[Sursound] Spatial Music Workshop at Virginia Tech

[Eric Lyon]

Dear All,

The inaugural Spatial Music Workshop will take place at the Moss Arts Center at 
Virginia Tech from August 10 – 14, 2015. The workshop will consist of sessions 
on spatialization techniques, software systems for spatialization, discussions 
of current research in spatialization, and listening to electronic music 
composed for large numbers of speakers. Each participant will have a 
significant amount of independent studio time to compose and experiment in The 
Cube, a 3D sound system outfitted with 147 speakers (124 JBL SCS 8, 4 Meyer 
UMS-1P, 10 JBL LSR6328P, and 9 Holosonic AS-24), as well as the Perform Studio, 
which houses a 24.4 channel surround speaker array (24 Genelec 8030A, 4 Genelec 
7060B). On the last day of the workshop, participants will publicly share their 
work and experiments undertaken in The Cube, and will receive a binaural 
recording of multichannel work created during the workshop.

A maximum of five participants will be invited to participate in the workshop. 
The workshop is open to composers, sound engineers, acoustic researchers, or 
anyone else for whom 3D spatial audio is highly pertinent to their work. In 
order to apply, send an email to ericl...@vt.edu  
detailing your musical background and technical skills, what you hope to 
accomplish with spatial sound, a link to an online portfolio of your work in 
digital audio, and a brief description of how participation in the workshop 
would be advantageous for your work. Please use "Spatial Music Workshop 2015" 
as the subject heading. We require that participants be conversant with digital 
audio sound systems and fluent with computer music software such as Max/MSP or 
SuperCollider. Work will be undertaken on the Mac OS X platform. Applications 
should be sent no later than April 15th.

Specifications for the Cube can be seen here:

http://seamus.music.vt.edu/main/the-cube/ 


There is no cost to attend the workshop, but participants will be responsible 
for their costs of travel to Blacksburg, and lodging.

https://www.icat.vt.edu/content/spatial-music-workshop-virginia-tech 



Best wishes,

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

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

Re: [Sursound] Spatial Music Artist Stories

[Dave Malham]

Pity this starts off with the story about St. Marks in Venic, which may be
apocryphal.  See "Bryant, D. (1981) *“The „Cori Spezzati‟ of St. Mark‟s:
Myth and Reality” *in Early Music History, Cambridge 1981" where he says
that " ..in St Marks, at least, the eight-voice salmi spetzzati  of
Wollaert and Croce were not, as has been believed hitherto, performed
antiphonally, but rather, responsorially with four of the singers in one of
the groups and all the rest ... in the other (Bryant, 1981:169)",
contending that it is a misleading statement given by Zarlino in his Venice
1558 book Le institutioni harmoniche that gave rise to the supposition that
in St. Mark‟s the choirs were housed in the organ lofts on either side of
the choir (ie spatially separated). In fact; " Neither this assumption ...
nor the comments on which it is based are borne out by the contemporary
documents of St. Mark‟s. There are in fact four separate statements to the
contrary" (Bryant, 1981:175)

   Dave

On 16 May 2013 12:07, Timothy Schmele wrote:

> Maybe some nice reading material:
>
> http://www.roebroeks.nl/wp-**content/uploads/2013/02/**
> Spatial-Music-Artist-Stories1.**pdf
> __**_
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound
>



-- 
As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University, so this
disclaimer is redundant


These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer

Dave Malham
Ex-Music Research Centre
Department of Music
The University of York
Heslington
York YO10 5DD
UK

'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

[Sursound] Spatial Music Artist Stories

[Timothy Schmele]

Maybe some nice reading material:

http://www.roebroeks.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Spatial-Music-Artist-Stories1.pdf
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Spatial music

[Robert Greene]

This is very unlikely to be true, that one can justify
getting a new TV to save electricity for the sake of the world.
To save on your own bills will also take a very long time.

People seldom do the arithmetic on this. When the first
gas crisis occurred(in the 1970s) I did some calculation
of how long it would take to recoup the purchase price
of getting a more fuel-efficient car. After that, I kept
right on driving the car I had--it was going to take forever
in terms of the lives of cars.

Saving energy is good. Stop having children--that is where
the real energy and carbon footprint is.

Robert

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, David Pickett wrote:


At 10:22 15/04/2012, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:


On 15 Apr 2012, at 15:57, David Pickett  wrote:


At 19:14 14/04/2012, JEFF SILBERMAN wrote:

>  I'm thinking that the 99% own flatscreens by now.

Is that really so?  My tv wont die. I dont use it for anything than

videos, but I see no need to replace it simply because it takes up a
lot of space.

Well, there's also the issue of picture quality and energy consumption
(direct and indirect, because in the summer people often crank the AC
to get rid of heat, a significant portion of which is generated by TV,
Computer, etc.).


I am not one of those people to have the television on when I am not watching 
it.  Also, like my Prius, there may be reason to think that the amount I 
would save on a flat screen tv doesnt compensate for the ecological 
manufacturing costs.


:-)

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

Re: [Sursound] Spatial music

[David Pickett]

At 10:22 15/04/2012, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
>
>On 15 Apr 2012, at 15:57, David Pickett  wrote:
>
>> At 19:14 14/04/2012, JEFF SILBERMAN wrote:
>>
>> >  I'm thinking that the 99% own flatscreens by now.
>>
>> Is that really so?  My tv wont die. I dont use it for anything than
>videos, but I see no need to replace it simply because it takes up a
>lot of space.
>
>Well, there's also the issue of picture quality and energy consumption
>(direct and indirect, because in the summer people often crank the AC
>to get rid of heat, a significant portion of which is generated by TV,
>Computer, etc.).

I am not one of those people to have the television on when I am not 
watching it.  Also, like my Prius, there may be reason to think that 
the amount I would save on a flat screen tv doesnt compensate for the 
ecological manufacturing costs.


:-)

David

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

Re: [Sursound] Spatial music

[David Pickett]

At 10:22 15/04/2012, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
>
>On 15 Apr 2012, at 15:57, David Pickett  wrote:
>
>> At 19:14 14/04/2012, JEFF SILBERMAN wrote:
>>
>> >  I'm thinking that the 99% own flatscreens by now.
>>
>> Is that really so?  My tv wont die. I dont use it for anything than
>videos, but I see no need to replace it simply because it takes up a
>lot of space.
>
>Well, there's also the issue of picture quality

It satisfies me totally.

David

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

Re: [Sursound] Spatial music

[Ronald C.F. Antony]

On 15 Apr 2012, at 15:57, David Pickett  wrote:

> At 19:14 14/04/2012, JEFF SILBERMAN wrote:
> 
> >  I'm thinking that the 99% own flatscreens by now.
> 
> Is that really so?  My tv wont die. I dont use it for anything than videos, 
> but I see no need to replace it simply because it takes up a lot of space.

Well, there's also the issue of picture quality and energy consumption (direct 
and indirect, because in the summer people often crank the AC to get rid of 
heat, a significant portion of which is generated by TV, Computer, etc.).

LED backlit LCD screens save considerable amounts of power over CRT and Plasma 
screens.
Of course, once we get OLED it will be another incremental savings over the LED 
backlit stuff.

But of course, resource use is also energy, so it becomes a balancing act 
trying to guess the best life-cycle for resource optimization.

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

Re: [Sursound] Spatial music

[David Pickett]

At 19:14 14/04/2012, JEFF SILBERMAN wrote:

>  I'm thinking that the 99% own flatscreens by now.

Is that really so?  My tv wont die. I dont use it for anything than 
videos, but I see no need to replace it simply because it takes up a 
lot of space.


David

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

Re: [Sursound] Spatial music

[Ronald C.F. Antony]

On 15 Apr 2012, at 02:14, JEFF SILBERMAN  wrote:

> Are things really that bad? I need to get out more often!  I'm thinking that 
> the 99% own flatscreens by now. If a homebuilder is going to place an 
> electrical outlet on the wall suitable for mounting a flatscreen, he might as 
> well put in suitable-located outlets for in-wall loudspeakers as determined 
> by the location of the flatscreen.  As rooms shrink in size and skrink in 
> number, I foresee the "media room" as the hub of all internet, entertainment 
> and telecommunications of the future.  Since living space will be at a 
> premium, a wall-mounted flatscreen and in-wall loudspeakers will become all 
> the more advantageous.

Lots of people do own flatscreen TVs, largely because they have become dirt 
cheap at the peril of the display manufacturers running huge losses.

However, hardly anyone will have special outlets for these TVs, that's custom 
home stuff, i.e. 1% material. Most people have the flatscreen on top of a 
dresser, TV table, whatever.
People combining their TV with some BOSE mini-cube speakers think they are 
high-end.

A big factor in getting people to buy TVs these days are games. Even rather 
poor people with kids will get a Wii, PS, or XBox Kinect because it allows them 
to entertain their kids and their friends at home, which is still cheaper than 
trying to pay for all sorts of other activities.

The issue is, anything that's solid state keeps getting cheaper. But speakers 
are electro-mechanical, and their price really hasn't come down much over the 
years. Today, good, relatively powerful and clean class-D amps could easily 
power at an affordable price a surround sound system, but getting a set of 
decent speakers unless you're a champ at bargain shopping is not easy. And if 
people have to choose between a bigger screen and better speakers, I think the 
screen will win most of the time...

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

[Sursound] Spatial music

[JEFF SILBERMAN]

Are things really that bad? I need to get out more often!  I'm thinking that 
the 99% own flatscreens by now. If a homebuilder is going to place an 
electrical outlet on the wall suitable for mounting a flatscreen, he might as 
well put in suitable-located outlets for in-wall loudspeakers as determined by 
the location of the flatscreen.  As rooms shrink in size and skrink in number, 
I foresee the "media room" as the hub of all internet, entertainment and 
telecommunications of the future.  Since living space will be at a premium, 
a wall-mounted flatscreen and in-wall loudspeakers will become all the more 
advantageous.
 

--- On Sat, 4/14/12, Ronald C.F. Antony  wrote:




On 14 Apr 2012, at 04:46, JEFF SILBERMAN  wrote:

> The solution lies in getting the home/spec builder industry to integrate 
> in-wall loudspeakers at pre-specified locations (including ceiling) in the 
> 21st century "media room" which room will become the new normal much like the 
> kitchen has certain de-facto features/standards which are now taken for 
> granted.  In the fullness of time, multichannel audio in the home ultimately 
> will prevail because it is the last frontier.

That suggestion may apply for the 1% of people, not for the 99%.

More than half the people in the US live what in Europe people would simply 
call a ghetto, and of the rest, a lot of people are on their way to descend 
into that level of "wealth", given that wages under the new union contracts are 
not sufficient to sustain what one would call a middle-class life style with 
secured retirement.

To stick to your kitchen mataphor: the 1% have custom cabinets, Sub-Zero 
refrigeration units, Wolf or some high-end European appliances. For the rest, a 
kitchen is simply a room with a sink, a super-cheap electric stove and a 
second-hand fridge. They also don't have a laundry room, they have to go to the 
Laudromat with their dirty clothes, and I'd venture to guess that people rather 
invest in their own washer and drier than into a media room of the 21st century.

For a technology to succeed, it can't just target those who lead the gilded 
life.

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

[Sursound] Spatial music

[Ambisonx]

I still claim that 3 loudspeakers would have been an easier sell than 5.1!  If 
I am not mistaken, I do believe there were a handful of 3-channel symphonic 
DVD's recorded with the 3 omni mic technique. In my experience, most 5.1 users 
correctly position the L/C/R loudspeakers, more or less. The problem lies in 
positioning the surrounds at the proper distance, angle and height or 
compensating the inaccuracy with delay and/or gain. 3-speaker stereo is much 
less hassle.



On Apr 14, 2012, at 2:42 AM, Richard Dobson  
wrote:

> On 14/04/2012 04:27, JEFF SILBERMAN wrote:
>> ..
>> soundstage envelopment and spaciousness)! Indeed, I would never
>> replace my 3 front loudspeakers with a quadrilateral layout.  Why
>> three-speaker stereophony never became an end in itself is a mystery
>> to me. It is not nearly as financially and logistically burdensome as
>> surround sound and yet its benefits are very tangible.
>> 
> 
> 
> I would have thought the answer to that was fairly simple - the choice is 
> simply not available in the places the general public buys hifi, such as:  
> http://www.richersounds.com
> 
> Note for example that you see listings for either stereo systems or Cinema 
> systems. Anything that involves buying some extra piece of kit, such as a 
> decoder, is out of the question - too complicated, and visibly more 
> expensive.  You need  a do-everything amp with sufficient outputs at the 
> back, and a simple switch offering, say, stereo, 3-ch stereo, quad, 5.1 
> (etc., with built-in automatic up-mixing if required - folk may shudder at 
> the thought, but just deal with it). And packages not just of matched pairs 
> of speakers, but matched triplets and quads of speakers - triplets being the 
> "weird" combination for shops and customers alike.
> 
> And of course those who do venture into 'real' hifi showrooms need to be able 
> to hear such systems demoed, ~outside~ anything to do with cinema.
> 
> Richard Dobson
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Spatial music

[Richard Dobson]

On 14/04/2012 04:27, JEFF SILBERMAN wrote:

..
soundstage envelopment and spaciousness)! Indeed, I would never
replace my 3 front loudspeakers with a quadrilateral layout.  Why
three-speaker stereophony never became an end in itself is a mystery
to me. It is not nearly as financially and logistically burdensome as
surround sound and yet its benefits are very tangible.




I would have thought the answer to that was fairly simple - the choice 
is simply not available in the places the general public buys hifi, such 
as:  http://www.richersounds.com


Note for example that you see listings for either stereo systems or 
Cinema systems. Anything that involves buying some extra piece of kit, 
such as a decoder, is out of the question - too complicated, and visibly 
more expensive.  You need  a do-everything amp with sufficient outputs 
at the back, and a simple switch offering, say, stereo, 3-ch stereo, 
quad, 5.1 (etc., with built-in automatic up-mixing if required - folk 
may shudder at the thought, but just deal with it). And packages not 
just of matched pairs of speakers, but matched triplets and quads of 
speakers - triplets being the "weird" combination for shops and 
customers alike.


And of course those who do venture into 'real' hifi showrooms need to be 
able to hear such systems demoed, ~outside~ anything to do with cinema.


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

Re: [Sursound] Spatial music

[Ronald C.F. Antony]

On 14 Apr 2012, at 04:46, JEFF SILBERMAN  wrote:

> The solution lies in getting the home/spec builder industry to integrate 
> in-wall loudspeakers at pre-specified locations (including ceiling) in the 
> 21st century "media room" which room will become the new normal much like the 
> kitchen has certain de-facto features/standards which are now taken for 
> granted.  In the fullness of time, multichannel audio in the home ultimately 
> will prevail because it is the last frontier.

That suggestion may apply for the 1% of people, not for the 99%.

More than half the people in the US live what in Europe people would simply 
call a ghetto, and of the rest, a lot of people are on their way to descend 
into that level of "wealth", given that wages under the new union contracts are 
not sufficient to sustain what one would call a middle-class life style with 
secured retirement.

To stick to your kitchen mataphor: the 1% have custom cabinets, Sub-Zero 
refrigeration units, Wolf or some high-end European appliances. For the rest, a 
kitchen is simply a room with a sink, a super-cheap electric stove and a 
second-hand fridge. They also don't have a laundry room, they have to go to the 
Laudromat with their dirty clothes, and I'd venture to guess that people rather 
invest in their own washer and drier than into a media room of the 21st century.

For a technology to succeed, it can't just target those who lead the gilded 
life.

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

[Sursound] Spatial music

[JEFF SILBERMAN]

As an ST-250 B-format pantophonic practitioner of nearly 20 years, I yield to 
no one in my appreciation of FOA via a hexagon layout with a Cepiar decoder.  
That being said, the benefits of the 3 rear loudspeakers (i.e., localized 
applause and reverberation) do not compare with the benefits acheived by the 3 
front ones (i.e., soundstage envelopment and spaciousness)! Indeed, I 
would never replace my 3 front loudspeakers with a quadrilateral layout.  Why 
three-speaker stereophony never became an end in itself is a mystery to me. It 
is not nearly as financially and logistically burdensome as surround sound and 
yet its benefits are very tangible.

--- On Fri, 4/13/12, Robert Greene  wrote:


Surround could have had the same effect for music. It could have raised one's 
expectations of realism and made some kinds of music sound nearly right in a 
big way.  But for various reasons, it did not happen. For one thing, the pop 
music industry had moved into a realm where people no longer cared about the 
acoustics of the venue. "Music" became something that was not anchored in 
acoustic reality with a real venue.

But a lot of music is so anchored. And for that , surround done right is still 
valuable.

But done right is the operative phrase.

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] Spatial music

[JEFF SILBERMAN]

The solution lies in getting the home/spec builder industry to integrate 
in-wall loudspeakers at pre-specified locations (including ceiling) in the 21st 
century "media room" which room will become the new normal much like the 
kitchen has certain de-facto features/standards which are now taken for 
granted.  In the fullness of time, multichannel audio in the home ultimately 
will prevail because it is the last frontier.

--- On Fri, 4/13/12, Gerard Lardner  wrote



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

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

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

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