Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Martin Dupras]

Thank you to all who replied to my post. Special thanks to Fons, Jörn
and Fernando who have suggested practical starting points.

I will make some calculations and decide on what will be most
practical for my experiment. I will report with my successes (or
failures).

Many thanks!

- martin


On 12 February 2016 at 22:45, Fons Adriaensen  wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 09:51:32PM +, Martin Dupras wrote:
>
>> At this moment in time, I have the opportunity to deploy (next week) a
>> 16-channel array, so I would like some advice on a configuration that
>> would be a good start to experiment with Ambisonics with height.
>> Someone suggested that I consult the wikipedia page on Ambisonics.
>> That is indeed where I got the idea that an "upper hemisphere" setup
>> might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers.
>> There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical
>> configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my
>> original question.
>
> Provided you don't have 'below the horizon' content, a ring of
> 8 ten degrees below horizontal + a ring of 6 at 45 degrees up +
> (eventually) a single zenith speaker would be more or less
> optimal. So that's 14 or 15 speakers.
>
> The reason for placing the horizontal ring a bit low is that
> most algorithms when computing a hemispherical decoder will
> actually (or implicitly) compute a full sphere decoder and
> then drop the lower part. There result is that horizontal
> sounds are 'pulled up' a bit, as Fernando already pointed
> out.
>
> Ciao,
>
> --
> FA
>
> A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
> It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
> and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
> account or options, view archives and so on.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 09:51:32PM +, Martin Dupras wrote:
 
> At this moment in time, I have the opportunity to deploy (next week) a
> 16-channel array, so I would like some advice on a configuration that
> would be a good start to experiment with Ambisonics with height.
> Someone suggested that I consult the wikipedia page on Ambisonics.
> That is indeed where I got the idea that an "upper hemisphere" setup
> might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers.
> There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical
> configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my
> original question.

Provided you don't have 'below the horizon' content, a ring of 
8 ten degrees below horizontal + a ring of 6 at 45 degrees up +
(eventually) a single zenith speaker would be more or less
optimal. So that's 14 or 15 speakers.

The reason for placing the horizontal ring a bit low is that
most algorithms when computing a hemispherical decoder will
actually (or implicitly) compute a full sphere decoder and
then drop the lower part. There result is that horizontal
sounds are 'pulled up' a bit, as Fernando already pointed
out.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

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

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

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 02/09/2016 10:51 PM, Martin Dupras wrote:

Thanks for all the responses. Much appreciated.

I'll re-phrase the question in light of some of the answers I've been given.

I will be using third-order Ambisonics. My aim mostly is to experiment
to get a good sense of what is possible with Ambisonics with height. I
have experimented successfully with 8-channel planar Ambisonics some
time ago. My primary intent is to spatialise multiple monophonic
(synthesised) sources using 3rd-order Ambisonics spatialisation, and
the playback of mixed sources (spatialised monphonic and stereophonic
sources as well as B-format 4-channel recordings.)

At this moment in time, I have the opportunity to deploy (next week) a
16-channel array, so I would like some advice on a configuration that
would be a good start to experiment with Ambisonics with height.
Someone suggested that I consult the wikipedia page on Ambisonics.
That is indeed where I got the idea that an "upper hemisphere" setup
might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers.
There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical
configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my
original question.


yeah, that page is pretty much still in the somewhat incomplete stage i 
started it in, we should add to it. my advice would be to just use 15 
speakers in an 8-6-1 configuration if you want to go for a hemisphere, 
and to try a icosahedron (with 12 speakers on the vertices) if you want 
full-sphere, but then only for 2nd order. 3-6-3 can also be nice and 
simpler to set up.
the big advantage of an icosahedron is that most decoders have a 
suitable setup by default. for hemispheres, you'd need to compute it 
yourself.



--
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 - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Politis Archontis]

Hi Martin,

one note on the arrangement, as far as I know, traditional ambisonic decoding 
won’t work on hemispherical setups (due to the partial coverage of the sphere 
by the speakers). You may have to use more recent/advanced methods to get 
decoding matrices, such as the energy-preserving ambisonic decoding with 
modified basis functions (EPAD), or the hybrid ambisonic/VBAP All-round 
ambisonic decoding (ALLRAD), published by Franz Zotter (and collaborators) from 
University of Graz.

I know of two usable available implementations of such decoder matrix 
calculators, one is a compact Matlab/Octave library I made available recently:

http://research.spa.aalto.fi/projects/ambi-lib/ambi.html
https://github.com/polarch/Higher-Order-Ambisonics

the other is Aaron Heller’s ambisonic decoding toolbox, more extended than 
mine, which includes scripts to produce VST plugins from the decoding matrices 
using Faust, which may be more suitable for your workflow: 

https://bitbucket.org/ambidecodertoolbox/adt.git

Best,
Archontis


> On 08 Feb 2016, at 17:19, Martin Dupras  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next
> week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical
> arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone
> with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the
> right direction?
> 
> What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which
> would likely consist of:
> 
> - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m
> - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees
> - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees
> 
> Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the
> first 16-speakers in this diagramme:
> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg
> 
> I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual"
> arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached
> to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that
> will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice?
> 
> The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers
> to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some
> good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the
> speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s.
> 
> Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> - martin
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
> account or options, view archives and so on.

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

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Augustine Leudar]

and :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonic_reproduction_systems#Full-sphere_systems:_Platonic_Solids

On 9 February 2016 at 12:58, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

> On,y wikipedia but contains the info you need :
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonic_reproduction_systems#Horizontal-only_systems
>
> On 9 February 2016 at 12:45, Politis Archontis  > wrote:
>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> one note on the arrangement, as far as I know, traditional ambisonic
>> decoding won’t work on hemispherical setups (due to the partial coverage of
>> the sphere by the speakers). You may have to use more recent/advanced
>> methods to get decoding matrices, such as the energy-preserving ambisonic
>> decoding with modified basis functions (EPAD), or the hybrid ambisonic/VBAP
>> All-round ambisonic decoding (ALLRAD), published by Franz Zotter (and
>> collaborators) from University of Graz.
>>
>> I know of two usable available implementations of such decoder matrix
>> calculators, one is a compact Matlab/Octave library I made available
>> recently:
>>
>> http://research.spa.aalto.fi/projects/ambi-lib/ambi.html
>> https://github.com/polarch/Higher-Order-Ambisonics
>>
>> the other is Aaron Heller’s ambisonic decoding toolbox, more extended
>> than mine, which includes scripts to produce VST plugins from the decoding
>> matrices using Faust, which may be more suitable for your workflow:
>>
>> https://bitbucket.org/ambidecodertoolbox/adt.git
>>
>> Best,
>> Archontis
>>
>>
>> > On 08 Feb 2016, at 17:19, Martin Dupras  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next
>> > week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical
>> > arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone
>> > with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the
>> > right direction?
>> >
>> > What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which
>> > would likely consist of:
>> >
>> > - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m
>> > - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees
>> > - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees
>> >
>> > Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the
>> > first 16-speakers in this diagramme:
>> >
>> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg
>> >
>> > I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual"
>> > arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached
>> > to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that
>> > will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice?
>> >
>> > The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers
>> > to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some
>> > good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the
>> > speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s.
>> >
>> > Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated!
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > - martin
>> > ___
>> > Sursound mailing list
>> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
>> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
>> here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>>
>> ___
>> Sursound mailing list
>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
>> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> www.augustineleudar.com
>



-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Augustine Leudar]

On,y wikipedia but contains the info you need :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonic_reproduction_systems#Horizontal-only_systems

On 9 February 2016 at 12:45, Politis Archontis 
wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> one note on the arrangement, as far as I know, traditional ambisonic
> decoding won’t work on hemispherical setups (due to the partial coverage of
> the sphere by the speakers). You may have to use more recent/advanced
> methods to get decoding matrices, such as the energy-preserving ambisonic
> decoding with modified basis functions (EPAD), or the hybrid ambisonic/VBAP
> All-round ambisonic decoding (ALLRAD), published by Franz Zotter (and
> collaborators) from University of Graz.
>
> I know of two usable available implementations of such decoder matrix
> calculators, one is a compact Matlab/Octave library I made available
> recently:
>
> http://research.spa.aalto.fi/projects/ambi-lib/ambi.html
> https://github.com/polarch/Higher-Order-Ambisonics
>
> the other is Aaron Heller’s ambisonic decoding toolbox, more extended than
> mine, which includes scripts to produce VST plugins from the decoding
> matrices using Faust, which may be more suitable for your workflow:
>
> https://bitbucket.org/ambidecodertoolbox/adt.git
>
> Best,
> Archontis
>
>
> > On 08 Feb 2016, at 17:19, Martin Dupras  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next
> > week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical
> > arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone
> > with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the
> > right direction?
> >
> > What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which
> > would likely consist of:
> >
> > - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m
> > - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees
> > - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees
> >
> > Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the
> > first 16-speakers in this diagramme:
> >
> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg
> >
> > I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual"
> > arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached
> > to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that
> > will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice?
> >
> > The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers
> > to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some
> > good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the
> > speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s.
> >
> > Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > - martin
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Martin Dupras]

Thanks for all the responses. Much appreciated.

I'll re-phrase the question in light of some of the answers I've been given.

I will be using third-order Ambisonics. My aim mostly is to experiment
to get a good sense of what is possible with Ambisonics with height. I
have experimented successfully with 8-channel planar Ambisonics some
time ago. My primary intent is to spatialise multiple monophonic
(synthesised) sources using 3rd-order Ambisonics spatialisation, and
the playback of mixed sources (spatialised monphonic and stereophonic
sources as well as B-format 4-channel recordings.)

At this moment in time, I have the opportunity to deploy (next week) a
16-channel array, so I would like some advice on a configuration that
would be a good start to experiment with Ambisonics with height.
Someone suggested that I consult the wikipedia page on Ambisonics.
That is indeed where I got the idea that an "upper hemisphere" setup
might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers.
There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical
configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my
original question.

So let me ask a new question. Given the constraint that I can only use
16 speakers at the moment, and that I need to deploy this next week,
can somehow point me in the direction of what might be a suitable and
reasonable geometric configuration to try out? It seems to me that the
only really practical options here are two stacked rings (stacked
octagons) or a hemisphere. I would have thought that the hemisphere
would be the better choice, and in my scenario, a full lighting rig
allows me theoretically speaking to have speakers at the required
positions.

Again, thank you for all the responses.

- martin


On 8 February 2016 at 15:19, Martin Dupras  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next
> week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical
> arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone
> with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the
> right direction?
>
> What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which
> would likely consist of:
>
> - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m
> - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees
> - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees
>
> Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the
> first 16-speakers in this diagramme:
> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg
>
> I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual"
> arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached
> to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that
> will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice?
>
> The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers
> to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some
> good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the
> speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s.
>
> Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated!
>
> Cheers,
>
> - martin
___
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] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Michael Chapman]

> Hi Martin,
>
> HOA are not limited to icosahedra or only uniform arrangements (which
> exist also beyond the 5 platonic solids).

Details, please.

Michael


___
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] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Michael Chapman]

Firstly, I've never got beyond twelve (two stacked hexagons), so
ignore my comments at your _non_-peril ;-)>

It strikes me, that it all depends on what you want from height :

Your initial proposal was with the base ring at ear height.
If your vertical 'stuff' is equally 'up' and 'down' you'd be better off
with an octagon on the floor and another the same distance above ear
height (plan A).

If the vertical 'stuff' is both complex/essential _and_ all (/almost all)
'up' then a hemisphere sounds a better option (plan B).

Plan A is theoretically 'easy peasy', but from my experience still quite
fiddly (and time-consuming) to set up.
Plan B s far more 'cutting edge' (both in mechanical set-up, but not least
in decoding, ...).

If this is :
-(sort of) your first time
-in a few days time
-without a dress rehearsal
then I'd lean towards Plan A.

But, hey, with that sort of caution we'd never have discovered America   .
 .  .

Good luck,

Michael



> Thanks for all the responses. Much appreciated.
>
> I'll re-phrase the question in light of some of the answers I've been
> given.
>
> I will be using third-order Ambisonics. My aim mostly is to experiment
> to get a good sense of what is possible with Ambisonics with height. I
> have experimented successfully with 8-channel planar Ambisonics some
> time ago. My primary intent is to spatialise multiple monophonic
> (synthesised) sources using 3rd-order Ambisonics spatialisation, and
> the playback of mixed sources (spatialised monphonic and stereophonic
> sources as well as B-format 4-channel recordings.)
>
> At this moment in time, I have the opportunity to deploy (next week) a
> 16-channel array, so I would like some advice on a configuration that
> would be a good start to experiment with Ambisonics with height.
> Someone suggested that I consult the wikipedia page on Ambisonics.
> That is indeed where I got the idea that an "upper hemisphere" setup
> might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers.
> There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical
> configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my
> original question.
>
> So let me ask a new question. Given the constraint that I can only use
> 16 speakers at the moment, and that I need to deploy this next week,
> can somehow point me in the direction of what might be a suitable and
> reasonable geometric configuration to try out? It seems to me that the
> only really practical options here are two stacked rings (stacked
> octagons) or a hemisphere. I would have thought that the hemisphere
> would be the better choice, and in my scenario, a full lighting rig
> allows me theoretically speaking to have speakers at the required
> positions.
>
> Again, thank you for all the responses.
>
> - martin
>
>
> On 8 February 2016 at 15:19, Martin Dupras  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next
>> week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical
>> arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone
>> with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the
>> right direction?
>>
>> What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which
>> would likely consist of:
>>
>> - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m
>> - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees
>> - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees
>>
>> Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the
>> first 16-speakers in this diagramme:
>> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg
>>
>> I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual"
>> arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached
>> to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that
>> will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice?
>>
>> The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers
>> to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some
>> good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the
>> speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s.
>>
>> Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> - martin
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>

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

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Politis Archontis]

Hi Michael,

What I had in mind are t-designs, which exist till a very high number of points 
and they have been used by various researchers in decoder design (and spherical 
acoustic processing in general). These are perfectly uniform for all practical 
purposes. And there exist other uniform arrangements on the sphere, mainly 
distinguished by the method that generates them, such as Fliege grids and 
Lebedev grids, all used in research for ambisonic-related research.

For irregular arrangements, I mentioned already the work of Zotter, Frank etc. 
from IEM Graz, all published. There is also the work of Epain and rest from 
Sydney university, with a decoder that has constant energy vector spread, also 
suitable for irregular setups. And there is also the work of Davide Scaini from 
Barcelona media and Pompeau Fabra, which targets irregular setups using 
numerical optimisation on the velocity and energy vectors, and who has also 
released python code to produce decoders.

Regards,
Archontis

> On 10 Feb 2016, at 00:40, Michael Chapman  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Martin,
>> 
>> HOA are not limited to icosahedra or only uniform arrangements (which
>> exist also beyond the 5 platonic solids).
> 
> Details, please.
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
> account or options, view archives and so on.

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

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Martin Dupras]

Thanks Archontis, that is very useful. I'll try that, it seems to
corroborate what I had in mind initially. What's the worse that can
happen, right? :)

Thanks for the help!

- martin

On 9 February 2016 at 22:34, Politis Archontis
 wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> HOA are not limited to icosahedra or only uniform arrangements (which exist 
> also beyond the 5 platonic solids). It would be very hard to claim them 
> flexible or universal if that was the case. Uniform arrangements though 
> simplify decoder design significantly.
>
> As I mentioned you would need some more recent decoder methods for a 
> hemisphere, however these methods are available and not so sensitive to 
> speaker placement (no need for quests for magical geometries). My two cents, 
> start with a regular horizontal ring, covering the case of horizontal 
> decoding too, and spread the rest of the speakers evenly at the hemisphere, 
> covering roughly equal area partitions. You can also fix one straight above 
> and work with the rest. I believe the system should be capable of decoding 
> 3rd order signals to half-space for such an arrangement, but that needs some 
> checking.
>
> I mentioned two publicly available resources for decoding to such a setup. I 
> forgot to mention however that there exist also professional tools for that. 
> I think Blue Ripple Sound’s decoder can handle hemispheres and irregular 
> setups (haven’t tried it myself) and also the latest Spat from IRCAM has 
> implemented the more advanced HOA decoders I mentioned.
>
> Best,
> Archontis
>
>> On 10 Feb 2016, at 00:16, Martin Dupras  wrote:
>>
>> I have no objection to using fewer than 16 speakers; it's just the
>> maximum I have available to me.
>>
>> The reason I had not considered the icosahedron vertices setup is
>> because, according to the wikipedia page, it's capable of 2nd order,
>> not 3rd order. Is that not the case?
>>
>> Again from wikipedia: "Since stacked rings are somewhat wasteful at
>> higher elevations and necessarily have a hole at the zenith, they have
>> been largely surpassed by hemispherical layouts since mature methods
>> for decoder generation have become available. As they are difficult to
>> rig and require overhead points, hemispheres are usually found either
>> in permanent installations or experimental studios, where expensive
>> and visually intrusive trussing is not an issue."
>>
>> That's the whole reason why I was considering a hemispherical setup
>> originally. It talks about "mature methods for decoder generation" so
>> I (wrongly, perhaps) assumed that there were capable decoders, and
>> there would likely be already available "templates" or "typical
>> scenarios" to use as a starting point.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> - martin
>>
>>
>> - martin
>>
>> On 9 February 2016 at 22:02, Augustine Leudar  
>> wrote:
>>> I know Im treading on thin ice here around all these ferocious maths
>>> guys... but might it be that there is not a suitable array that uses 16
>>> speakers? I know if you have 16 speakers you will want to use all of them
>>> but an Icosahedron is only 12 speakers (vertices) but it might be the best
>>> option.
>>> Also you could try ICST ambisonics plugins in max - they let you put the
>>> speaker array in and it adjusts accordingly.
>>>
>>> On 9 February 2016 at 21:51, Martin Dupras  wrote:
>>>
 Thanks for all the responses. Much appreciated.

 I'll re-phrase the question in light of some of the answers I've been
 given.

 I will be using third-order Ambisonics. My aim mostly is to experiment
 to get a good sense of what is possible with Ambisonics with height. I
 have experimented successfully with 8-channel planar Ambisonics some
 time ago. My primary intent is to spatialise multiple monophonic
 (synthesised) sources using 3rd-order Ambisonics spatialisation, and
 the playback of mixed sources (spatialised monphonic and stereophonic
 sources as well as B-format 4-channel recordings.)

 At this moment in time, I have the opportunity to deploy (next week) a
 16-channel array, so I would like some advice on a configuration that
 would be a good start to experiment with Ambisonics with height.
 Someone suggested that I consult the wikipedia page on Ambisonics.
 That is indeed where I got the idea that an "upper hemisphere" setup
 might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers.
 There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical
 configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my
 original question.

 So let me ask a new question. Given the constraint that I can only use
 16 speakers at the moment, and that I need to deploy this next week,
 can somehow point me in the direction of what might be a suitable and
 reasonable geometric configuration to try out? It seems to me 

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Martin Dupras]

> Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as opposed to
> other spatial audio techniques ?

I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in
mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent
Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a
planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with
some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and will
create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software that
I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.)

I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with Ambisonics,
but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them.

- martin
___
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] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Augustine Leudar]

I have found amplitude panning to be more effective for some applications.

On 9 February 2016 at 22:42, Martin Dupras  wrote:

> > Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as opposed to
> > other spatial audio techniques ?
>
> I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in
> mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent
> Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a
> planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with
> some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and will
> create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software that
> I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.)
>
> I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with Ambisonics,
> but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them.
>
> - martin
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Augustine Leudar]

also DBAP

On 9 February 2016 at 22:47, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

> I have found amplitude panning to be more effective for some applications.
>
> On 9 February 2016 at 22:42, Martin Dupras  wrote:
>
>> > Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as opposed
>> to
>> > other spatial audio techniques ?
>>
>> I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in
>> mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent
>> Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a
>> planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with
>> some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and will
>> create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software that
>> I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.)
>>
>> I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with Ambisonics,
>> but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them.
>>
>> - martin
>> ___
>> Sursound mailing list
>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
>> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> www.augustineleudar.com
>



-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Augustine Leudar]

I know Im treading on thin ice here around all these ferocious maths
guys... but might it be that there is not a suitable array that uses 16
speakers? I know if you have 16 speakers you will want to use all of them
but an Icosahedron is only 12 speakers (vertices) but it might be the best
option.
Also you could try ICST ambisonics plugins in max - they let you put the
speaker array in and it adjusts accordingly.

On 9 February 2016 at 21:51, Martin Dupras  wrote:

> Thanks for all the responses. Much appreciated.
>
> I'll re-phrase the question in light of some of the answers I've been
> given.
>
> I will be using third-order Ambisonics. My aim mostly is to experiment
> to get a good sense of what is possible with Ambisonics with height. I
> have experimented successfully with 8-channel planar Ambisonics some
> time ago. My primary intent is to spatialise multiple monophonic
> (synthesised) sources using 3rd-order Ambisonics spatialisation, and
> the playback of mixed sources (spatialised monphonic and stereophonic
> sources as well as B-format 4-channel recordings.)
>
> At this moment in time, I have the opportunity to deploy (next week) a
> 16-channel array, so I would like some advice on a configuration that
> would be a good start to experiment with Ambisonics with height.
> Someone suggested that I consult the wikipedia page on Ambisonics.
> That is indeed where I got the idea that an "upper hemisphere" setup
> might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers.
> There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical
> configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my
> original question.
>
> So let me ask a new question. Given the constraint that I can only use
> 16 speakers at the moment, and that I need to deploy this next week,
> can somehow point me in the direction of what might be a suitable and
> reasonable geometric configuration to try out? It seems to me that the
> only really practical options here are two stacked rings (stacked
> octagons) or a hemisphere. I would have thought that the hemisphere
> would be the better choice, and in my scenario, a full lighting rig
> allows me theoretically speaking to have speakers at the required
> positions.
>
> Again, thank you for all the responses.
>
> - martin
>
>
> On 8 February 2016 at 15:19, Martin Dupras  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next
> > week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical
> > arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone
> > with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the
> > right direction?
> >
> > What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which
> > would likely consist of:
> >
> > - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m
> > - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees
> > - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees
> >
> > Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the
> > first 16-speakers in this diagramme:
> >
> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg
> >
> > I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual"
> > arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached
> > to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that
> > will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice?
> >
> > The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers
> > to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some
> > good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the
> > speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s.
> >
> > Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > - martin
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Martin Dupras]

I have no objection to using fewer than 16 speakers; it's just the
maximum I have available to me.

The reason I had not considered the icosahedron vertices setup is
because, according to the wikipedia page, it's capable of 2nd order,
not 3rd order. Is that not the case?

Again from wikipedia: "Since stacked rings are somewhat wasteful at
higher elevations and necessarily have a hole at the zenith, they have
been largely surpassed by hemispherical layouts since mature methods
for decoder generation have become available. As they are difficult to
rig and require overhead points, hemispheres are usually found either
in permanent installations or experimental studios, where expensive
and visually intrusive trussing is not an issue."

That's the whole reason why I was considering a hemispherical setup
originally. It talks about "mature methods for decoder generation" so
I (wrongly, perhaps) assumed that there were capable decoders, and
there would likely be already available "templates" or "typical
scenarios" to use as a starting point.

Thanks,

- martin


- martin

On 9 February 2016 at 22:02, Augustine Leudar  wrote:
> I know Im treading on thin ice here around all these ferocious maths
> guys... but might it be that there is not a suitable array that uses 16
> speakers? I know if you have 16 speakers you will want to use all of them
> but an Icosahedron is only 12 speakers (vertices) but it might be the best
> option.
> Also you could try ICST ambisonics plugins in max - they let you put the
> speaker array in and it adjusts accordingly.
>
> On 9 February 2016 at 21:51, Martin Dupras  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for all the responses. Much appreciated.
>>
>> I'll re-phrase the question in light of some of the answers I've been
>> given.
>>
>> I will be using third-order Ambisonics. My aim mostly is to experiment
>> to get a good sense of what is possible with Ambisonics with height. I
>> have experimented successfully with 8-channel planar Ambisonics some
>> time ago. My primary intent is to spatialise multiple monophonic
>> (synthesised) sources using 3rd-order Ambisonics spatialisation, and
>> the playback of mixed sources (spatialised monphonic and stereophonic
>> sources as well as B-format 4-channel recordings.)
>>
>> At this moment in time, I have the opportunity to deploy (next week) a
>> 16-channel array, so I would like some advice on a configuration that
>> would be a good start to experiment with Ambisonics with height.
>> Someone suggested that I consult the wikipedia page on Ambisonics.
>> That is indeed where I got the idea that an "upper hemisphere" setup
>> might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers.
>> There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical
>> configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my
>> original question.
>>
>> So let me ask a new question. Given the constraint that I can only use
>> 16 speakers at the moment, and that I need to deploy this next week,
>> can somehow point me in the direction of what might be a suitable and
>> reasonable geometric configuration to try out? It seems to me that the
>> only really practical options here are two stacked rings (stacked
>> octagons) or a hemisphere. I would have thought that the hemisphere
>> would be the better choice, and in my scenario, a full lighting rig
>> allows me theoretically speaking to have speakers at the required
>> positions.
>>
>> Again, thank you for all the responses.
>>
>> - martin
>>
>>
>> On 8 February 2016 at 15:19, Martin Dupras  wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next
>> > week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical
>> > arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone
>> > with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the
>> > right direction?
>> >
>> > What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which
>> > would likely consist of:
>> >
>> > - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m
>> > - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees
>> > - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees
>> >
>> > Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the
>> > first 16-speakers in this diagramme:
>> >
>> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg
>> >
>> > I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual"
>> > arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached
>> > to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that
>> > will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice?
>> >
>> > The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers
>> > to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some
>> > good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I 

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Martin Dupras]

Plan A is more or less my backup. I'm fairly confident that I can get
that working. For my needs the verticality is more important up than
down, I would say, but it's a good point that the amount of complexity
might make it a better option for my plans next week.

I'll keep digging for a hemispherical layout though. Still not found a
single example yet.

Thanks for all the help!

- martin


On 9 February 2016 at 22:18, Michael Chapman  wrote:
>
> Firstly, I've never got beyond twelve (two stacked hexagons), so
> ignore my comments at your _non_-peril ;-)>
>
> It strikes me, that it all depends on what you want from height :
>
> Your initial proposal was with the base ring at ear height.
> If your vertical 'stuff' is equally 'up' and 'down' you'd be better off
> with an octagon on the floor and another the same distance above ear
> height (plan A).
>
> If the vertical 'stuff' is both complex/essential _and_ all (/almost all)
> 'up' then a hemisphere sounds a better option (plan B).
>
> Plan A is theoretically 'easy peasy', but from my experience still quite
> fiddly (and time-consuming) to set up.
> Plan B s far more 'cutting edge' (both in mechanical set-up, but not least
> in decoding, ...).
>
> If this is :
> -(sort of) your first time
> -in a few days time
> -without a dress rehearsal
> then I'd lean towards Plan A.
>
> But, hey, with that sort of caution we'd never have discovered America   .
>  .  .
>
> Good luck,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>> Thanks for all the responses. Much appreciated.
>>
>> I'll re-phrase the question in light of some of the answers I've been
>> given.
>>
>> I will be using third-order Ambisonics. My aim mostly is to experiment
>> to get a good sense of what is possible with Ambisonics with height. I
>> have experimented successfully with 8-channel planar Ambisonics some
>> time ago. My primary intent is to spatialise multiple monophonic
>> (synthesised) sources using 3rd-order Ambisonics spatialisation, and
>> the playback of mixed sources (spatialised monphonic and stereophonic
>> sources as well as B-format 4-channel recordings.)
>>
>> At this moment in time, I have the opportunity to deploy (next week) a
>> 16-channel array, so I would like some advice on a configuration that
>> would be a good start to experiment with Ambisonics with height.
>> Someone suggested that I consult the wikipedia page on Ambisonics.
>> That is indeed where I got the idea that an "upper hemisphere" setup
>> might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers.
>> There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical
>> configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my
>> original question.
>>
>> So let me ask a new question. Given the constraint that I can only use
>> 16 speakers at the moment, and that I need to deploy this next week,
>> can somehow point me in the direction of what might be a suitable and
>> reasonable geometric configuration to try out? It seems to me that the
>> only really practical options here are two stacked rings (stacked
>> octagons) or a hemisphere. I would have thought that the hemisphere
>> would be the better choice, and in my scenario, a full lighting rig
>> allows me theoretically speaking to have speakers at the required
>> positions.
>>
>> Again, thank you for all the responses.
>>
>> - martin
>>
>>
>> On 8 February 2016 at 15:19, Martin Dupras  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next
>>> week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical
>>> arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone
>>> with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the
>>> right direction?
>>>
>>> What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which
>>> would likely consist of:
>>>
>>> - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m
>>> - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees
>>> - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees
>>>
>>> Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the
>>> first 16-speakers in this diagramme:
>>> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg
>>>
>>> I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual"
>>> arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached
>>> to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that
>>> will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice?
>>>
>>> The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers
>>> to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some
>>> good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the
>>> speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s.
>>>
>>> Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> - martin
>> 

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Politis Archontis]

Hi Martin,

HOA are not limited to icosahedra or only uniform arrangements (which exist 
also beyond the 5 platonic solids). It would be very hard to claim them 
flexible or universal if that was the case. Uniform arrangements though 
simplify decoder design significantly.

As I mentioned you would need some more recent decoder methods for a 
hemisphere, however these methods are available and not so sensitive to speaker 
placement (no need for quests for magical geometries). My two cents, start with 
a regular horizontal ring, covering the case of horizontal decoding too, and 
spread the rest of the speakers evenly at the hemisphere, covering roughly 
equal area partitions. You can also fix one straight above and work with the 
rest. I believe the system should be capable of decoding 3rd order signals to 
half-space for such an arrangement, but that needs some checking.

I mentioned two publicly available resources for decoding to such a setup. I 
forgot to mention however that there exist also professional tools for that. I 
think Blue Ripple Sound’s decoder can handle hemispheres and irregular setups 
(haven’t tried it myself) and also the latest Spat from IRCAM has implemented 
the more advanced HOA decoders I mentioned.

Best,
Archontis

> On 10 Feb 2016, at 00:16, Martin Dupras  wrote:
> 
> I have no objection to using fewer than 16 speakers; it's just the
> maximum I have available to me.
> 
> The reason I had not considered the icosahedron vertices setup is
> because, according to the wikipedia page, it's capable of 2nd order,
> not 3rd order. Is that not the case?
> 
> Again from wikipedia: "Since stacked rings are somewhat wasteful at
> higher elevations and necessarily have a hole at the zenith, they have
> been largely surpassed by hemispherical layouts since mature methods
> for decoder generation have become available. As they are difficult to
> rig and require overhead points, hemispheres are usually found either
> in permanent installations or experimental studios, where expensive
> and visually intrusive trussing is not an issue."
> 
> That's the whole reason why I was considering a hemispherical setup
> originally. It talks about "mature methods for decoder generation" so
> I (wrongly, perhaps) assumed that there were capable decoders, and
> there would likely be already available "templates" or "typical
> scenarios" to use as a starting point.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - martin
> 
> 
> - martin
> 
> On 9 February 2016 at 22:02, Augustine Leudar  
> wrote:
>> I know Im treading on thin ice here around all these ferocious maths
>> guys... but might it be that there is not a suitable array that uses 16
>> speakers? I know if you have 16 speakers you will want to use all of them
>> but an Icosahedron is only 12 speakers (vertices) but it might be the best
>> option.
>> Also you could try ICST ambisonics plugins in max - they let you put the
>> speaker array in and it adjusts accordingly.
>> 
>> On 9 February 2016 at 21:51, Martin Dupras  wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks for all the responses. Much appreciated.
>>> 
>>> I'll re-phrase the question in light of some of the answers I've been
>>> given.
>>> 
>>> I will be using third-order Ambisonics. My aim mostly is to experiment
>>> to get a good sense of what is possible with Ambisonics with height. I
>>> have experimented successfully with 8-channel planar Ambisonics some
>>> time ago. My primary intent is to spatialise multiple monophonic
>>> (synthesised) sources using 3rd-order Ambisonics spatialisation, and
>>> the playback of mixed sources (spatialised monphonic and stereophonic
>>> sources as well as B-format 4-channel recordings.)
>>> 
>>> At this moment in time, I have the opportunity to deploy (next week) a
>>> 16-channel array, so I would like some advice on a configuration that
>>> would be a good start to experiment with Ambisonics with height.
>>> Someone suggested that I consult the wikipedia page on Ambisonics.
>>> That is indeed where I got the idea that an "upper hemisphere" setup
>>> might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers.
>>> There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical
>>> configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my
>>> original question.
>>> 
>>> So let me ask a new question. Given the constraint that I can only use
>>> 16 speakers at the moment, and that I need to deploy this next week,
>>> can somehow point me in the direction of what might be a suitable and
>>> reasonable geometric configuration to try out? It seems to me that the
>>> only really practical options here are two stacked rings (stacked
>>> octagons) or a hemisphere. I would have thought that the hemisphere
>>> would be the better choice, and in my scenario, a full lighting rig
>>> allows me theoretically speaking to have speakers at the required
>>> positions.
>>> 
>>> Again, thank you for all the responses.
>>> 
>>> - 

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Augustine Leudar]

Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as opposed to
other spatial audio techniques ?

On 9 February 2016 at 22:31, Martin Dupras  wrote:

> Plan A is more or less my backup. I'm fairly confident that I can get
> that working. For my needs the verticality is more important up than
> down, I would say, but it's a good point that the amount of complexity
> might make it a better option for my plans next week.
>
> I'll keep digging for a hemispherical layout though. Still not found a
> single example yet.
>
> Thanks for all the help!
>
> - martin
>
>
> On 9 February 2016 at 22:18, Michael Chapman  wrote:
> >
> > Firstly, I've never got beyond twelve (two stacked hexagons), so
> > ignore my comments at your _non_-peril ;-)>
> >
> > It strikes me, that it all depends on what you want from height :
> >
> > Your initial proposal was with the base ring at ear height.
> > If your vertical 'stuff' is equally 'up' and 'down' you'd be better off
> > with an octagon on the floor and another the same distance above ear
> > height (plan A).
> >
> > If the vertical 'stuff' is both complex/essential _and_ all (/almost all)
> > 'up' then a hemisphere sounds a better option (plan B).
> >
> > Plan A is theoretically 'easy peasy', but from my experience still quite
> > fiddly (and time-consuming) to set up.
> > Plan B s far more 'cutting edge' (both in mechanical set-up, but not
> least
> > in decoding, ...).
> >
> > If this is :
> > -(sort of) your first time
> > -in a few days time
> > -without a dress rehearsal
> > then I'd lean towards Plan A.
> >
> > But, hey, with that sort of caution we'd never have discovered America
>  .
> >  .  .
> >
> > Good luck,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >> Thanks for all the responses. Much appreciated.
> >>
> >> I'll re-phrase the question in light of some of the answers I've been
> >> given.
> >>
> >> I will be using third-order Ambisonics. My aim mostly is to experiment
> >> to get a good sense of what is possible with Ambisonics with height. I
> >> have experimented successfully with 8-channel planar Ambisonics some
> >> time ago. My primary intent is to spatialise multiple monophonic
> >> (synthesised) sources using 3rd-order Ambisonics spatialisation, and
> >> the playback of mixed sources (spatialised monphonic and stereophonic
> >> sources as well as B-format 4-channel recordings.)
> >>
> >> At this moment in time, I have the opportunity to deploy (next week) a
> >> 16-channel array, so I would like some advice on a configuration that
> >> would be a good start to experiment with Ambisonics with height.
> >> Someone suggested that I consult the wikipedia page on Ambisonics.
> >> That is indeed where I got the idea that an "upper hemisphere" setup
> >> might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers.
> >> There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical
> >> configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my
> >> original question.
> >>
> >> So let me ask a new question. Given the constraint that I can only use
> >> 16 speakers at the moment, and that I need to deploy this next week,
> >> can somehow point me in the direction of what might be a suitable and
> >> reasonable geometric configuration to try out? It seems to me that the
> >> only really practical options here are two stacked rings (stacked
> >> octagons) or a hemisphere. I would have thought that the hemisphere
> >> would be the better choice, and in my scenario, a full lighting rig
> >> allows me theoretically speaking to have speakers at the required
> >> positions.
> >>
> >> Again, thank you for all the responses.
> >>
> >> - martin
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8 February 2016 at 15:19, Martin Dupras 
> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next
> >>> week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical
> >>> arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone
> >>> with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the
> >>> right direction?
> >>>
> >>> What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which
> >>> would likely consist of:
> >>>
> >>> - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m
> >>> - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees
> >>> - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees
> >>>
> >>> Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the
> >>> first 16-speakers in this diagramme:
> >>>
> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg
> >>>
> >>> I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual"
> >>> arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached
> >>> to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that
> >>> will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice?
> >>>
> >>> The other thing 

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Martin Dupras]

I have found amplitude planning effective in some circumstances, but I
find that it's not portable, e.g. I can't deploy the same to a
different speaker arrangement, and I can't scale it down to a smaller
array while composing, among other issues.

I did funnily enough do some basic experiments with Distance-Based
Amplitude Panning with reasonably good results, I just haven't gone
much further. I've used it in some site-specific installation work to
good effect, but again it didn't strike me as being particularly
scalable or portable, hence why Ambisonics is still my first choice.

- martin


On 9 February 2016 at 22:47, Augustine Leudar  wrote:
> I have found amplitude panning to be more effective for some applications.
>
> On 9 February 2016 at 22:42, Martin Dupras  wrote:
>
>> > Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as opposed to
>> > other spatial audio techniques ?
>>
>> I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in
>> mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent
>> Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a
>> planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with
>> some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and will
>> create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software that
>> I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.)
>>
>> I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with Ambisonics,
>> but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them.
>>
>> - martin
>> ___
>> Sursound mailing list
>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
>> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> www.augustineleudar.com
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
> account or options, view archives and so on.
___
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] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Augustine Leudar]

I understand - most of my stuff is site specific so thus my views. If
scalability and portability are important to you - you might also want to
check out Dolby and DTS's competing new object based 3D audio software  -
no idea how easy it is to get your hands on Dolbys - but DTS should be
approachable. DTS say their system lets you put in the speaker array map
and then the file adjusts to the array -  so one file is compatable with
multiple arrays., not sure about Dolbys.

On 9 February 2016 at 22:59, Martin Dupras  wrote:

> I have found amplitude planning effective in some circumstances, but I
> find that it's not portable, e.g. I can't deploy the same to a
> different speaker arrangement, and I can't scale it down to a smaller
> array while composing, among other issues.
>
> I did funnily enough do some basic experiments with Distance-Based
> Amplitude Panning with reasonably good results, I just haven't gone
> much further. I've used it in some site-specific installation work to
> good effect, but again it didn't strike me as being particularly
> scalable or portable, hence why Ambisonics is still my first choice.
>
> - martin
>
>
> On 9 February 2016 at 22:47, Augustine Leudar 
> wrote:
> > I have found amplitude panning to be more effective for some
> applications.
> >
> > On 9 February 2016 at 22:42, Martin Dupras 
> wrote:
> >
> >> > Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as
> opposed to
> >> > other spatial audio techniques ?
> >>
> >> I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in
> >> mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent
> >> Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a
> >> planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with
> >> some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and will
> >> create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software that
> >> I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.)
> >>
> >> I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with Ambisonics,
> >> but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them.
> >>
> >> - martin
> >> ___
> >> Sursound mailing list
> >> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> >> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > www.augustineleudar.com
> > -- next part --
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/1b5482ff/attachment.html
> >
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Augustine Leudar]

Thats fair enough - I think they'd be quite useful if you were making a
film soundtrack though !

On 9 February 2016 at 23:07, Martin Dupras  wrote:

> Ah, but my objection is that those are proprietary systems, and I
> would much rather not use any. Part of the appeal of Ambisonics for me
> is that it's freely usable by all and no licensing is necessary.
>
> That's actually really very important to me, I'm afraid. I have no
> issue in principle using commercial software that decodes something
> that is an open format; I do have issue being locked into a format or
> protocol that is not in the hands of the public.
>
> - martin
>
>
> On 9 February 2016 at 23:04, Augustine Leudar 
> wrote:
> > I understand - most of my stuff is site specific so thus my views. If
> > scalability and portability are important to you - you might also want to
> > check out Dolby and DTS's competing new object based 3D audio software  -
> > no idea how easy it is to get your hands on Dolbys - but DTS should be
> > approachable. DTS say their system lets you put in the speaker array map
> > and then the file adjusts to the array -  so one file is compatable with
> > multiple arrays., not sure about Dolbys.
> >
> > On 9 February 2016 at 22:59, Martin Dupras 
> wrote:
> >
> >> I have found amplitude planning effective in some circumstances, but I
> >> find that it's not portable, e.g. I can't deploy the same to a
> >> different speaker arrangement, and I can't scale it down to a smaller
> >> array while composing, among other issues.
> >>
> >> I did funnily enough do some basic experiments with Distance-Based
> >> Amplitude Panning with reasonably good results, I just haven't gone
> >> much further. I've used it in some site-specific installation work to
> >> good effect, but again it didn't strike me as being particularly
> >> scalable or portable, hence why Ambisonics is still my first choice.
> >>
> >> - martin
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9 February 2016 at 22:47, Augustine Leudar <
> augustineleu...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I have found amplitude panning to be more effective for some
> >> applications.
> >> >
> >> > On 9 February 2016 at 22:42, Martin Dupras 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as
> >> opposed to
> >> >> > other spatial audio techniques ?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in
> >> >> mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent
> >> >> Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a
> >> >> planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with
> >> >> some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and will
> >> >> create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software
> that
> >> >> I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.)
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with
> Ambisonics,
> >> >> but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them.
> >> >>
> >> >> - martin
> >> >> ___
> >> >> Sursound mailing list
> >> >> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> >> >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> here,
> >> >> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > www.augustineleudar.com
> >> > -- next part --
> >> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >> > URL: <
> >>
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/1b5482ff/attachment.html
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > Sursound mailing list
> >> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> >> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> here,
> >> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >> ___
> >> Sursound mailing list
> >> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> >> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > www.augustineleudar.com
> > -- next part --
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/71d2682f/attachment.html
> >
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Matthew Palmer]

5, 5, 5, 1 - geodesic but conformed to the likely rectangular room, first
set of 5 on ground, first and third set lined up, divide height into
fourths & perimeter into fifths, place accordingly...? idk, this is what
i'd do

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

> Thats fair enough - I think they'd be quite useful if you were making a
> film soundtrack though !
>
> On 9 February 2016 at 23:07, Martin Dupras  wrote:
>
> > Ah, but my objection is that those are proprietary systems, and I
> > would much rather not use any. Part of the appeal of Ambisonics for me
> > is that it's freely usable by all and no licensing is necessary.
> >
> > That's actually really very important to me, I'm afraid. I have no
> > issue in principle using commercial software that decodes something
> > that is an open format; I do have issue being locked into a format or
> > protocol that is not in the hands of the public.
> >
> > - martin
> >
> >
> > On 9 February 2016 at 23:04, Augustine Leudar  >
> > wrote:
> > > I understand - most of my stuff is site specific so thus my views. If
> > > scalability and portability are important to you - you might also want
> to
> > > check out Dolby and DTS's competing new object based 3D audio
> software  -
> > > no idea how easy it is to get your hands on Dolbys - but DTS should be
> > > approachable. DTS say their system lets you put in the speaker array
> map
> > > and then the file adjusts to the array -  so one file is compatable
> with
> > > multiple arrays., not sure about Dolbys.
> > >
> > > On 9 February 2016 at 22:59, Martin Dupras 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I have found amplitude planning effective in some circumstances, but I
> > >> find that it's not portable, e.g. I can't deploy the same to a
> > >> different speaker arrangement, and I can't scale it down to a smaller
> > >> array while composing, among other issues.
> > >>
> > >> I did funnily enough do some basic experiments with Distance-Based
> > >> Amplitude Panning with reasonably good results, I just haven't gone
> > >> much further. I've used it in some site-specific installation work to
> > >> good effect, but again it didn't strike me as being particularly
> > >> scalable or portable, hence why Ambisonics is still my first choice.
> > >>
> > >> - martin
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 9 February 2016 at 22:47, Augustine Leudar <
> > augustineleu...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > I have found amplitude panning to be more effective for some
> > >> applications.
> > >> >
> > >> > On 9 February 2016 at 22:42, Martin Dupras 
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> > Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as
> > >> opposed to
> > >> >> > other spatial audio techniques ?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in
> > >> >> mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent
> > >> >> Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a
> > >> >> planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with
> > >> >> some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and
> will
> > >> >> create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software
> > that
> > >> >> I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with
> > Ambisonics,
> > >> >> but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - martin
> > >> >> ___
> > >> >> Sursound mailing list
> > >> >> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > >> >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> > here,
> > >> >> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > www.augustineleudar.com
> > >> > -- next part --
> > >> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > >> > URL: <
> > >>
> >
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/1b5482ff/attachment.html
> > >> >
> > >> > ___
> > >> > Sursound mailing list
> > >> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > >> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> > here,
> > >> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> > >> ___
> > >> Sursound mailing list
> > >> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> here,
> > >> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > www.augustineleudar.com
> > > -- next part --
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL: <
> >
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/71d2682f/attachment.html
> > >
> > > 

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Fernando Lopez-Lezcano]

On 02/09/2016 02:16 PM, Martin Dupras wrote:

I have no objection to using fewer than 16 speakers; it's just the
maximum I have available to me.


I would use as many speakers as you can. No point in using less and 
there's always a way to arrange them to provide a "reasonable" coverage 
of the upper hemisphere.


In our "Stage" here at Stanford (a small concert hall, seats about 60-80 
at most) we have a setup I have used for Ambisonics with 8 + 6 + 2 
speakers (16 all in all - the room is rectangular and that is why I used 
two speakers up). That is not optimal for 3rd order (vertical) but I 
have played 3rd order materials there in a recent concert and it was 
fine. I used a Slepian decoder calculated with ADT (the Ambisonics 
Decoder Toolkit).


As in all domes with current decoders there is some elevation of the 
sounds, that is, something that should be at 0 degrees elevation is 
perceived a little "up" (maybe 6 to 10 degrees?).


Running some simple simulation code to see where to put speakers (using 
the electron potential method), assuming a dome configuration and 
tossing 16 speakers in the mix I'm getting 10 + 5 + 1 or 9 + 6 + 1 
arrays most of the time (depends on the random starting conditions). If 
I "force" 8 of the speakers to be at ear level then I get an 8 + 7 + 1 
configuration - you may want a ring of 8 at ear level as that is a 
common configuration (for playing non-Ambisonics materials). Not very 
scientific but it is a start (there are many criteria with which you can 
try to space speakers in a "uniform" way in a sphere or dome, this is 
just one way to do it).


To see which one is best (or rather which one you like best) you could 
calculate decoders using ADT for tentative arrangements and look at the 
energy and velocity graphs, even for various orders. The one that is 
most even wins :-)


Let us know how it works out!
Best,
-- Fernando



The reason I had not considered the icosahedron vertices setup is
because, according to the wikipedia page, it's capable of 2nd order,
not 3rd order. Is that not the case?

Again from wikipedia: "Since stacked rings are somewhat wasteful at
higher elevations and necessarily have a hole at the zenith, they have
been largely surpassed by hemispherical layouts since mature methods
for decoder generation have become available. As they are difficult to
rig and require overhead points, hemispheres are usually found either
in permanent installations or experimental studios, where expensive
and visually intrusive trussing is not an issue."

That's the whole reason why I was considering a hemispherical setup
originally. It talks about "mature methods for decoder generation" so
I (wrongly, perhaps) assumed that there were capable decoders, and
there would likely be already available "templates" or "typical
scenarios" to use as a starting point.

Thanks,

- martin


- martin

On 9 February 2016 at 22:02, Augustine Leudar  wrote:

I know Im treading on thin ice here around all these ferocious maths
guys... but might it be that there is not a suitable array that uses 16
speakers? I know if you have 16 speakers you will want to use all of them
but an Icosahedron is only 12 speakers (vertices) but it might be the best
option.
Also you could try ICST ambisonics plugins in max - they let you put the
speaker array in and it adjusts accordingly.

On 9 February 2016 at 21:51, Martin Dupras  wrote:


Thanks for all the responses. Much appreciated.

I'll re-phrase the question in light of some of the answers I've been
given.

I will be using third-order Ambisonics. My aim mostly is to experiment
to get a good sense of what is possible with Ambisonics with height. I
have experimented successfully with 8-channel planar Ambisonics some
time ago. My primary intent is to spatialise multiple monophonic
(synthesised) sources using 3rd-order Ambisonics spatialisation, and
the playback of mixed sources (spatialised monphonic and stereophonic
sources as well as B-format 4-channel recordings.)

At this moment in time, I have the opportunity to deploy (next week) a
16-channel array, so I would like some advice on a configuration that
would be a good start to experiment with Ambisonics with height.
Someone suggested that I consult the wikipedia page on Ambisonics.
That is indeed where I got the idea that an "upper hemisphere" setup
might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers.
There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical
configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my
original question.

So let me ask a new question. Given the constraint that I can only use
16 speakers at the moment, and that I need to deploy this next week,
can somehow point me in the direction of what might be a suitable and
reasonable geometric configuration to try out? It seems to me that the
only really practical options here are two stacked rings (stacked
octagons) or a hemisphere. I 

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Fernando Lopez-Lezcano]

On 02/09/2016 03:07 PM, Martin Dupras wrote:

Ah, but my objection is that those are proprietary systems, and I
would much rather not use any. Part of the appeal of Ambisonics for me
is that it's freely usable by all and no licensing is necessary.


Yup, same here.


That's actually really very important to me, I'm afraid. I have no
issue in principle using commercial software that decodes something
that is an open format; I do have issue being locked into a format or
protocol that is not in the hands of the public.


Openness is crucial for me. That plus "portability" as mentioned in the 
thread. I find it very convenient to not be tied to a particular speaker 
arrangement when composing or performing, and just decode to whatever is 
available in concert. Software like ADT makes it possible to design a 
"reasonable" decoder on the spot if needed.


-- Fernando



On 9 February 2016 at 23:04, Augustine Leudar  wrote:

I understand - most of my stuff is site specific so thus my views. If
scalability and portability are important to you - you might also want to
check out Dolby and DTS's competing new object based 3D audio software  -
no idea how easy it is to get your hands on Dolbys - but DTS should be
approachable. DTS say their system lets you put in the speaker array map
and then the file adjusts to the array -  so one file is compatable with
multiple arrays., not sure about Dolbys.

On 9 February 2016 at 22:59, Martin Dupras  wrote:


I have found amplitude planning effective in some circumstances, but I
find that it's not portable, e.g. I can't deploy the same to a
different speaker arrangement, and I can't scale it down to a smaller
array while composing, among other issues.

I did funnily enough do some basic experiments with Distance-Based
Amplitude Panning with reasonably good results, I just haven't gone
much further. I've used it in some site-specific installation work to
good effect, but again it didn't strike me as being particularly
scalable or portable, hence why Ambisonics is still my first choice.

- martin


On 9 February 2016 at 22:47, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

I have found amplitude panning to be more effective for some

applications.


On 9 February 2016 at 22:42, Martin Dupras 

wrote:



Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as

opposed to

other spatial audio techniques ?


I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in
mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent
Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a
planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with
some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and will
create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software that
I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.)

I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with Ambisonics,
but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them.

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





--
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <

https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/1b5482ff/attachment.html


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

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





--
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

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



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

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Martin Leese]

Martin Dupras wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next
> week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical
> arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone
> with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the
> right direction?
>
> What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which
> would likely consist of:
>
> - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m
> - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees
> - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees
>
> Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the
> first 16-speakers in this diagramme:
> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg
>
> I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual"
> arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached
> to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that
> will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice?

I have no experience with full-sphere systems,
so please ignore everything I say.

You don't say what order of Ambisonics you
will be using.  With first-order all speakers
cooperate to localise a sound, so that when
speakers above push those below pull.  It
therefore helps to have speakers placed above
and below the height of the listeners' ears.
Your proposed arrangement does not appear
to do this, while the Observatory Vilnius
arrangement does.  With higher orders this is
less of a concern.

If the material you will be using is mostly
horizontal-only then many speakers level with
the listeners' ears helps.  If the material makes
full use of the whole sphere then the closer you
can get to a Platonic solid the better.

Regards,
Martin
-- 
Martin J Leese
E-mail: martin.leese  stanfordalumni.org
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Martin Dupras]

That's very useful. Thanks, Dave.

- martin


On 8 February 2016 at 17:40, Dave Hunt  wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers
>> to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some
>> good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the
>> speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s.
>
>
> There do seem to be suitable mountings, though I can't find any mention of
> the 8060.
>
> http://www.genelec.com/sites/default/files/media/Studio%20monitors/Accessories/genelec_accessories_brochure.pdf
>
> That is , if you can find them to hire, and afford them
>
> Ciao,
>
> Dave Hunt
>
>
>>
>> From: Martin Dupras 
>> Date: 8 February 2016 15:19:08 GMT
>> To: Surround Sound discussion group 
>> Subject: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical
>> arrangement
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next
>> week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical
>> arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone
>> with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the
>> right direction?
>>
>> What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which
>> would likely consist of:
>>
>> - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m
>> - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees
>> - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees
>>
>> Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the
>> first 16-speakers in this diagramme:
>>
>> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg
>>
>> I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual"
>> arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached
>> to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that
>> will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice?
>>
>> The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers
>> to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some
>> good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the
>> speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s.
>>
>> Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> - martin
>
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit
> account or options, view archives and so on.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Dave Hunt]

Hi,


The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers
to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some
good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the
speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s.


There do seem to be suitable mountings, though I can't find any  
mention of the 8060.


http://www.genelec.com/sites/default/files/media/Studio%20monitors/ 
Accessories/genelec_accessories_brochure.pdf


That is , if you can find them to hire, and afford them

Ciao,

Dave Hunt




From: Martin Dupras 
Date: 8 February 2016 15:19:08 GMT
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Subject: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half- 
spherical arrangement



Hi,

I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next
week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical
arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone
with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the
right direction?

What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which
would likely consist of:

- 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately  
1.6m

- 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees
- 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees

Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the
first 16-speakers in this diagramme:
http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ 
loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg


I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual"
arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached
to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that
will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice?

The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers
to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some
good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the
speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s.

Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated!

Cheers,

- martin


-- 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] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement

[Thomas Chen]

I have set up 16 speakers in a two layer octagon, 8 locations with an up and 
down at each location.  This is a decode as a cylinder.  It has worked well.  I 
also used Genelecs.  I mounted the speakers in a long narrow box with a bottom 
and top.  In the Studio I used a Clearstory lighting box and floor as the 
supports.

ThomasChen

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Martin Dupras <martindup...@gmail.com>
To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu>
Sent: Mon, Feb 8, 2016 9:42 am
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical 
arrangement

That's very useful. Thanks, Dave.

- martin


On 8 February 2016 at 17:40, Dave Hunt <davehuntau...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers
>> to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some
>> good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the
>> speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s.
>
>
> There do seem to be suitable mountings, though I can't find any mention of
> the 8060.
>
> http://www.genelec.com/sites/default/files/media/Studio%20monitors/Accessories/genelec_accessories_brochure.pdf
>
> That is , if you can find them to hire, and afford them
>
> Ciao,
>
> Dave Hunt
>
>
>>
>> From: Martin Dupras <martindup...@gmail.com>
>> Date: 8 February 2016 15:19:08 GMT
>> To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu>
>> Subject: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical
>> arrangement
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next
>> week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical
>> arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone
>> with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the
>> right direction?
>>
>> What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which
>> would likely consist of:
>>
>> - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m
>> - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees
>> - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees
>>
>> Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the
>> first 16-speakers in this diagramme:
>>
>> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg
>>
>> I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual"
>> arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached
>> to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that
>> will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice?
>>
>> The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers
>> to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some
>> good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the
>> speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s.
>>
>> Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> - martin
>
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160208/a6c4d66f/attachment.html>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit
> account or options, view archives and so on.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160208/af9a33d8/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.