Re: [Sursound] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Augustine Leudar]

Archontis - I mean when I make a multichannel sound installation and use
Vbap to pan it - lets say an eight channel octophonic horizonatal array -
when I export an 8 channel interleaved rendering of this installation later
and play it back on say, Iplayer, it automatically renders it to stereo and
and panning is suprising well represented in stereo.

On 9 January 2017 at 12:19, Politis Archontis 
wrote:

> Hi Sampo,
>
> > On 09 Jan 2017, at 06:27, Sampo Syreeni  wrote:
> >
> > The critique I'd have for such panning laws is that they don't really
> respect the ambisonic/Gerzon theory, especially at the low frequencies. In
> essence, they work, and necessarily would *have* to work in the high
> frequency, (ambisonically speaking) high order,sparse array limit. Which is
> why they mostly work for common music and speech signals.
>
> I am a bit baffled by the idea that VBAP is not compatible with Ambisonics
> theory (?) Thinking in terms of velocity and energy vectors, as far as I
> understand, VBAP with the (classic) amplitude panning formulation has zero
> angular error for the (Makita) velocity vectors for all directions. If you
> take the energy formulation of VBAP for high frequencies (solving for
> energies instead of amplitudes) then it results in the maximum (Gerzon)
> energy vectors that the setup can achieve with zero directional error
> again. Of course at low frequencies you cannot achieve the “perfect”
> pressure reconstruction that a mode-matching decoder can achieve, but then
> you see what are the gains that such a decoder imposes on not ideal regular
> setups to realize that perfect reconstruction should be compromised anyway
> with some more practical solution.
>
>
> > However, they fail to work general speaker arrays fully. Especially at
> the lower frequencies. Ambisonically speaking, where we'd go with a
> holistic, whole array, directionally averaged velocity decode.
>
> Again I think it depends how you mean it - VBAP will just work for any
> speaker array with a performance limited by the setup in a quite intuitive
> understandable way (large spread for large triangle apertures, full
> concentration at a speaker direction, nothing for regions outside a partial
> setup etc..). Ambisonic decoding for any array is not designed as easily as
> computing VBAP gains, and it seems for irregular setups, one of the most
> straightforward and practical ways to do it is to combine the properties of
> VBAP and Ambisonic decoding (as the work of Zotter, Batke, and Epain have
> shown). Considering panning specifically, I think it depends on the
> application what works best, for VR or interactive-audio stuff for example,
> where normally sound objects would be rendered with maximum sharpness VBAP
> would work better. If however some and more even directional spreading is
> preferred, then ambisonic panning should be better, or some VBAP variant
> with spreading as has been presented by Ville and others.
>
> So I find Augustine's comments reasonable on panning sounds, but not in
> general: VBAP vs Ambisonics.
>
> > On 09 Jan 2017, at 12:33, Augustine Leudar 
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes i just mean - when making a 3D sound installation you can use various
> > types of panning round a sphere (or whatever of speaker array). You
> seemed
> > to be saying ambisonics had a clear advantage over other types of panning
> > for 3D audio - I was just wondering what you saw as ambisonics'
> advantages
> > over VBAP. I've actually found Ambisonics to be worse compared to VBAP in
> > many situations and better in others - but generally I use Vbap or Dbap .
> > The only real advantage I can see of ambisonics is having one file that
> can
> > be up or down mixed - but you can do that to a degree with Vbap files as
> > well.
>
> (What is a VBAP file?)
>
> That’s if you have actually access to the sound objects with their
> parametric information, in which case sure you can pan them however you
> like, you can even switch between different panners on the fly and pick the
> one you prefer. However, the generality of Ambisonics becomes clear if you
> have real sound-scene recordings, or you don’t have access to the objects
> due to bandwidth limitations, and it makes sense to downmix them to a
> format that preserves their directional properties as good as possible.
> This last case becomes especially important if decoding of some HOA
> channels (or even FOA with parametric decoding) becomes perceptually
> indistinguishable with respect to spatializing many of sound objects
> separately..
>
> Regards,
> Archontis
>
> ___
> 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.
>



-- 
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbe

Re: [Sursound] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Augustine Leudar]

and of course I mean amplitude panning rather than vbap in that instance -
but I have had reasonable results doing the same for full 3D installations
as well, at least as resoble as can be expected representing a 3D audio
scene in stereo (which is never very good in any format)

On 9 January 2017 at 12:32, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

> Archontis - I mean when I make a multichannel sound installation and use
> Vbap to pan it - lets say an eight channel octophonic horizonatal array -
> when I export an 8 channel interleaved rendering of this installation later
> and play it back on say, Iplayer, it automatically renders it to stereo and
> and panning is suprising well represented in stereo.
>
> On 9 January 2017 at 12:19, Politis Archontis 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sampo,
>>
>> > On 09 Jan 2017, at 06:27, Sampo Syreeni  wrote:
>> >
>> > The critique I'd have for such panning laws is that they don't really
>> respect the ambisonic/Gerzon theory, especially at the low frequencies. In
>> essence, they work, and necessarily would *have* to work in the high
>> frequency, (ambisonically speaking) high order,sparse array limit. Which is
>> why they mostly work for common music and speech signals.
>>
>> I am a bit baffled by the idea that VBAP is not compatible with
>> Ambisonics theory (?) Thinking in terms of velocity and energy vectors, as
>> far as I understand, VBAP with the (classic) amplitude panning formulation
>> has zero angular error for the (Makita) velocity vectors for all
>> directions. If you take the energy formulation of VBAP for high frequencies
>> (solving for energies instead of amplitudes) then it results in the maximum
>> (Gerzon) energy vectors that the setup can achieve with zero directional
>> error again. Of course at low frequencies you cannot achieve the “perfect”
>> pressure reconstruction that a mode-matching decoder can achieve, but then
>> you see what are the gains that such a decoder imposes on not ideal regular
>> setups to realize that perfect reconstruction should be compromised anyway
>> with some more practical solution.
>>
>>
>> > However, they fail to work general speaker arrays fully. Especially at
>> the lower frequencies. Ambisonically speaking, where we'd go with a
>> holistic, whole array, directionally averaged velocity decode.
>>
>> Again I think it depends how you mean it - VBAP will just work for any
>> speaker array with a performance limited by the setup in a quite intuitive
>> understandable way (large spread for large triangle apertures, full
>> concentration at a speaker direction, nothing for regions outside a partial
>> setup etc..). Ambisonic decoding for any array is not designed as easily as
>> computing VBAP gains, and it seems for irregular setups, one of the most
>> straightforward and practical ways to do it is to combine the properties of
>> VBAP and Ambisonic decoding (as the work of Zotter, Batke, and Epain have
>> shown). Considering panning specifically, I think it depends on the
>> application what works best, for VR or interactive-audio stuff for example,
>> where normally sound objects would be rendered with maximum sharpness VBAP
>> would work better. If however some and more even directional spreading is
>> preferred, then ambisonic panning should be better, or some VBAP variant
>> with spreading as has been presented by Ville and others.
>>
>> So I find Augustine's comments reasonable on panning sounds, but not in
>> general: VBAP vs Ambisonics.
>>
>> > On 09 Jan 2017, at 12:33, Augustine Leudar 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes i just mean - when making a 3D sound installation you can use
>> various
>> > types of panning round a sphere (or whatever of speaker array). You
>> seemed
>> > to be saying ambisonics had a clear advantage over other types of
>> panning
>> > for 3D audio - I was just wondering what you saw as ambisonics'
>> advantages
>> > over VBAP. I've actually found Ambisonics to be worse compared to VBAP
>> in
>> > many situations and better in others - but generally I use Vbap or Dbap
>> .
>> > The only real advantage I can see of ambisonics is having one file that
>> can
>> > be up or down mixed - but you can do that to a degree with Vbap files as
>> > well.
>>
>> (What is a VBAP file?)
>>
>> That’s if you have actually access to the sound objects with their
>> parametric information, in which case sure you can pan them however you
>> like, you can even switch between different panners on the fly and pick the
>> one you prefer. However, the generality of Ambisonics becomes clear if you
>> have real sound-scene recordings, or you don’t have access to the objects
>> due to bandwidth limitations, and it makes sense to downmix them to a
>> format that preserves their directional properties as good as possible.
>> This last case becomes especially important if decoding of some HOA
>> channels (or even FOA with parametric decoding) becomes perceptually
>> indistinguishable with respect to spatializing many of sound objects
>> separately..
>>
>> Regard

Re: [Sursound] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Sampo Syreeni]

On 2017-01-09, Politis Archontis wrote:

I am a bit baffled by the idea that VBAP is not compatible with 
Ambisonics theory (?)


I actually didn't mean to say quite as much. :)

Thinking in terms of velocity and energy vectors, as far as I 
understand, VBAP with the (classic) amplitude panning formulation has 
zero angular error for the (Makita) velocity vectors for all 
directions.


Yes. In my mind the trouble with VBAP isn't that it's somehow incorrect, 
because obviously it isn't. It eminently does work. But reflected 
against ambisonic theory, it also has its shortcomings.


The closest thing in POA (plain old ambisonic) theory to VBAP is, I 
believe, in-phase decoding. It's not an exact fit, true, but it comes 
close enough to make a comparison: in-phase basically means that 
whatever you put into the soundfield comes from a certain direction, 
with no anti-phase, oscillating (in the sound intensity theory sense) 
contribution from around the rig. It tries to keep all of the energy as 
travelling, not oscillating, or in other words it tries to keep close to 
what the more involved NFC-HOA analysis calls an "inbound solution". So, 
pretty much what pure amplitude panning like VBAP does in practice as 
well.


With that in mind, you can immediately see how the idea fails the 
ambisonic ideal. Perhaps not by too much, and we know that all of the 
solutions tend toward the same holophonic limit given enough resources. 
But still in the low order sparse rig case there's a difference. Which 
is why we don't do in-phase decodes, but max rE at HF and max rV at LF.


Namely, two things. First, the ambisonic formulation tries as hard as it 
can to be isotropic. That's the basic reason why you need at least four 
speakers for even three channel, pantophonic POA: you just can't make 
the system so that it doesn't pull sound into speakers with just three. 
VBAP doesn't respect that basic theorem, and so it does pull into 
speakers; it doesn't sound the same when you pan into a speaker 
position, as it does when you pan between. POA does (or at least tries 
very hard to do so).


And secondly, VBAP doesn't utilize the whole (limited, cheap, basic) 
speaker rig as efficiently as POA does. The classical ambisonic theory a 
la Gerzon starts with the Makita theory of localisation, and optimizes 
against it. VBAP doesn't take heed of that or any other theory, but is 
in the perceptual sense an ad hoc machinery. Thus, it doesn't really 
optimize for hearing, or the use of limited speaker resources; it 
doesn't do what POA does, which is to utilize anti-phase signals in 
order to give higher location accuracy at LF. (Remember, those go away 
at the dense HOA limit even within the ambisonic framework; but we're 
not talking about that in usual home configurations; the cheap, basic 
setup every homeowner has is the thing, and the thing where VBAP 
performs worst as compared to POA.)


In essence, if you want to put VBAP within the ambisonic framework, I'd 
characterize it as being "an infinite order single band decoder 
optimized for in-phase propagation, without the isotropy constraints 
which characterize low order ambisonic". There's nothing inherently 
wrong with such a decoding solution, and even the ambisonic theoretical 
machinery tells you that such a solution is sometimes ideal. It's just 
that if you work with your average 4-5 speakers, and within POA's single 
listener, central, isotropic assumption, the classical POA framework 
does even better.


Of course at low frequencies you cannot achieve the “perfect” pressure 
reconstruction that a mode-matching decoder can achieve, but then you 
see what are the gains that such a decoder imposes on not ideal 
regular setups to realize that perfect reconstruction should be 
compromised anyway with some more practical solution.


If I understand you correctly, we sort of agree. But you see, my 
argument is very much about the *imperfect* case, and I think the 
classical Gerzon/POA theory is about that too. If we had a million 
speakers, too much processing power to speak of, and so on, all of this 
discussion would be moot. It's just that we don't have that. We 
typically have just four speakers (if even as many), and we have to make 
the best of what little we have.


That then leads to Gerzon's theory (of POA); something which is almost 
singlemindedly psychoacoustical (within the constraint of an LTI signal 
chain). Nowadays we could theoretize about tons of speakers and the high 
holophonic limit, but in his day Gerzon worked with pretty much just a 
quadraphonic setup. If you want to have something like that deliver 
passable pantophony, you can't go with idealisations. You work with what 
you got, and what you got was part psychoacoustics.


Which is why we have shelf filters, which cut from rE to rV, and which 
is why in POA's presumable use case, it does (as much as the underlying 
Makita theory of localization can help you) far better than VBAP. With 
the limi

Re: [Sursound] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Sampo Syreeni]

On 2017-01-09, Augustine Leudar wrote:

and of course I mean amplitude panning rather than vbap in that 
instance - but I have had reasonable results doing the same for full 
3D installations as well, at least as resoble as can be expected 
representing a 3D audio scene in stereo (which is never very good in 
any format)


Not to be a prude, but... ;)

VBAP is short for vector base amplitude panning. So it's really just 
amplitude panning. It's absolutely no different from your typical 
left-right panpot, except that it's been generalized from the 1D line 
going from left to right, to the 2D sphere surface which is the space of 
directions. Technically, that surface's triangulations: where you had 
left and right on your panpot before, now you have triangles over the 
sphere of directions.


But it's still just basic equal energy panning; sinusoidal interpolation 
between points; now just among three while there were two before. Simple 
as that. :)

--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Augustine Leudar]

Yes Im well aware of that thanks.

On 10 January 2017 at 02:35, Sampo Syreeni  wrote:

> On 2017-01-09, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>
> and of course I mean amplitude panning rather than vbap in that instance -
>> but I have had reasonable results doing the same for full 3D installations
>> as well, at least as resoble as can be expected representing a 3D audio
>> scene in stereo (which is never very good in any format)
>>
>
> Not to be a prude, but... ;)
>
> VBAP is short for vector base amplitude panning. So it's really just
> amplitude panning. It's absolutely no different from your typical
> left-right panpot, except that it's been generalized from the 1D line going
> from left to right, to the 2D sphere surface which is the space of
> directions. Technically, that surface's triangulations: where you had left
> and right on your panpot before, now you have triangles over the sphere of
> directions.
>
> But it's still just basic equal energy panning; sinusoidal interpolation
> between points; now just among three while there were two before. Simple as
> that. :)
> --
> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
> +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



-- 
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-- 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] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Augustine Leudar]

but not to be crude but ;)  some people get really anal about these things
- so in pre defense of such anality - stereo amplitude panning allows you
to pan between two speakers - theoretically you could have a kind of
amplitude panning that allows you to pan between the nearest two speakers
on the surface of a sphere - but amplitude panning allows you to pan
between the nearest three - so you can have sound son three speakers at a
time (if I remember correctly) or ou could have a kind of amplitude panning
that allows you to pan on more than 3 or Dbap - but yes its all just
amplitude panning - nice simple and works .

On 10 January 2017 at 09:51, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

> Yes Im well aware of that thanks.
>
> On 10 January 2017 at 02:35, Sampo Syreeni  wrote:
>
>> On 2017-01-09, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>
>> and of course I mean amplitude panning rather than vbap in that instance
>>> - but I have had reasonable results doing the same for full 3D
>>> installations as well, at least as resoble as can be expected representing
>>> a 3D audio scene in stereo (which is never very good in any format)
>>>
>>
>> Not to be a prude, but... ;)
>>
>> VBAP is short for vector base amplitude panning. So it's really just
>> amplitude panning. It's absolutely no different from your typical
>> left-right panpot, except that it's been generalized from the 1D line going
>> from left to right, to the 2D sphere surface which is the space of
>> directions. Technically, that surface's triangulations: where you had left
>> and right on your panpot before, now you have triangles over the sphere of
>> directions.
>>
>> But it's still just basic equal energy panning; sinusoidal interpolation
>> between points; now just among three while there were two before. Simple as
>> that. :)
>> --
>> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
>> +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
>> ___
>> Sursound mailing list
>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
>> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Augustine Leudar
> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> Company Number : NI635217
> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> Belfast BT88LL
>
>


-- 
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-- 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] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Augustine Leudar]

should have said "VBAP allows you  to pan between the nearest three"

On 10 January 2017 at 09:56, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

> but not to be crude but ;)  some people get really anal about these things
> - so in pre defense of such anality - stereo amplitude panning allows you
> to pan between two speakers - theoretically you could have a kind of
> amplitude panning that allows you to pan between the nearest two speakers
> on the surface of a sphere - but amplitude panning allows you to pan
> between the nearest three - so you can have sound son three speakers at a
> time (if I remember correctly) or ou could have a kind of amplitude panning
> that allows you to pan on more than 3 or Dbap - but yes its all just
> amplitude panning - nice simple and works .
>
> On 10 January 2017 at 09:51, Augustine Leudar 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes Im well aware of that thanks.
>>
>> On 10 January 2017 at 02:35, Sampo Syreeni  wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-01-09, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>
>>> and of course I mean amplitude panning rather than vbap in that instance
 - but I have had reasonable results doing the same for full 3D
 installations as well, at least as resoble as can be expected representing
 a 3D audio scene in stereo (which is never very good in any format)

>>>
>>> Not to be a prude, but... ;)
>>>
>>> VBAP is short for vector base amplitude panning. So it's really just
>>> amplitude panning. It's absolutely no different from your typical
>>> left-right panpot, except that it's been generalized from the 1D line going
>>> from left to right, to the 2D sphere surface which is the space of
>>> directions. Technically, that surface's triangulations: where you had left
>>> and right on your panpot before, now you have triangles over the sphere of
>>> directions.
>>>
>>> But it's still just basic equal energy panning; sinusoidal interpolation
>>> between points; now just among three while there were two before. Simple as
>>> that. :)
>>> --
>>> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
>>> +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
>>> ___
>>> Sursound mailing list
>>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
>>> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Augustine Leudar
>> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
>> Company Number : NI635217
>> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
>> Belfast BT88LL
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Augustine Leudar
> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> Company Number : NI635217
> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> Belfast BT88LL
>
>


-- 
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-- 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] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Augustine Leudar]

so yes - there is a slight difference - Vbap has to based on triangles -
other forms of amplitude panning don't

On 10 January 2017 at 09:57, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

> should have said "VBAP allows you  to pan between the nearest three"
>
> On 10 January 2017 at 09:56, Augustine Leudar 
> wrote:
>
>> but not to be crude but ;)  some people get really anal about these
>> things - so in pre defense of such anality - stereo amplitude panning
>> allows you to pan between two speakers - theoretically you could have a
>> kind of amplitude panning that allows you to pan between the nearest two
>> speakers on the surface of a sphere - but amplitude panning allows you to
>> pan between the nearest three - so you can have sound son three speakers at
>> a time (if I remember correctly) or ou could have a kind of amplitude
>> panning that allows you to pan on more than 3 or Dbap - but yes its all
>> just amplitude panning - nice simple and works .
>>
>> On 10 January 2017 at 09:51, Augustine Leudar 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes Im well aware of that thanks.
>>>
>>> On 10 January 2017 at 02:35, Sampo Syreeni  wrote:
>>>
 On 2017-01-09, Augustine Leudar wrote:

 and of course I mean amplitude panning rather than vbap in that
> instance - but I have had reasonable results doing the same for full 3D
> installations as well, at least as resoble as can be expected representing
> a 3D audio scene in stereo (which is never very good in any format)
>

 Not to be a prude, but... ;)

 VBAP is short for vector base amplitude panning. So it's really just
 amplitude panning. It's absolutely no different from your typical
 left-right panpot, except that it's been generalized from the 1D line going
 from left to right, to the 2D sphere surface which is the space of
 directions. Technically, that surface's triangulations: where you had left
 and right on your panpot before, now you have triangles over the sphere of
 directions.

 But it's still just basic equal energy panning; sinusoidal
 interpolation between points; now just among three while there were two
 before. Simple as that. :)
 --
 Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
 +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
 ___
 Sursound mailing list
 Sursound@music.vt.edu
 https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
 here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Augustine Leudar
>>> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
>>> Company Number : NI635217
>>> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
>>> Belfast BT88LL
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Augustine Leudar
>> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
>> Company Number : NI635217
>> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
>> Belfast BT88LL
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Augustine Leudar
> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> Company Number : NI635217
> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> Belfast BT88LL
>
>


-- 
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-- 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] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Stefan Schreiber]

Augustine Leudar wrote:


so yes - there is a slight difference - Vbap has to based on triangles -
other forms of amplitude panning don't
 



If you use amplitude panning between more than 2 (2D) or 3 (3D/VBAP) 
speakers, you could run into some trouble. Including pX-talk between 
more than 2 speakers in the horizont. plain... (same phantom source9


This might lead to quite messy ITD and ILD problems.

So I believe it could make a lot of sense to apply amplitude panning to 
the exact minimum amount of speakers you would need to produce some 
phantom image effect. Which means 2 speakers in the 2D case, 3 in the 3D 
case.  

Just to present some crude and rude ideas about  "different panning 
strategies"...:-D



Best,

Stefan



On 10 January 2017 at 09:57, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

 


should have said "VBAP allows you  to pan between the nearest three"

On 10 January 2017 at 09:56, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

   


but not to be crude but ;)  some people get really anal about these
things - so in pre defense of such anality - stereo amplitude panning
allows you to pan between two speakers - theoretically you could have a
kind of amplitude panning that allows you to pan between the nearest two
speakers on the surface of a sphere - but amplitude panning allows you to
pan between the nearest three - so you can have sound son three speakers at
a time (if I remember correctly) or ou could have a kind of amplitude
panning that allows you to pan on more than 3 or Dbap - but yes its all
just amplitude panning - nice simple and works .

On 10 January 2017 at 09:51, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

 


Yes Im well aware of that thanks.

On 10 January 2017 at 02:35, Sampo Syreeni  wrote:

   


On 2017-01-09, Augustine Leudar wrote:

and of course I mean amplitude panning rather than vbap in that
 


instance - but I have had reasonable results doing the same for full 3D
installations as well, at least as resoble as can be expected representing
a 3D audio scene in stereo (which is never very good in any format)

   


Not to be a prude, but... ;)

VBAP is short for vector base amplitude panning. So it's really just
amplitude panning. It's absolutely no different from your typical
left-right panpot, except that it's been generalized from the 1D line going
from left to right, to the 2D sphere surface which is the space of
directions. Technically, that surface's triangulations: where you had left
and right on your panpot before, now you have triangles over the sphere of
directions.

But it's still just basic equal energy panning; sinusoidal
interpolation between points; now just among three while there were two
before. Simple as that. :)
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - 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] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:23:47PM +, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
 
> If you use amplitude panning between more than 2 (2D) or 3 (3D/VBAP)
> speakers, you could run into some trouble. Including pX-talk between
> more than 2 speakers in the horizont. plain... (same phantom source9
> 
> This might lead to quite messy ITD and ILD problems.
> 
> So I believe it could make a lot of sense to apply amplitude panning
> to the exact minimum amount of speakers you would need to produce
> some phantom image effect. Which means 2 speakers in the 2D case, 3
> in the 3D case.

This was actually proven wrong long ago, and it is what Ambisonic
decoding gets right. 

It's really similar to what happens if you interpolate between
samples using only the two nearest ones. 

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] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Augustine Leudar]

ICST max objects have this thing called "ambisonics equivalent panning" I'm
not quite sure what it is - but it seems to work just fine. The really nice
thing in the patch (it works in max) is you can adjust the directivity to
play on as many or as little speakers you want around a certain point - its
really nice for adjusting to different situations, speaker arrays and
acoustics. You program a map of your speakers and then pan around them - in
that way its a bit like dbap.

On 10 January 2017 at 21:32, Fons Adriaensen  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:23:47PM +, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
>
> > If you use amplitude panning between more than 2 (2D) or 3 (3D/VBAP)
> > speakers, you could run into some trouble. Including pX-talk between
> > more than 2 speakers in the horizont. plain... (same phantom source9
> >
> > This might lead to quite messy ITD and ILD problems.
> >
> > So I believe it could make a lot of sense to apply amplitude panning
> > to the exact minimum amount of speakers you would need to produce
> > some phantom image effect. Which means 2 speakers in the 2D case, 3
> > in the 3D case.
>
> This was actually proven wrong long ago, and it is what Ambisonic
> decoding gets right.
>
> It's really similar to what happens if you interpolate between
> samples using only the two nearest ones.
>
> 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.
>



-- 
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-- 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] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Augustine Leudar]

http://decoy.iki.fi/dsound/ambisonic/motherlode/source/ICMC08_AEP_paper.pdf

On 10 January 2017 at 22:51, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

> ICST max objects have this thing called "ambisonics equivalent panning"
> I'm not quite sure what it is - but it seems to work just fine. The really
> nice thing in the patch (it works in max) is you can adjust the directivity
> to play on as many or as little speakers you want around a certain point -
> its really nice for adjusting to different situations, speaker arrays and
> acoustics. You program a map of your speakers and then pan around them - in
> that way its a bit like dbap.
>
> On 10 January 2017 at 21:32, Fons Adriaensen  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:23:47PM +, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
>>
>> > If you use amplitude panning between more than 2 (2D) or 3 (3D/VBAP)
>> > speakers, you could run into some trouble. Including pX-talk between
>> > more than 2 speakers in the horizont. plain... (same phantom source9
>> >
>> > This might lead to quite messy ITD and ILD problems.
>> >
>> > So I believe it could make a lot of sense to apply amplitude panning
>> > to the exact minimum amount of speakers you would need to produce
>> > some phantom image effect. Which means 2 speakers in the 2D case, 3
>> > in the 3D case.
>>
>> This was actually proven wrong long ago, and it is what Ambisonic
>> decoding gets right.
>>
>> It's really similar to what happens if you interpolate between
>> samples using only the two nearest ones.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Augustine Leudar
> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> Company Number : NI635217
> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> Belfast BT88LL
>
>


-- 
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-- 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] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Stefan Schreiber]

Fons Adriaensen wrote:


On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:23:47PM +, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

 


If you use amplitude panning between more than 2 (2D) or 3 (3D/VBAP)
speakers, you could run into some trouble. Including X-talk between
more than 2 speakers in the horizont. plain... (same phantom source)

This might lead to quite messy ITD and ILD problems.

So I believe it could make a lot of sense to apply amplitude panning
to the exact minimum amount of speakers you would need to produce
some phantom image effect. Which means 2 speakers in the 2D case, 3
in the 3D case.
   



This was actually proven wrong long ago, and it is what Ambisonic
decoding gets right. 
 

Nice, because I didn't reproduce anthing and just made up my own little 
theory about "minimum neighbour number amplitude panning". (MNNAP.)


Stefan

P.S.:


It's really similar to what happens if you interpolate between
samples using only the two nearest ones. 
 



Two , see above!   ;-)
Not 1, not 5...

___
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] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Augustine Leudar]

You can't just make up a new type of amplitude panning like that Stefan.
There is a process involved -  there has to be naming ceremony and at least
two research papers with fancy looking graphs in them. Tsk tsk.

On 10 January 2017 at 23:19, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:

> Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:23:47PM +, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> If you use amplitude panning between more than 2 (2D) or 3 (3D/VBAP)
>>> speakers, you could run into some trouble. Including X-talk between
>>> more than 2 speakers in the horizont. plain... (same phantom source)
>>>
>>> This might lead to quite messy ITD and ILD problems.
>>>
>>> So I believe it could make a lot of sense to apply amplitude panning
>>> to the exact minimum amount of speakers you would need to produce
>>> some phantom image effect. Which means 2 speakers in the 2D case, 3
>>> in the 3D case.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This was actually proven wrong long ago, and it is what Ambisonic
>> decoding gets right.
>>
> Nice, because I didn't reproduce anthing and just made up my own little
> theory about "minimum neighbour number amplitude panning". (MNNAP.)
>
> Stefan
>
> P.S.:
>
> It's really similar to what happens if you interpolate between
>> samples using only the two nearest ones.
>>
>
> Two , see above!   ;-)
> Not 1, not 5...
>
>
> ___
> 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.
>



-- 
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-- 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] VBAP and Ambisonics [was: The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973]

[Stefan Schreiber]

Augustine Leudar wrote:


You can't just make up a new type of amplitude panning like that Stefan.
There is a process involved -  there has to be naming ceremony and at least
two research papers with fancy looking graphs in them. Tsk tsk.
 



Ok, fully agreed!

< Irony on >

I < could > have extended my MNNAP basic assumptions to microphone 
theory, but now I won't... :-X


I would  have shown why it is hard to build some < dense > stereophonic 
microphone. It is basically a consequence of the scientific findings in 
my previous sursound posting... If some (now real) acoustical source 
shows up in too many < neighbouring/near > capsules, results ain't be 
pretty!


I tried to build some "naive" 22.2 mike to plot some "fancy looking 
graphs" which would have shown some amazing amount of X-talks between < 
non-neighbouring > capsules - explaining why the microphone was supposed 
to sound quite badly. (in listening tests. Double-blind, comparing to 
5.1 mikes and old quad recordings...Especially the quad recordings 
didn't show any significant < non-neighbouring > X-talk!)


After all, the 22.2 mike prototype didn't sound too bad. I couldn't 
prove my theory and had to stop this project...


This happens if practice doesn't comply w/ theory... I couldn't publish 
some paper, because some practical application should not have worked - 
and yet did!


Not good...  :-D

< Irony off >

Best,

Stefan





On 10 January 2017 at 23:19, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:

 


Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:23:47PM +, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
   



 


If you use amplitude panning between more than 2 (2D) or 3 (3D/VBAP)
speakers, you could run into some trouble. Including X-talk between
more than 2 speakers in the horizont. plain... (same phantom source)

This might lead to quite messy ITD and ILD problems.

So I believe it could make a lot of sense to apply amplitude panning
to the exact minimum amount of speakers you would need to produce
some phantom image effect. Which means 2 speakers in the 2D case, 3
in the 3D case.


   


This was actually proven wrong long ago, and it is what Ambisonic
decoding gets right.

 


Nice, because I didn't reproduce anthing and just made up my own little
theory about "minimum neighbour number amplitude panning". (MNNAP.)

Stefan

P.S.:

It's really similar to what happens if you interpolate between
   


samples using only the two nearest ones.

 


Two , see above!   ;-)
Not 1, not 5...


___
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.