand (floor,
> > mid, ceiling speakers), each stand being in the corner of the room or,
> > better, at the middle of each room side, in order to prevent that common
> > room-corner-ultra-bass-boom effect. The 8 channels setup is simply the cube
> > (or the "parallelepiped"), with no mid speaker.
> >
> > As some of you already may have built such fixed or portable setups, I was
> > wondering how you managed to fix the speakers to (vertical or horizontal)
> > tube stands or structures. For lights, they use tube clamps, but the weight
> > is not the same when it comes to active loudspeakers. Most small form factor
> > speakers have threaded mounting holes so you can put them on microphone
> > stands, so I was planning to use them, but I couldn't find the "missing
> > link" between the tube and the mounting holes...
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any tips!
> >
> > Frank
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Moses
> Technical Director/Lecturer
> Brown University Music Department and M.E.M.E. (Multimedia and Electronic
> Music Experiments)
> -- 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

Re: [Sursound] B format mic using omnis?

[umashankar mantravadi]

dear eric the way i marked out my holes is this: draw three great circles, 120 
degrees apart. the point they crosss at is the first microphone. you then mark 
240 degrees on each great circle and drill for the other three. i drilled the 
holes through the sphere so the wires could be threaded out( i was using 
panasonic 6 mm capsules). never completed the project. umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:00:32 -0700
> From: eb...@pacbell.net
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] B format mic using omnis?
> 
> > building/using a soundfield type mic using omni's?
> 
> If life gives you 4060s, then make lemonade.  I mean, a B-format microphone!
> 
> The problem gets a lot easier if you resign yourself to making something that 
> will have good utility as opposed to making something optimal.
> 
> I would make a microphone array using a spherical baffle.  One can find quite 
> a 
> variety of wood spheres.  Here in the US there are spheres made of Birch with 
> diameters of 1-1/2", 2",   Wood is great because it's cheap, easy to 
> drill, 
> and if you make a mistake you just grab another one.  
> 
> 
> If the user doesn't intend to make use of height, I'd want to make the array 
> a 
> horizontal-only one, primarily because the drilling is a lot easier!  It's 
> difficult enough to find the equator of a sphere without having to find the 
> vertices of a tetrahedron inscribed in the sphere!
> 
> The choice of diameter is tough, because as previous respondents pointed out 
> there is a tradeoff between SNR and bandwidth.  As you know, the 1st order 
> patterns will be derived by subtracting the outputs of 2 or more of the 
> capsules, and that means that the response will have to be equalized by apply 
> an 
> LF boost below a critical frequency determined by the diameter of the sphere. 
>  
> For an open array this is straightforward but for a spherical baffle you need 
> to 
> include the diffraction of the sphere.  I can calculate this, but not on the 
> back of an envelope.  The spherical diffraction gives an effective gain of 6 
> dB 
> and this is worth going before because the self noise of the 4060s is about 
> 23 
> dBA as I recall, which is good enough to be useful but not so generous as to 
> allow one to easily throw it away.  So what we would like to do is to have 
> that 
> critical frequency be somewhere near the frequency at which the ear is most 
> sensitive to mic hiss - about 2 to 7 kHz.  And typical usable sphere sizes 
> just 
> happen to do that.  This means that the array will only work well up to about 
> 10 
> kHz, but then that is true of a traditional SF microphone too!
> 
> The construction may be just a little bit difficult.  It turns out to be 
> difficult to find the center of a sphere once you have it in hand.  You will 
> really need to use a drill press to drill the holes.  Routing the microphones 
> into the sphere will also be difficult, depending on how the end of the 
> microphone cables are connectorized.  It may turn out that you will want to 
> drill a large hole in the sphere at a direction not populated by microphone 
> capsules, and use that hole for entry of the microphones and to route them 
> each 
> into their respective holes.
> 
> Having done this before, I can give you a bit more specific info if you 
> contact 
> me off-list.
> 
> Eric Benjamin
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message 
> From: Dave Malham 
> To: Surround Sound discussion group 
> Sent: Mon, June 20, 2011 3:54:38 AM
> Subject: [Sursound] B format mic using omnis?
> 
> 
> May seem a strange question, but anyone ever had any experience of 
> building/using a soundfield type mic using omni's? I have been asked by one 
> of 
> the artists featured on The Morning Line if there's anything he could do with 
> his collection of 4 DPA's (4060-bm's). Not something I'd ever really though 
> about before, but as Angelo's B format hydrophone uses omni's ... 
> (http://www.angelofarina.it/Public/UAM-2011/)
> 
> Dave
> 
> --  These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
> /*/
> /* Dave Malham  http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */
> /* Music Research Centre */
> /* Department of Music"http://music.york.ac.uk/";  */
> /* The University of York  Phone 01904 432448*/
> /* Heslington  Fax  01904 432450*/
> /* York YO10 5DD*/
> /* UK  'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'  */
> /*"http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/"; */
> /*/
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music

Re: [Sursound] B format mic using omnis?

[umashankar mantravadi]

years ago i had asked (several times) this same question and never got a 
satisfactory answer. i thought of two alternate systems. one where the sphere 
is about seven or eight inches across, and the other where the sphere is just 
large enough(about an inch) to mount the capsules. never tried to build either 
of them umashankar

 > From: joshatk...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:33:42 -0400
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] B format mic using omnis?
> 
> You could mount them on the surface of a rigid sphere (a.la.
> Eigenmike) with a tetrahedral configuration.   Pressure sensors on a
> rigid spherical baffle have similar characteristics in performance to
> open sphere cardioid configurations.  Without the baffle you will have
> certain frequencies where the array has little or no output for
> incident plane waves (corresponding to the nulls of the spherical
> Bessel functions).  This paper has a good explanation and graphs for
> comparison of different mounting techniques ...
> 
> I. Balmages and B. Rafaely, “Open-sphere designs for spherical
> microphone arrays,” Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, IEEE
> Transactions on [see also Speech and Audio Processing, IEEE
> Transactions on], vol. 15, pp. 727 — 732, Feb 2007.
> 
> Josh
> 
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Dave Malham  wrote:
> >
> > May seem a strange question, but anyone ever had any experience of
> > building/using a soundfield type mic using omni's? I have been asked by one
> > of the artists featured on The Morning Line if there's anything he could do
> > with his collection of 4 DPA's (4060-bm's). Not something I'd ever really
> > though about before, but as Angelo's B format hydrophone uses omni's ...
> > (http://www.angelofarina.it/Public/UAM-2011/)
> >
> >Dave
> >
> > --
> >  These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
> > /*/
> > /* Dave Malham   http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */
> > /* Music Research Centre */
> > /* Department of Music"http://music.york.ac.uk/"; */
> > /* The University of York  Phone 01904 432448*/
> > /* Heslington  Fax   01904 432450*/
> > /* York YO10 5DD */
> > /* UK   'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'   */
> > /*"http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/"; */
> > /*/
> >
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Joshua Atkins
> Ph.D. Candidate
> Dept. Electrical Engineering
> Johns Hopkins University
> 3400 North Charles Street
> Baltimore, Maryland 21218
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] Sound Externalization Headphone

[umashankar mantravadi]

some months ago i acquired a battered motor cycle helmet. the aim is to mount 
eight loudspeakers ; remove the foam but leave the helmet suspension intact, so 
it is a few inches off the head in all directions. feed a standard cube decode. 
havent tried it yet. distracted by a loudspeaker cube!
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 07:09:14 -0700
> From: rglas...@yahoo.com
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Sound Externalization Headphone
> 
> As in most things there are first order effects and second order effects.
>  
> Although there seems to be little in the literature, the basic cause of 
> internalization seems clearly to be interference with the pinna.  You can 
> test this for yourself by whistling and bringing your hands up to your ears.  
> The whistle will for most people move inside their head.  Thus since most 
> earphones, interfere with  the pinna internalization results.  Etymotic 
> earphones don't work because then there are no pinna.  On can imagine that a 
> brain that suddenly cannot receive any pinna directional finding patterns (or 
> any normal ones) makes the only logical assumption possible that the sound 
> originates inside the skull.
>  
> The old IMAX helmut for 3D solved this problem (and the stereo crosstalk one) 
> by using ear speakers.  Their demo for an AES convention was very convincing. 
>  Another problem with earphone listening is that the stage is sort of always 
> frontal, but you can get great proximity (depth) effects. The rear or 
> overhead part, in the absence of normal Pinna function, is almost impossible 
> to achieve unless your standards or expectations are low.  You may get it to 
> work for one listener or earphone type but not universally.
>  
> Tricks like head tracking, HRTF diddling, etc. are second order fixes or mild 
> palliatives.  Pinna are like fingerprints and it is likely impossible to find 
> a universal solution to internalization that is practical.  If  you measure 
> your own pinna and then use this IR with eytmotic earphones you should get a 
> reasonable result, but in practice this is difficult and even unpleasant.  
> This is why the loudspeaker binaural technologies are still attractive and 
> why there are hundreds of PC and iPod docking stations advertised.
>  
> By the way the iPad app for Ambiophonics is free thanks to Steve Hotto.
>  
> Ralph Glasgal
> glas...@ambiophonics.org
> www.ambiophonics.org 
> 
> From: Junfeng Li 
> To: Surround Sound discussion group 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:49 AM
> Subject: [Sursound] Sound Externalization Headphone
> 
> Dear List,
> 
> I am now researching on 3D audio playback/rendering in headphone. One
> purpose of this work is to playback the 5.1 Audio using headphone.
> One main problem for sound playback using headphone is "in-head
> localization". Therefore to playback the 5.1 audio with headphone, I am now
> trying to externalize sound in headphone playback.
> 
> Is anyone able to give me some comments/suggestion on this issue?
> 
> Thank you so much in advance.
> 
> Best regards,
> Junfeng
> -- 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
  
-- 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] Test message

[umashankar mantravadi]

dear paul
 
i got your message. in fact i thought i  had replied.sorry.
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 16:29:46 +0100
> From: pwh-surro...@cassland.org
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu; umasha...@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Test message
> 
> (Sorry for the noise, folks.)
> 
> Umashankar - did you get my reply to your private message? Sometimes 
> Hotmail blocks mail from my personal mail server.
> 
> Paul
> 
> -- 
> Paul Hodges
> 
> 
  
-- 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] Test message

[umashankar mantravadi]

they  have decided on ambisonics (up there), but are now arguing about whether 
3rd order is enough, or if it is natural
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> From: j...@johnleonard.co.uk
> Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 15:06:25 +0100
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: [Sursound] Test message
> 
> Not getting anything from the list for a day or three. Has it succumbed to 
> The Rapture?
> 
> John
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] Brahma mic users?

[umashankar mantravadi]

dear michael
 
the brahma mic can be used with any four channel system that can provide plug 
in power of atleast two volts. it is very simple providing a small box, with a 
nine volt battery inside, a female five pin connector and four male xlrs to use 
it with any recorder. i prefer the nine volt battery route to providing full 
phantom power circuits because it is definitely less noisy, especially when 
using small  battery powered location recorders, which have to generate the 
phantom voltage.the xlr outputs will be impedance balanced so longish cables 
can still be used. if the cables are truly long some kind of buffering has to 
be provided. i can make you this box if you want.
 
i originally made brahma with a screw on tuchel connector to use it directly on 
the zoom H2. i have realised since that even with the zoom H2 the mike is 
better off with a cable connection to the recorder. one can then check the 
recorder without disturbing the mike. i have changed to a five pin xlr 
connector.
 
i am sending this off list as i do not think it is of much interest to other 
sursounders.
 
umashankar
 


i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 09:21:41 +0900
> From: loop...@gmail.com
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Brahma mic users?
> 
> umanshankar,
> 
> There is one thing that is not clear to me from the website. The
> Brahma mic seems essentially designed for use with the Zoom H2. I'd
> like to also use the microphone with my Tascam DR-680 if at all
> possible. I have no doubt it could be used with other recorders, but
> it is not clear if you sell something like a breakout cable to enable
> use with a regular recorder with 4 channels of XLR input. Also, if I
> were to buy the fully built kit, would the microphone be removable to
> allow it to still be used with another recorder in this way? It seems
> as though it is simply screwed on via the connector, so my guess is it
> can be removed, but I can't tell for certain.
> 
> thanks
> Michael
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:19 AM, umashankar mantravadi
>  wrote:
> >
> > dear michael
> >
> > i do not mind at all, and would in fact like to hear from people who have 
> > used my mic, or heard recordings made with it.
> >
> > Angelo has ten of them, and a 11th made with TSB 120 capsules which he has 
> > tested and calibrated and used for recordings. i have not heard these 
> > recordings myself.
> >
> > one member of this group, hector centano, has a brahma and i heard nice 
> > sounding recordings he has made with it.
> >
> > the first thing i must point out if you want to buy a brahma is you will 
> > have to calibrate the microphone yourself. at the moment i am not set up 
> > for doing this. (hector and i have both used them uncalibrated, with a kind 
> > of best fit approach). depending on your skill levels and parts 
> > availability, you can build it yourself (using the required parts from 
> > shapeways), do only the zoom modification yourself, or get me to make the 
> > whole thing. (we can discuss that off list)
> >
> >
> > umashankar
> >
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110519/c7617ec6/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Brahma mic users?

[umashankar mantravadi]

dear michael
 
i do not mind at all, and would in fact like to hear from people who have used 
my mic, or heard recordings made with it.
 
Angelo has ten of them, and a 11th made with TSB 120 capsules which he has 
tested and calibrated and used for recordings. i have not heard these 
recordings myself.
 
one member of this group, hector centano, has a brahma and i heard nice 
sounding recordings he has made with it.
 
the first thing i must point out if you want to buy a brahma is you will have 
to calibrate the microphone yourself. at the moment i am not set up for doing 
this. (hector and i have both used them uncalibrated, with a kind of best fit 
approach). depending on your skill levels and parts availability, you can build 
it yourself (using the required parts from shapeways), do only the zoom 
modification yourself, or get me to make the whole thing. (we can discuss that 
off list)
 
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 07:06:33 +0900
> From: loop...@gmail.com
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: [Sursound] Brahma mic users?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've been on this list a while and not posted anything, mainly because
> I find I have little to add to the usually on-topic and interesting
> exchanges that go on here. However, I'm soon to be in the market for
> an A-format/soundfield microphone. My budget is limited, so this means
> either the Tetramic or Brahma mic/kit appear to be my only options.
> While I can find plenty of testimony regarding the Tetramic's
> strengths and weaknesses, there seems to have been little or no
> discussion of Umashankar's Brahma. Have any list member's had
> experience with this mic? In terms of cost, it seems like a very
> attractive package to begin recording ambisonic material.
> 
> thanks
> 
> Michael Noble
> 
> ps. I realize Umashankar, you are a list member. I hope you are not
> offended that I should seek third party input before inquiring to you
> directly about your products.
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] Speaker configs + subwoofers

[umashankar mantravadi]

transmission line speakers are not difficult to build and i suspect they would 
be better for a ambisonic system than reflex speakers, for almost thirty years 
now i had a pair of 'miniline' transmission line speakers published in HiFiNews 
(and i think designed by P Atkinson) they use KEF B110 and MK8s but one can use 
more modern 5 1/2 speakers. i have built myself an eight speaker system using 3 
1/2 vifas in sealed boxes, but my kefs sound very much better. i will do eight 
identical transmission line speakers when i have lots of money!

umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar



> Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 20:54:21 -0400
> From: m...@hacklava.net
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Speaker configs + subwoofers
> 
> 
> I found very little information about domestic Ambisonic speakers
> setups. All I know is that it's better to use the same speakers and
> amplifiers for the whole setup... I adopted the layout proposed by
> Bo-Erik Sandholm (10 speakers), and now I have to find the right
> speakers.
> 
> Here's some random thoughts (comments are welcome):
> 
> - Speaker design really is an art form; I can't build very good
>   speakers myself, so eventually I will buy two for my main stereo
>   system (and they will sound much better than they look).
> 
> - I can build "good enough" speakers based on tutorials and
>   software. I did it and it's worth the effort. Bass-reflex enclosures
>   are easier to design and build than quarter-wave enclosures.
> 
> - The frequency response of some good full-range drivers is about
>   70Hz-20Khz. They are perfect for near-field listening, and probably
>   appropriate for a small Ambisonic setup.
> 
> - For Ambisonic reproduction in a small room, I can't afford to buy or
>   build fancy speakers (like quarter-wave), but I can build many (10+)
>   speakers using full-range drivers in sealed enclosures.
> 
> - I learned that it's possible to use subwoofers with Ambisonic; but a
>   minimum of four subwoofers are required with a dedicated FOA decoder.
>   That's a reason why I'd like to build small enclosures for small
>   drivers with a limited bass response instead of larger enclosures
>   with bass extension (either bass-reflex or quarter-wave).
> 
> - Bass reproduction is important for directional cues. It is influenced
>   by the room response (or modes) and the placement of the subwoofers
>   (more than their size and quality).
> 
> - Digital room correction and EQ are useful tools; we should use them
>   instead of looking for speakers with the "best" frequency response.
> 
> Is there any web site (article, book) on how to build speakers
> specifically for Ambisonic reproduction?
> 
> --
> Marc
> 
> Mon, 09 May 2011 23:24:17 +0100,
> Gerard Lardner  :
> 
> > There's also the Yahoo group Quarter-Wave
> > (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/quarter-wave/), where there is
> > discussion of loudspeaker design, and the related website Quarter
> > Wavelength Loudspeaker Design (http://www.quarter-wave.com/) where
> > there is Mathcad software for loudspeaker design. Mostly for
> > transmission-line designs. Seems to be good; but I haven't built any
> > yet myself.
> > 
> > Gerard Lardner
> > 
> > 
> > On 09/05/2011 07:12, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:
> > >
> > >  A bit out of topic but if anyone else is into building their own
> > > speaker cabinets. Let me point you to a document that is very good
> > > in explaining the design choices in a cabinet for the bass
> > > frequencies.
> > >
> > > http://www.sonicdesign.se/optimum.html
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Bo-Erik 
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > >> From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu
> > >> [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Bo-Erik
> > >> Sandholm
> > > Sent: den 4 maj 2011 13:48
> > > To: Surround Sound discussion group
> > > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale - Speaker configs.
> > >
> > > >From 
> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization#Evaluation_for_low_freq
> > >> uencies
> > > Evaluation for low frequencies
> > >
> > > For frequencies below 800 Hz, the dimensions of the head (ear
> > > distance 21.5 cm, corresponding to an interaural time delay of 625
> > > µs), are smaller than the half wavelength of the sound waves. So
> > > the auditory system can determine phase delays between both ears
> > > without confusion. Interaural level differences are very low in
> > > this frequency range, especially below about 200 Hz, so a precise
> > > evaluation of the input direction is nearly impossible on the basis
> > > of level differences alone. As the frequency drops below 80 Hz it
> > > becomes difficult or impossible to use either time difference or
> > > level difference to determine a sound's lateral source, because the
> > > phase difference between the ears becomes too small for a
> > > directional evaluation.
> > >
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

[umashankar mantravadi]

in fact angelo recommended that i arrange the eight speakers as two crossed 
squares. two speakers in front and back, and four speakers mid bottom left and 
right and mid top left and right, the only problem is i do not see a readymade 
decoder 
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> From: r...@cubiculum.com
> Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 14:54:25 +0200
> To: richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk; sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale
> 
> 
> On 3 May 2011, at 13:08, Richard Dobson wrote:
> 
> > My proposed application is not music listening as such, but sonification of 
> > particle collisions in the LHC. In the data, Z is the beam axis, and the 
> > most interesting stuff has high transverse momentum, i.e. left right up 
> > down across the beam axis. I can do a great deal just with horizontal 
> > surround (the most obvious way of sonifying bipolar data, of which there is 
> > a lot), but most collisions are very obviously 3D in space. "Normally", 
> > jets are formed in symmetrical pairs e.g. one hard left, one hard right, 
> > but recently they have found some instances where the jets were not exactly 
> > in opposite directions, indicating (possibly) some new physics. So it will 
> > be important to tell if two sounds are exactly opposite (180 deg in 
> > effect), or at a narrower angle. There may be situations where being able 
> > to rotate the soundfield in the classic B-Format way in order to choose an 
> > alternative listener orientation would be useful.
> 
> Sure, in such a scenario you'd of course want Z-axis info, too. But then you 
> may also need a more precise and stable localization. Naive guess would be 
> something like two rings of six speakers at different horizontal levels would 
> be a reasonable minimum.
> 
> Here's a question for the experts:
> 
> If one considers a cube arrangement as a minimum for 3D playback, which could 
> be interpreted as two rings of four speakers at different horizontal levels, 
> then why would one choose a cube over e.g. two "rings" of four speakers that 
> are not only at different horizontal levels, but rotated by 45deg against 
> each other. In other words, a setup that in projection wouldn't be a square, 
> but an octagon?
> 
> Ronald
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

[umashankar mantravadi]

dear john
 
just ten minutes ago i finished setting up an eight speaker playback system. 
the speakers are small (4inch) in home made boxes. at the moment they hang 
flush against the wall near the roof and near the ceiling. it is cube about 10 
feet on each side. (slightly less top to bottom)
 
i am using audio mulch and wigware for playback.
 
i have a fair amount of A format recordings with me now, mostly traditional 
music but some fireworks and a dust storm. Playing around with the best way of 
decoding to B.
 
the best bit so far has been listening to your smut recording.
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> From: j...@johnleonard.co.uk
> Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 13:17:02 +0100
> To: richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk; sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale
> 
> Some years ago I asked a question about how many list-members actually had 
> correctly set up surround systems of any sort at home; not in the studio, or 
> research facility, but in their own homes as a way of enjoying music. I seem 
> to remember that very few - three, if I recall correctly - said that they 
> had. Is it worth asking the question again?
> 
> Most people I know (in the UK, at least, where the prevalence of a 'den' set 
> aside solely for watching sport on huge televisions is rather less than it is 
> in the USA) still have nasty all-in-one 5.1 systems in their living rooms 
> where the speakers are arranged so as not to get in the way or look ugly. 
> They're not listening to properly set-up systems with well-defined levels and 
> localisation, they're listening to a bunch of speakers in random positions 
> and occasionally to a bit of LFE going 'boom' when a car explodes. It's 
> probably far worse now in terms of localisation than it was when stereo first 
> came out and everyone knew how you were supposed to set the system up and 
> listen to it. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John
> 
> 
> On 1 May 2011, at 12:15, Richard Dobson wrote:
> 
> > Have any listening tests actually been carried out to establish what 
> > "typical" users consider to be sufficiently good localization? 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

[umashankar mantravadi]

maybe a little unrelated. i just sold a brahma 140 (14 mm capsules) and zoom 
modified to a new york film crew. they plan to use the microphone mounted on 
the camera. i had been a film sound recordist for 25 years, and even with 
stereo, i preferred a stable sound image for a whole scene, without shifting 
with the camera. i told them what i think, but they still plan to use an A 
format microphone on camera!
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 03:55:55 +0100
> From: st...@mail.telepac.pt
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale
> 
> Richard Dobson wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Should that be a surprise ? If as a composer you are used to just
> >> placing a speaker in the right place when you want a particular
> >> sound to come from a certain direction in a concert, would you be
> >> impressed by the performance of first order Ambisonics ?
> >
> >
> > Yes! I still am. Even on the bare minimum four speakers. I remember 
> > being impressed by it many years ago (eng. John Whiting, for Electric 
> > Phoenix). I think it is high time first-order was re-evaluated, in a 
> > more, um, "realistic" way. Let the question be, not how many speakers 
> > you can justify, but how few you can manage with.
> 
> 
> Very probably you ae right, but this will happen in a wider context.
> 
> >>
> >> The simple fact is that 1st order AMB has no chance against 5.1. For the
> >> applications that are wanted by the mass consumer market, 5.1 actually
> >> works and delivers better results than 1st order AMB ever could.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I seem to recall a certain patent was taken out a while back 
> > specifically to enable B-format to be rendered over 5.1. Not ideal, by 
> > any means, but ~possible~. And it ~would~ improve the vast majority of 
> > film soundtracks, most of which do pretty rubbish 
> > quasi-spatialization, where they bother at all.
> 
> 
> 5.1 is basically stereo with center channel (impotant in cinema use, 
> because it centers the voice to the screen), and two "envelope" channels.
> 
> It is not a perfect surround system, but it does what it is supposed to do.
> 
> Considering the distribution of spectators in a typical cinema, B format 
> doesn't "improve" on 5.1, even less with "4 speakers". 4 speakers might 
> work at home, for one or two listeners.
> (Sometimes it actually doesn't work, depending on room acoustics etc.)
> 
> 
> > And it ~would~ improve the vast majority of film soundtracks, most of 
> > which do pretty rubbish quasi-spatialization, where they bother at all.
> 
> 
> But maybe it is not all about "spatialization", even if we speak about 
> surround sound? I don't want to get too polemic here, but the most 
> important factors for film audio seems to be that you can understand the 
> actors even at soft levels, and that any music sounds well...
> 
> Few film fans would analyze if you can here that a sound comes from say 
> "170º back-right". 5.1 might not deliver this, but luckily the average 
> cineast doesn't know this...
> 
> It is fair to say that 1st order AMB is good (or "good enough"?) for 
> some things, but it is not "perfect surround sound forever". Some people 
> on this list are actually using 2nd/3rd and higher order Ambisonics, and 
> I think that any good standard should consider different 
> applications/requirements.
> 
> Frankly, if .AMB format includes B format (1st order), I don't see any 
> fundamental conflict < at all >.
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Stefan Schreiber
> 
> -- 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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

[umashankar mantravadi]

i have the sabrent. it works very well in windows with asio for all. it is 
advertised as 7.1 but has eight identical output channels (you have to watch 
out for virtual 7,1 boxes)
 
i have bult myself an eight channel digiital amplifier using quad cards from 
sure electronics (50 usd including shipping for each)
 
and eight loudspeakers using vifa four inch full range drivers in small wooden 
boxes.
 
i have so far connected four speakers. the other four - now!
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:08:43 -0400
> From: m...@hacklava.net
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale
> 
> Sun, 01 May 2011 01:44:38 +0100,
> Stefan Schreiber  wrote :
> 
> > Gerard Lardner wrote:
> > 
> > >Perhaps something on the lines of a PlugComputer running Plug
> > >Ubuntu, a USB sound card, Linux software packaged for simple use and
> > >having a web control interface, and an iPhone app to control it all?
> > >The hardware (PlugComputer and sound card) then could be <$200, I
> > >think (excluding the iPhone - but some mobile providers are now
> > >giving that away free with some service contracts).
> > >
> > >Anyone up to doing it?
> > >
> > >Gerard Lardner
> > > 
> 
> That's a good idea, 
> but where to find a cheap USB sound card with 8 output channels? 
> I know about one, but I suspect it is not very good:
> http://sabrent.com/v2/8-channel-3d-usb-2-0-external-7-1-surround-sound-box-wdigital-output/
> Then an external 8 channels amplifier would be required...
> 
> It might be cheaper (and better) to use a desktop computer (small or
> big) with an on-board sound card, and include 4 stereo class-D
> amplifiers in the computer box, although such a configuration could be
> subject to internal interferences.
> 
> > So you want to combine the cheap costs of of a Ubuntu media center 
> > (needs some programming work, though) with the beauty of your beloved 
> > iPhone?
> 
> Or any Android device?
> 
> > < g >
> > 
> > Stefan Schreiber
> > 
> > P.S.: Small hint
> > 
> > It would be better if the Linux software might work for other Linux 
> > distributions, too...
> 
> The main differences between Linux distributions are the packaging
> systems and the versions of the included software. It's fairly easy to
> convert a well packaged software for other distributions (and packaging
> systems)
> 
> --
> Marc
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale

[umashankar mantravadi]

it would be nice if somebody put together - created a recipe - with readily 
available components which will do one thing only. play four channel Bformat 
files through an eight output sound card. just enough controls to set up the 
speakers and select files to be played.
 
it would be nice if it cost very little (the hardware should not be more than 
200 usd)
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> From: mgra...@mstvp.com
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 09:05:16 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Minim AD7 for sale
> 
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:57:53 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> 
> >On 04/29/2011 02:30 PM, Michael Graves wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:28:06 +0300, Eero Aro wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hi All
> >>>
> >>> A Minim AD7 Ambisonic decoder seems to be for sale on a
> >>> Finnish discussion forum:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.hifiharrastajat.org/forum/index.php?topic=1037823.0
> >>>
> >>> I don't know the person selling the decoder.
> >>>
> >>> Eero
> >> 
> >> Could any one comment on the utility of this device? That is, if I'm
> >> starting from scratch to build a small residential ambi playback
> >> environment would I want it? or should I go another route?
> >
> >i'd say unless you are very traditional in what goes into your hifi
> >stack, get a small, quiet computer with a good soundcard and do your
> >decoding in software. much more future-proof, cheaper, and more
> >flexible. unless you have stacks of UHJ-encoded LPs or CDs, where a
> >dedicated old-school hardware box might actually realize its potential
> >for userfriendliness.
> 
> Many thanks for the comments. This is as I expected. I struggle my own
> desire for small appliance-like devices over the compexity of
> computers. Yet, around my home there are a dozen computers. I like
> single board computers for thngs like routers, because of their low
> power, low noise, low maintainance requirements. I suppose a media PC
> could be assembled in a similar fashion.
> 
> Michael
> --
> Michael Graves
> mgravesmstvp.com
> http://www.mgraves.org
> o713-861-4005
> c713-201-1262
> sip:mgra...@mstvp.onsip.com
> skype mjgraves
> Twitter mjgraves
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] distance perception in virtual environments(OT)

[umashankar mantravadi]

i always thought that it is impossible to actually know the state of every gate 
and shift register in a cpu. so it is not deterministic
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:48:22 -0700
> From: gre...@math.ucla.edu
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] distance perception in virtual environments(OT)
> 
> 
> The deterministic universe idea departed from serious science
> almost 100 years ago since qunatum mechanics is by nature 
> nondeterministic. (More precisely, 80 some years ago if you want to wait 
> for people to have realized exactly how intrinsic the nondeterminacy
> was--Heisenberg formulated his uncertainty principle in 1927 as I recall).
> On the other hand, it is not clear to me that this really affects
> computers directly.
> They do freeze up at what appear to be random times and for unknown 
> reasons. But I would be prepared to believe that they are not truly
> random if one could look down in the works as it were.
> But no one scientific seriously doubts that the universe is 
> nondeterministic.
> 
> Robert
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] rf interference

[umashankar mantravadi]

a very feasible idea. you really dont need transformer balancing (which i think 
the PPAs provide). impedance balancing will do it, and any dc 6 volt supply 
should work with the tetramic. i built john leonard a box wich provides 
stabilisied 5 volts, but i think you might get away without even that. A quad 
low noise opamp can provide reliable fixed gain. i am not sure, but is the sps 
200 output balanced?
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:02:03 +0100
> From: d...@york.ac.uk
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] rf interference
> 
> I'm _very_ seriously considering building an "extension body" for our 
> Tetramic, since the ppa's 
> annoy me intensely. This would be a metal tube of normal mic diameter (so 
> that standard clamps can 
> be used) with a nose cone into which the Tetramic would plug (and be clamped 
> somehow for additional 
> support). With a sufficiently smooth flaring on the nose cone I don't 
> anticipate having to 
> re-measure the Tetramic. The circuitry of the ppa's would be replaced with 
> preamps (perhaps with 
> switched gain) in the tube to bring the sensitivity up to SPS200 levels - and 
> the output plug would 
> be the same as on the SPS200 thus ensuring interoperability. All this, of 
> course, presupposes I can 
> find the time to do it!
> 
> Dave
> 
> On 17/04/2011 22:59, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 05:44:08PM -0400, Jascha Narveson wrote:
> >
> >> I was using the 6-foot extension cable yesterday. I didn't try it today, 
> >> so I can't comment on whether swapping out the cable today affected the 
> >> RFI, or if was just a different day and wouldn't've happened in any case.
> > RF interference seems to be a recurrent problem with the Tetramic.
> > I've experienced it on many occasions, and almost always leaving
> > out the extension cable has removed or at least reduced the
> > interference. But it leaves you with the four PPAs and four
> > standard mic cables gaffer-taped to the mic stand - not a view
> > most concert audiences do appreciate.
> >
> > I've been considering to modify the mic to have a short but more
> > solid and better screened fixed cable terminating in a full-size
> > 6-pin XLR, instead of the mini-xlr and the all too delicate
> > extension and breakout cables.
> >
> > Ciao,
> >
> 
> -- 
> These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
> /*/
> /* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */
> /* Music Research Centre */
> /* Department of Music "http://music.york.ac.uk/"; */
> /* The University of York Phone 01904 432448 */
> /* Heslington Fax 01904 432450 */
> /* York YO10 5DD */
> /* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */
> /* "http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/"; */
> /*/
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
  
-- 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] rf interference

[umashankar mantravadi]

if the radio pick up is  happening at the mic head (possible) what you will 
need is a metal grill which is earthed. the signal is unbalanced till the ppa 
outputs. so it is best to use any extension cables after the point.
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 14:56:34 -0700
> From: d...@dgvo.net
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] rf interference
> 
> I have the radio pick up problem with my Tetramic.
> I find it is better to put the 4 XLR adaptors into my 4x3ft XLR cables and 
> then plug the 
> XLR cables into my MOTU Traveller rather than use one of Lens extension 
> cables and plug 
> the adaptors directly into the Traveller.
> If I need distance I use a couple of InstaSnakes and shielded CAT5.
> Radio pickup is still a problem in some locations though.
> I tried wrapping multiple layers of heavy kitchen aluminium foil over the 
> adapters after 
> zip-tying them to the handle of my Rycote blimp.
> Worked OK in the kitchen, but nowhere else. :o)
> 
> Bill
> 
> On 16/04/2011 12:36 p.m., Jascha Narveson wrote:
> >
> > Hello, once again, surround list -
> >
> > My apologies for the continued emails from my end - as you can tell, I'm 
> > trying to muddle through some location recording this weekend, and am 
> > running in to things I've never dealt with before. To whit:
> >
> > I've just come back from recording in Times Square and discovered that I 
> > was picking up the radio. I'm using a TetraMic, and I'm guessing that the 
> > 6' extension cable that goes from the mic to the break-out cable might be 
> > the weak link, as it looks rather thin and is probably unshielded. From the 
> > PPAs I have four 3-foot XLR cables that are then going in to the 788T, so 
> > they might be part of the problem, as well.
> >
> > I know that in picking Times Square as a recording subject I'm walking in 
> > to one of the heavier RF zones in the city, but I'm hoping that somebody 
> > here might have some tips of things I can try to work around it...? Is 
> > there some way I can shield the cables in a d.i.y. fashion, for instance?
> >
> > thanks yet again,
> >
> > - jascha
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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
  
-- 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] TetraMic and/or Sound Devices 788T question: weird noise at record start?

[umashankar mantravadi]

this is something i have vaguely worried about when designing multichannel 
mikes in one body, and then phantom powering them. in the classic wurtke 
circuit, the phantom voltage powers the output transistors, and you need it to 
be on for the transistors to work (right?) doesnt the core sound ppa also have 
a transistor driving the transformer. if it was just a transformer with a 
resistor to the centre tap to draw the phantom voltage, connecting only one 
channel would actually be better. otherwise you have four ten k resistosrs, 
four five volt zeners and four capacitors which are going to be paralleled.
 
(talking from memory so probably through my hat)
 
umashankar
 

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> From: jnarve...@wesleyan.edu
> Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 09:18:42 -0400
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] TetraMic and/or Sound Devices 788T question: weird 
> noise at record start?
> 
> 
> Hi, John (and Dave) -
> 
> Ah - I haven't tried using just channel 1's phantom power. I *did* try taking 
> the 788T off of AC power, turning off all the phantom power on it, and 
> putting AA-batteries in the PPAs as the phantom power source. With this 
> set-up, I still got a weird noise about 12 seconds in to recording, but not 
> as severe. A bit mysterious. 
> 
> I haven't tried other mics yet - not sure I *have* any other mics at the 
> moment, since I had a bunch of stuff stolen last year (which indirectly led 
> to my TetraMic purchase this month). I certainly don't have any condensers... 
> perhaps I'll try it with line input just out of curiosity.
> 
> thanks again, everyone,
> 
> -jascha
> 
> 
> On Apr 16, 2011, at 4:53 AM, John Leonard wrote:
> 
> > Jascha,
> > 
> > You only need phantom turned on on Channel 1 - try turning it off on all 
> > other channels and see if the noise goes away. The Baby Ball Gag does work 
> > with the TetraMic, by the way; not perfect, but so much better than the 
> > foam & furry set-up supplied with the mic. I believe that Rycote now do a 
> > special set-up for TetraMics with a modified lyre-suspension and the 
> > extended BabyBall gag, but that really is expensive.
> > 
> > On the subject of Rycote prices - my thought is that if it enables me to to 
> > my job effectively, it's worth the money. Rycote is a genuinely innovative 
> > company, run by people who care passionately about what they do. And it's 
> > British!
> > 
> > Best wishes,
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > On 16 Apr 2011, at 01:44, Jascha Narveson wrote:
> > 
> >> The four XLR inputs are routed to tracks A, B, C, and D in the 788T, and 
> >> 48V phantom power is active on each channel.
> > 
> > ___
> > 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
  
-- 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] TetraMic and/or Sound Devices 788T question: weird noise at record start?

[umashankar mantravadi]

i am not sure the baby ball gag will work. it is primarily meant for 
cylindrical mics like many small diaphragm condensors
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:15:07 +0100
> From: dave.mal...@york.ac.uk
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] TetraMic and/or Sound Devices 788T question: weird 
> noise at record start?
> 
> I have had problems with PPA's in the past (Len happily replaced them 
> promptly), but I've not heard that one before. Have you tried it with 
> different mics plugged in?
> 
> Dave
> 
> On Apr 16 2011, Jascha Narveson wrote:
> 
> >
> >Hi, surround list -
> >
> > Thanks for all of your suggestions about windscreens. I decided to try 
> > out a heinously over-priced Rycote "baby ball gag" with extra furry. 
> > Before I do *that*, though, I have a question for any TetraMic or Sound 
> > Devices 788T users out there - Len's on vacation, and can't be reached.
> >
> >The question:
> >
> > I just rented the 788T for the weekend, and I just finished reading 
> > through the manual and setting it up with the TetraMic in my apartment. 
> > All seems to be going well, except for the following noise that sounds 
> > phantom-power related when I start recording - it happens about 12 
> > seconds in and then not again. Here's what it sounds like:
> >
> >http://www.jaschanarveson.com/noise.mp3
> >
> >Ugly, right?
> >
> >Here's how I have things set up:
> >
> > TetraMic -> breakout cables -> the four Phantom Power Adapters, in the 
> > flat "on" position -> XLR inputs 1-4 on the 788T
> >
> > The four XLR inputs are routed to tracks A, B, C, and D in the 788T, and 
> > 48V phantom power is active on each channel.
> >
> > I fear I'm doing something terribly wrong, as I've not heard this sound 
> > before.
> >
> >Any help would be greatly appreciated!
> >
> >cheers,
> >
> >jascha
> >
> >
> >___
> >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
  
-- 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] NYC-area TetraMic owners? or: advice on a wind-screen

[umashankar mantravadi]

one reason i have redesigned my brahma 140 with a 20 mm barrel is just that. it 
can be used in any system designed for the 416!
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:49:16 +0200
> From: netti...@stackingdwarves.net
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] NYC-area TetraMic owners? or: advice on a wind-screen
> 
> On 04/15/2011 07:00 AM, umashankar mantravadi wrote:
> >
> > at a pinch, you should be able to use the foam windscreens made for sm58 
> > style microphones
> 
> i can second that - in cases of emergency, a standard sm58 screen and a 
> fuzzy one on top (such as the "dead kitten" by røde) works ok'ish in low 
> wind conditions.
> 
> but windscreens will be generally more effective the more space you have 
> between screen and microphone.
> 
> if you need a better solution, try and rent a professional rycote kit 
> for a shotgun mic (it takes some tape to fit the tetramic in the cradle, 
> but for one day it should be ok).
> 
> best,
> 
> 
> jörn
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jörn Nettingsmeier
> Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
> 
> Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
> Tonmeister VDT
> 
> http://stackingdwarves.net
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110415/f073fe57/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] NYC-area TetraMic owners? or: advice on a wind-screen

[umashankar mantravadi]

at a pinch, you should be able to use the foam windscreens made for sm58 style 
microphones
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> From: jnarve...@wesleyan.edu
> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:22:32 -0400
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: [Sursound] NYC-area TetraMic owners? or: advice on a wind-screen
> 
> 
> Hi, Surround list -
> 
> I'm wondering if there are any NYC-area TetraMic users out there who have the 
> wind-screen which comes with the mic and, if so, if I might work out an 
> arrangement with you for borrowing it for a day or two. 
> 
> Alternatively: I need a windscreen for this mid this weekend, and can't get 
> one from Core-Sound due to holidays. Has anyone used an alternative brand 
> they could recommend?
> 
> cheers,
> 
> - jascha narveson
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] HARPEX-B Plus First Order Mic vs. Third Order

[umashankar mantravadi]

dear hector
 
is there some way one can access the b format recordings of the birds?
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 18:27:57 -0400
> From: i...@hcenteno.net
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] HARPEX-B Plus First Order Mic vs. Third Order
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Not related to a comparison with a third order mic but related to
> directional cues: I did a quick check using the demo plugin decoding
> some tetrahedral mic recordings to binaural. I loaded it into a
> Max/MSP patch and did A-B comparisons between two combos consisting of
> Tetraproc-Harpex and Tetraproc-Ambdec-SPAT (SPAT for the binaural
> virtual speakers). To my ears, this comparison revealed that
> directionality was much precise and clear with the TAS combo than with
> Harpex. This was particularly noticeable with a recording of birds
> singing from tree branches located above the mic. With Harpex some of
> the bird calls would jump around spatially as the spectral content of
> the call changed whereas with TAS it remained focused and well
> localized within a discernible location. I haven't done a test
> decoding over speakers so I'm not sure if this would be only related
> to binaural decoding.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Hector Centeno
> 
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Len Moskowitz
>  wrote:
> > I've been playing with Svein's player.  It looks and sounds good.
> >
> > One claim he's making is that his parametric decoding method allows a
> > first-order soundfield microphone (like our TetraMic) to provide direction
> > cues that are equal to or better that what's available from a third-order
> > soundfield microphone.  Also, presumably the "sweet spot" is comparable
> > in size to the one we'd expect from a third-order microphone.
> >
> > If you've been using the HARPEX-B player or plug-in, do you think the claims
> > are reasonable?
> >
> >
> > Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
> >
> > ___
> > 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
  
-- 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] Ambisonics max/MSP 8 speakers - ICST Ambisonic Externals

[umashankar mantravadi]

thank you. i will try it tonight
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> From: m...@hacklava.net
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:36:37 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Ambisonics max/MSP 8 speakers - ICST Ambisonic 
> Externals
> 
> umashankar,
> 
> You can install ambdec from the Main KXStudio PPA repository :
> https://launchpad.net/~kxstudio-team
> 
> -- 
> Marc
> 
> Le 20 mars 2011, umashankar mantravadi a écrit :
> > has anyone packaged fons ambdec (and even his tetraproc) so i can install
> > it easily on ubuntu studio?
> >
> > umashankar
> >
> > i have published my poems. read (or buy) at
> > http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
> >
> > > Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:11:03 +0100
> > > From: netti...@stackingdwarves.net
> > > To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Ambisonics max/MSP 8 speakers - ICST Ambisonic
> > > Externals
> > >
> > > On 03/20/2011 06:03 PM, Darren - Bradley wrote:
> > > > Darren here,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for all your help, much appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > I have consulted my friends and we think maybe a 8 speaker setup is
> > > > best for our audience we are going to perform from 40 to 300 people
> > > >
> > > > We are looking at now using max/MSP with 8 speakers and using routing
> > > > of 4 sends in different panning postions from 'LIVE' to max/MSP.
> > > >
> > > > Does any one have a good patch for max/MSP or is the help file
> > > > ambiencode~ and ambidecode~ enough taken from - icst website >
> > > > Ambisonics Externals for MaxMSP " and would this be best to use.
> > >
> > > if you're using mac os, i'd recommend you try fons' ambdec decoder. not
> > > too hard to build for osx, and maybe someone here has already created a
> > > package they might be willing to share?
> > >
> > > it outperforms other decoders i've heard, and it's quite easy to use.
> > > there is a preset for third-order octagons, and all you need to change
> > > are the speaker distances. you really want to use third-order panning.
> > >
> > > best,
> > >
> > > jörn
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jörn Nettingsmeier
> > > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
> > >
> > > Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
> > > Tonmeister VDT
> > >
> > > http://stackingdwarves.net
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Sursound mailing list
> > > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> >
> > -- next part --
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
> > <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110321/
> >8ae71502/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
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110321/65143dc5/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Ambisonics max/MSP 8 speakers - ICST Ambisonic Externals

[umashankar mantravadi]

has anyone packaged fons ambdec (and even his tetraproc) so i can install it 
easily on ubuntu studio?
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:11:03 +0100
> From: netti...@stackingdwarves.net
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Ambisonics max/MSP 8 speakers - ICST Ambisonic 
> Externals
> 
> On 03/20/2011 06:03 PM, Darren - Bradley wrote:
> > Darren here,
> >
> > thanks for all your help, much appreciated.
> >
> > I have consulted my friends and we think maybe a 8 speaker setup is best
> > for our audience we are going to perform from 40 to 300 people
> >
> > We are looking at now using max/MSP with 8 speakers and using routing of
> > 4 sends in different panning postions from 'LIVE' to max/MSP.
> >
> > Does any one have a good patch for max/MSP or is the help file
> > ambiencode~ and ambidecode~ enough taken from - icst website >
> > Ambisonics Externals for MaxMSP " and would this be best to use.
> 
> if you're using mac os, i'd recommend you try fons' ambdec decoder. not 
> too hard to build for osx, and maybe someone here has already created a 
> package they might be willing to share?
> 
> it outperforms other decoders i've heard, and it's quite easy to use. 
> there is a preset for third-order octagons, and all you need to change 
> are the speaker distances. you really want to use third-order panning.
> 
> best,
> 
> jörn
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jörn Nettingsmeier
> Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
> 
> Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
> Tonmeister VDT
> 
> http://stackingdwarves.net
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] cross-talk cancellation used in binaural sound reproduction

[umashankar mantravadi]

i still have that floppy lp (and probably audio too) somewhere
 
umashankar


i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 20:24:20 -0700
> From: gre...@math.ucla.edu
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] cross-talk cancellation used in binaural sound 
> reproduction
> 
> 
> I can confirm the small sweet spot of the Carver device.
> (or encoding that way).
> One really has to measure
> quite exactly where the speakers are and where one is one's self.
> But it is pretty cool when it is all dialed in, in spite of
> the things Ralph (correctly) notes.
> I still have one around and I put it up every once in a while.
> 
> I recall the plastic floppy(small LP) disc insert in Audio, where
> I first heard it. I shall never forget my first listen to "Dry Bones",
> with sounds all over the place. What a riot!
> I and my friends ran out and bought up a whole lot of copies
> of that issue of Audio to get some extras of the disc insert.
> Eventually I got the device itself. But that first listen
> to Dry Bones remains really something.
> 
> Ah the good old days
> 
> Robert
> 
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Ralph Glasgal wrote:
> 
> > Sorry I am a little behind on the latest threads.
> >
> > Bob Carver's Sonic Hologram was a pioneering attempt at crosstalk 
> > cancelation. 
> > Considering the processors he had to work with, is amzing that it works as 
> > well
> > as it did.  He once told me that the little box version was the best seller 
> > he
> > ever had.  After hearing an Ambiophonic demonstration he decided to again
> > include the sonic holography feature in his Sunfire home theater products. 
> >  
> > But it had the following difficulties.  It was not recursive so that it only
> > cancelled the initial crosstalk and not the next crosstalk caused by
> > the first cancellation and so on.  It had almost no adjustments for speaker
> > angle and the box did not allow for the speakers to be placed much closer
> > together where the results would have been much better especially for the
> > pinna.  It also did cancellation at frequencies where there was no 
> > crosstalk to
> > cancel.  The result was that the sweet area was small and many users could 
> > not
> > really get it working with their speakers and rooms.  The Lexicon Panorama 
> > mode
> > had similar problems.
> >
> > Ralph Glasgal
> > www.ambiophonics.org   
> >
> > 
> > From: Robert Greene 
> > To: Surround Sound discussion group 
> > Sent: Thu, February 24, 2011 1:15:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] cross-talk cancellation used in binaural sound
> > reproduction
> >
> > I suppose that someone ought to mention-so I shall--
> > the Carver Sonic Hologram.
> > You can still find the devices around(they were
> > crosstalk cancellation processors).
> > They work really well, if you do not
> > mind sitting really still in one spot
> > (which of course you are going to have
> > to do for any such system with only two speakers).
> > And the nice thing is the Sonic Hologram sounds good-
> > it does minimal damage to the music.
> >
> > It is interesting--sort of tells you where the industry was
> > and still is on surround and so on--that Martin Colloms
> > writing about the Sonic Hologram in HiFiNews
> > says that it definitely makes stereo better [and potentially
> > much better] but that it is just too much trouble...
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > ___
> > 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 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

Re: [Sursound] Ambisonics symposium 2011: was help with links ...

[umashankar mantravadi]

i would try and use circular multipole connectors - you have to get it right 
only once. for 1st order, unbalanced, a five pin xlr works fine. balanced is 
ten wires (one wire to provide dc power). i have a working first order native 
B-format mic with a quad opamp doing the signal conversion (from six 
cardioids). the electronics is now in a box, and i am trying to see if i can 
fit it into the zoom H2, with a piggyback nine volt battery.
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 07:38:42 +
> From: dave.mal...@york.ac.uk
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Ambisonics symposium 2011: was help with links ...
> 
> On Mar 6 2011, Eric Benjamin wrote:
> 
> > In a case such as the FA101 I'd be very tempted to make an internal 
> > conversion to a 10-channel (analog) interface. I'm not at all sure what 
> > the internal structure is like for the FA101. 
> 
> So would I and that's probably what I will do when I need it :-). The main 
> problem with the FA101 is that it's panels are _very_ crowded so it would 
> be difficult to fit more sockets (not impossible, but difficult). From what 
> I remember from my post-purchase "let's see what we got in here" look at 
> it, it uses one of the eight channel + spdif digital interface chips with 
> four stereo codecs, rather than 5 USBUARTS - damned if I can remember the 
> part number. It's at work at present so I can't check.
> 
> It's being as part of a really wacky rig that we've set up experimentally 
> to see if an installation we've been asked to look into would actually 
> work. I'll post something later in the week because I suspect that, like 
> me, most people would think this distorted weirdo of a rig simply wouldn't 
> work - but it does, and very well - so much so that it's beginning to make 
> me wonder if the holy grail of a regular rig may actually be counter 
> productive!
> 
> > So, yes, I'm planning on having B-format available directly. 
> > I'd rather record B-format since B-format is what I intend to use. One 
> > can make the argument for recording A-format because it's possible that 
> > some new information's or philosophy may become available such that a 
> > better conversion can be made at a later time. 
> 
> These days I would also argue that it's a good think because it also 
> involves (and, as a hardware guy from way, way back the following statement 
> may seem strange) far less building of hardware. With A format you just 
> need a preamp with good gain tracking - maybe not even that with a good 
> audio interface. With B Format you are into a whole bunch of analogue 
> electronics with trimmers and general stuff. Much more work which soaks up 
> valuable recording and playing (in both senses) time.
> 
> > However, for me it's 
> > mostly worked to my disadvantage. I just made an A-format recording using 
> > the DPA-4 rig, and son of a gun if I didn't screw it up again. Which 
> > capsule was the first one? Is this set of files the ones before the EQ or 
> > after the EQ? Of course those same sorts of problems can occur if it's 
> > B-format that is being recorded.
> >
> 
> Hmm, seems to me the solution is to forget separate XLR's or jacks or 
> whatever and go for multiway connectors, at least to your preamp box, so's 
> it's always the same. If you have to build hardware I would always say 
> include a test oscillator - but don't do it in analogue, use a micro and 
> have it announce the channel id's, so even if the XLR's into the recorder 
> get mixed up, there will be an id on each channel in the file - saves 
> having to tap on the capsules one by one and physically announce them. So, 
> yeah, A format for me these days, if the choice is available.
> 
> 
> Dave 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] Ambisonics symposium 2011: was help with links ...

[umashankar mantravadi]

i would be happy with eight channels. (can i synch two zoom H2s?) i think 
ambisonics will only take off if there are cheap simple systems that many 
people can use. at home now i am setting up an eight speaker system, about 50 
watts per channel, with a total cost including an eight channel d/a of less 
than 400 USD. i only have to wire up the eighth loudspeaker (why does inertia 
kick in right at end? i can understand at the start. fear of failure?)
 
umashankar
 


i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 22:54:23 -0800
> From: eb...@pacbell.net
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Ambisonics symposium 2011: was help with links ...
> 
> > how many recording channels will it need?
> How many would you like for it to be?
> 
> Recording 9 channels for 2nd order is a little unattractive in a world in 
> which 
> audio interfaces typically come in groups of 8. But if one is willing to 
> consider recording only horizontal (5 channels) or mixed order with 2nd-order 
> horizontal and 1st order vertical (6-channels), it becomes a lot more 
> tractable. 
> Both of those handily fit within the capabilities of the Tascam DR-680, for 
> instance. 
> 
> There are other considerations. Although we might like to record 
> periphonically 
> for a future-proof recording, therre are some real difficulties associated 
> with 
> trying to reproduce 2nd order material with-height using a loudspeaker array 
> that fits in a normal domestic room.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> - Original Message 
> From: umashankar mantravadi 
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Sent: Fri, March 4, 2011 9:14:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Ambisonics symposium 2011: was help with links ...
> 
> 
> dear eric
> 
> first question. how many recording channels will it need?
> 
> umashankar
> 
> 
> i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
> 
> 
> 
> > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 20:49:23 -0800
> > From: eb...@pacbell.net
> > To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> > Subject: [Sursound] Ambisonics symposium 2011: was help with links ...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Peter Lennox  wrote:
> > > anyone taking something interesting to the Ambisonics symposium 2011 in 
> > >Kentucky?
> > 
> > 
> > I'm planning on bring a prototype of a practical, affordable second-order 
> > soundfield microphone. Of course it's not done yet, and perhaps I'm talking 
> > through my hat. Why would I claim something that I haven't finished? To put 
> > the pressure on so that I do finish!
> > 
> > Eric
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110305/5b14d8fd/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
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110305/d726d32d/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Ambisonics symposium 2011: was help with links ...

[umashankar mantravadi]

dear eric
 
first question. how many recording channels will it need?
 
umashankar


i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 20:49:23 -0800
> From: eb...@pacbell.net
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: [Sursound] Ambisonics symposium 2011: was help with links ...
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Lennox  wrote:
> > anyone taking something interesting to the Ambisonics symposium 2011 in 
> >Kentucky?
> 
> 
> I'm planning on bring a prototype of a practical, affordable second-order 
> soundfield microphone. Of course it's not done yet, and perhaps I'm talking 
> through my hat. Why would I claim something that I haven't finished? To put 
> the pressure on so that I do finish!
> 
> Eric
> ___
> 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

Re: [Sursound] Modifyine a zoom H2 to be a tetrahedral microphone

[umashankar mantravadi]

i have modified about 15 zoom H2s so far, and have bullt tetrahedral 
microphones that plug into the modified zoomz.the modification is quite simple 
really, just a way of attaching a five pin connector to the top of the zoom, so 
a tetrahedral mic with five pin connector can be plugged in, directly or with 
an extension cable. the zoom provides plug in power to the capsules, so no 
additional powering is needed.
 
i have so far built this system with four microphone sizes. the smallest is wi 
th six mm cardioid capsules. the bestsounding i think is the one i made with 14 
mm capsules.one size smaller is with 12 mm capsules similar to the core sound 
tetramic. i used the zoom's own 10 mm  capsules for the next size. 
 
sound quality can be equalised along with calibration. the variation i hear is 
much more to do with frequency extension at high and low end, and noise.
 
i have plans to build with larger capsules and external fets. but i suspect 
then i will have provide a higher supply voltage than the 2 volts provided by 
the zoom PIP
 
 
umashankar
 

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:51:22 +
> From: gustar...@gmail.com
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: [Sursound] Modifyine a zoom H2 to be a tetrahedral microphone
> 
> Obviouslt the capsules are nowhere near as good a quality as a soundfield -
> but the zoom H2 has 4 mic capsules and could theoretically be modified into
> a tetrahedral microphone - I have read some people have tried this on one
> website - I was wondering if anyone here had tried it and if so what the
> results were like ?
> cheers,
> Gus
> -- 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

Re: [Sursound] does anyone have harry f. olson, "gradient microphones", jasa 1946?

[umashankar mantravadi]

some years ago i found a whole load of patents on the uspatent site for second 
order microphones. mostly for use  in cell phones. others for hearing aids. it 
would be interesting to revisit the ideas, especially as i am now able to do 
very odd shapes using shapeways.
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:15:39 -0800
> From: hel...@ai.sri.com
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] does anyone have harry f. olson, "gradient 
> microphones", jasa 1946?
> 
> I sent it to Jörn directly. RCA made a 2nd order microphone at one point
> 
> http://www.coutant.org/bk10a/
> 
> Aaron
> 
> 2010/12/20 Jörn Nettingsmeier :
> > it's cited in philip cotterel's thesis as the original source of the
> > second-order gradient microphone. i can't believe it's not on the web,
> > given its ripe old age.
> > any pointers would be welcome. (and no, i didn't find it in the
> > motherlode either.)
> >
> > thanks in advance,
> >
> > jörn
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jörn Nettingsmeier
> > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
> >
> > Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio), Elektrofachkraft
> > Audio and event engineer - Ambisonic surround recordings
> >
> > http://stackingdwarves.net
> >
> > ___
> > 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
  
-- 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] [ot] Repent, yus pseudo pontificating prophets

[umashankar mantravadi]

under the influence! harmony of the spheres ? (I am just reading sleepwalkers)
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 03:30:56 +0200
> From: de...@iki.fi
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: [Sursound] [ot] Repent, yus pseudo pontificating prophets
> 
> On 2010-11-28, Richard Lee wrote:
> 
> > Ay haf seen the light! [...]
> 
> Verily I too mostly answer while under the influence.
> -- 
> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
> +358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
  
-- 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] A conversion guide ?

[umashankar mantravadi]

little OT. this is actually a guide to converting the H2
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ms_static/sets/72157625446503232/detail/
 
umashankar


 
> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:28:32 -0800
> From: flawless.gate...@gmail.com
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: [Sursound] A conversion guide ?
> 
> Hi, I haven't been too successful in finding a conversion guide between
> different formats.
> 
> 
> I am sure it won't be perfect, but I recently got an Zoom H2 which does 4
> channel L-R Rear recording and I would like to get it into B-Format to send
> through subsequent processing. I have seen tools that can convert the
> 4-channel into 5.1 but no information on how to turn 5.1 into B-format. Of
> course, it would be optimal to skip the middle step if possible.
> 
> Any info would be appreciated!
> Thanks
> -- 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] umashankar mantravadi has shared documents with you

[umashankar mantravadi]

 umashankar mantravadi shared the folder ambisonics with you on Windows Live.
<http://cid-3aeeea022e2ad294.profile.live.com/?Bsrc=EMSHOO&Bpub=SN.Notifications>
"a few files done with a 6 mm tetrahedron. diwali crackers, but not a very 
impressive show."
View folder
<http://cid-3aeeea022e2ad294.skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?page=browse&resid=3AEEEA022E2AD294!204&type=6&authkey=9imRr2LuD0M%24&Bsrc=EMSHOO&Bpub=SN.Notifications>
Notifications preferences
<http://profile.live.com/options/notifications/>
Microsoft privacy statement
<http://g.msn.co.in/2privacy/enin>
Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20101108/84cd06ea/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] DR-680, TetraMic, VVMicVST & Nuendo 5

[umashankar mantravadi]

well, it is divali here in india next weekend and i am hoping to use my zoom H2 
and a brahma with six mm capsules to record the fireworks. they start at sunset 
and usually go on past midnight. i also have a working six caspule 'velan' 
working, but the electronics may not be ready in time. the nice thing about 
crackers here is they are not at all organised, each household on its own, so 
the sounds come from all directions from ground level to great heights, from 
tiny crackers set off by children to giant explosions.
 
umashankar
 
next week i will have eight 3 1/2 vifa full range drivers. i have to make boxes 
for them and i am set ! i already have an eight channels f power amp.
 
umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar


 
> From: j...@johnleonard.co.uk
> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 12:21:10 +
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: [Sursound] DR-680, TetraMic, VVMicVST & Nuendo 5
> 
> I'm sure Dave will post separately regarding this, but just to say that the 
> combination of the Tascam, TetraMic, the latest (beta?) version of VVMicVST 
> and Nuendo 5 seems to be working nicely for me.
> 
> I've got my DR-680 tucked into a PortaBrace case, although it's what you 
> might call a snug fit, and I'm much happier about taking it on more 
> adventurous expeditions now. I hope to do some recording over the weekend - 
> there's due to be a large firework display in east London on Sunday, and as a 
> sort of homage to the East-End during the Blitz, they're planning to run the 
> WW2 air-raid sirens, which very rarely happens these days - and I'm hoping to 
> get some good sounds, weather permitting. I'll probably take the TetraMic and 
> the SPS200 for a quick and dirty comparison.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John
> 
> 
> ___
> 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