Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Daniel Courville]

Le 2012-07-10 08:53, Garth Paine a écrit :

>So I guess as you suggest I could use one instance of Harpex for my main
>horizontal layout and then another instance with 2 or more shotguns
>raised in elevation to manage the height, depending on the available
>speakers

Certainly worth a try!

- Daniel


>On Jul 10, 2012, at 6:26 AM, Daniel Courville wrote:
>
>>Le 2012-07-09 09:17, GP a écrit :
>>>I did wonder about using Daniel Courville's plugins to do decoding for
>>>the height info separate to HARPEX. The HARPEX decoding does sound good
>>>(
>>>how can I confirm it is 3rd order over 8 speakers?) and so if I could
>>>add
>>>height using another approach that would be good. I need to look at how
>>>to get height only from Daniel's plugs.
>>The Harpex-B has a shotgun output mode with three presets for 3D:
>>Octahedron, 3D 7.0 and Cube. You can use them or build your own 3D
>>decoder
>>with virtual shotguns (eight maximum) to accommodate an ad hoc
>>installation.



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

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Garth Paine]

ahh thanks Daniel I had not seen that.  Would be cool if the speaker layout GUI 
could be rotated so one could see the 3D layout more clearly.  So I guess as 
you suggest I could use one instance of Harpex for my main horizontal layout 
and then another instance with 2 or more shotguns raised in elevation to manage 
the height, depending on the available speakers

Cheers,
Garth Paine
ga...@activatedspace.com



On Jul 10, 2012, at 6:26 AM, Daniel Courville wrote:

> Le 2012-07-09 09:17, GP a écrit :
> 
>> I did wonder about using Daniel Courville's plugins to do decoding for
>> the height info separate to HARPEX. The HARPEX decoding does sound good (
>> how can I confirm it is 3rd order over 8 speakers?) and so if I could add
>> height using another approach that would be good. I need to look at how
>> to get height only from Daniel's plugs.
> 
> The Harpex-B has a shotgun output mode with three presets for 3D:
> Octahedron, 3D 7.0 and Cube. You can use them or build your own 3D decoder
> with virtual shotguns (eight maximum) to accommodate an ad hoc
> installation.
> 
> - Daniel
> 
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

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

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

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 07/09/2012 03:17 PM, GP wrote:

I did wonder about using Daniel Courville's plugins to do decoding
for the height info separate to HARPEX. The HARPEX decoding does
sound good ( how can I confirm it is 3rd order over 8 speakers?) and
so if I could add height using another approach that would be good. I
need to look at how to get height only from Daniel's plugs.


well, if you have an upper front and an upper rear speaker, you can use 
UF = W + aX + bZ and UR = W - aX + bZ, with a and b chosen to taste.


which is pretty much what a virtual mic would do. or you can use a 
periphonic decoder which matches the position of your upper speakers 
well, and leave everything except the upper speakers unconnected.





--
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

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Dave Malham]

It's implied, but not really explicitly given in

'Ambisonics Encoding of Other Audio Formats for Multiple Listening Conditions' by Daniel, Jérome; 
Rault, Jean-Bernard; Polack, Jean-Dominique


AES Convention:105 (September 1998) Paper Number:4795.

I think there's a corrected version on Jerome's website.

 Dave

On 09/07/2012 22:11, Eric Benjamin wrote:

Fons Adriaensen wrote:


for anything based on energy> vectors the angle between the speakers can't be
too big.

Is there a good reference for that important point?

Eric


- Original Message 
From: Fons Adriaensen 
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Sent: Mon, July 9, 2012 6:48:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:13:04PM +1000, GP wrote:


If the min is (N+1)².
Surely for 3rd order that is
(3+1)² = 16 speakers?

The minimum is (M + 1)^2 for 3D, and (2 * M) + 1 for 2D, but

- You better use at least on more,
- For 3D, the minimum is 8, even for first order. That is because
   the the equations above assume a systematic decoder, but a decoder
   should be systematic only at LF, and for anything based on energy
   vectors the angle between the speakers can't be too big.
   
Ciao,




--
 These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
/*/
/* Dave Malham   http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */
/* Music Research Centre */
/* Department of Music"http://music.york.ac.uk/";   */
/* The University of York  Phone 01904 322448*/
/* Heslington  Fax   01904 322450*/
/* York YO10 5DD */
/* UK   'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'   */
/*"http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/"; */
/*/



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

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Eric Benjamin]

Fons Adriaensen wrote:

> for anything based on energy> vectors the angle between the speakers can't be 
>too big. 

Is there a good reference for that important point?

Eric


- Original Message 
From: Fons Adriaensen 
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Sent: Mon, July 9, 2012 6:48:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:13:04PM +1000, GP wrote:

> If the min is (N+1)².  
> Surely for 3rd order that is 
> (3+1)² = 16 speakers?

The minimum is (M + 1)^2 for 3D, and (2 * M) + 1 for 2D, but

- You better use at least on more,
- For 3D, the minimum is 8, even for first order. That is because
  the the equations above assume a systematic decoder, but a decoder
  should be systematic only at LF, and for anything based on energy
  vectors the angle between the speakers can't be too big. 
  
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

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

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Daniel Courville]

Le 2012-07-09 09:17, GP a écrit :

>I did wonder about using Daniel Courville's plugins to do decoding for
>the height info separate to HARPEX. The HARPEX decoding does sound good (
>how can I confirm it is 3rd order over 8 speakers?) and so if I could add
>height using another approach that would be good. I need to look at how
>to get height only from Daniel's plugs.

The Harpex-B has a shotgun output mode with three presets for 3D:
Octahedron, 3D 7.0 and Cube. You can use them or build your own 3D decoder
with virtual shotguns (eight maximum) to accommodate an ad hoc
installation.

- Daniel


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

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Dave Malham]

Generally, over the years, I've reckoned on 2 * (M + 1) for horizontal rigs and 2 * (m + 1) * (m + 
1) for with height rigs, as practical, rather than theoretical, minima, at least for lower orders (m 
<= 3). The theoretical minima are, in my experience, incredibly unstable in practise, especially for 
first order (3 and 4 respectively).  Note that this is for regular arrays. If you have too many 
speakers, as others have pointed out, you run into problems with comb filtering, though the "spatial 
dithering" caused by local reflections and other inaccuracies in placement can ameliorate this. I 
keep meaning to try Angelo's idea of convolution with a short, exponentially decaying, noise burst 
to see if this helps - one of these days...


Dave



On 09/07/2012 14:50, Richard Furse wrote:

IMHO it depends on how you're generating your decoder - using a fairly
"evenly" spaced speaker layout that's roughly consistent with the order
means that all the matrices in the maths end up well-behaved if you do a
fairly simple matrix inversion. HOWEVER, it isn't obvious that this is the
best way to do things in general, and can break quite badly for irregular
rigs, e.g. if you have too few or many speakers for the order you're using,
or if your speakers aren't spread "evenly".

... so, if you're generating your decoder with relatively simple approaches
(e.g. lightly conditioned pseudo-inverse), you'll probably get best results
with a rig and order that are at least roughly in line in channel count. But
I consider this to be a limitation introduced by the decoder method, rather
than an intrinsic necessity. (Obviously, this is a lightly veiled plug for
the Rapture3D decoder ;-)

Best wishes,

--Richard


-Original Message-
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu]
On Behalf Of Augustine Leudar
Sent: 09 July 2012 12:32
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

I cant remember the formula off hand but it important ,I am told, to use
the correct number of speakers for the order you are using - so if you use
too many speakers for the order that can also muddy up the localisation.
Someone will enlighten us Im sure but is it :

  the order number + 1 squared ?

If thats correct you should use 9 speakers for second order ?
cheers,
Gus

On 9 July 2012 12:17, Garth Paine  wrote:


Hi everyone

I have been gathering lots of ambient field recordings in A-Format for a
few years using my SPS200 Soundfiled mike and a 788T.  I have experimented
with playback over an 8 channel circle, and also with 3 circles of 8 at
different heights (roof, 3M, 1M), and some other arrangements.  I am
currently working on 2 dance works where I want to use some of this
material and also spatialise other synthesized material.  I have 8 Meyer
UPJ-1 to use in the space and may be able to get 2 more for height (not
certain adn these may not be available at all venues).

I would like to achieve better localization than I have found easy to do
using lower order playback and wonder if it is possible to undertake

higher

order playback with only 8 speakers?  ALso would it make sense to have the
speakers in the circle at different heights - would that allow a hint of
the height information (I would tell the plugin where they are), or just
distort the render?

Thanks in advance for your advice

Cheers,
Garth Paine
ga...@activatedspace.com


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


https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120709/011f
a78f/attachment.html

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


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120709/0ff
7109a/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

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


--
 These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
/*/
/* Dave Malham   http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */
/* Music Research Centre */
/* Department of Music"http://music.york.ac.uk/";   */
/* The University of York  Phone 01904 322448*/
/* Heslington  Fax   01904 322450*/
/* York YO10 5DD */
/* UK   'Ambisonics 

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Richard Furse]

IMHO it depends on how you're generating your decoder - using a fairly
"evenly" spaced speaker layout that's roughly consistent with the order
means that all the matrices in the maths end up well-behaved if you do a
fairly simple matrix inversion. HOWEVER, it isn't obvious that this is the
best way to do things in general, and can break quite badly for irregular
rigs, e.g. if you have too few or many speakers for the order you're using,
or if your speakers aren't spread "evenly".

... so, if you're generating your decoder with relatively simple approaches
(e.g. lightly conditioned pseudo-inverse), you'll probably get best results
with a rig and order that are at least roughly in line in channel count. But
I consider this to be a limitation introduced by the decoder method, rather
than an intrinsic necessity. (Obviously, this is a lightly veiled plug for
the Rapture3D decoder ;-)

Best wishes,

--Richard


-Original Message-
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu]
On Behalf Of Augustine Leudar
Sent: 09 July 2012 12:32
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

I cant remember the formula off hand but it important ,I am told, to use
the correct number of speakers for the order you are using - so if you use
too many speakers for the order that can also muddy up the localisation.
Someone will enlighten us Im sure but is it :

 the order number + 1 squared ?

If thats correct you should use 9 speakers for second order ?
cheers,
Gus

On 9 July 2012 12:17, Garth Paine  wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> I have been gathering lots of ambient field recordings in A-Format for a
> few years using my SPS200 Soundfiled mike and a 788T.  I have experimented
> with playback over an 8 channel circle, and also with 3 circles of 8 at
> different heights (roof, 3M, 1M), and some other arrangements.  I am
> currently working on 2 dance works where I want to use some of this
> material and also spatialise other synthesized material.  I have 8 Meyer
> UPJ-1 to use in the space and may be able to get 2 more for height (not
> certain adn these may not be available at all venues).
>
> I would like to achieve better localization than I have found easy to do
> using lower order playback and wonder if it is possible to undertake
higher
> order playback with only 8 speakers?  ALso would it make sense to have the
> speakers in the circle at different heights - would that allow a hint of
> the height information (I would tell the plugin where they are), or just
> distort the render?
>
> Thanks in advance for your advice
>
> Cheers,
> Garth Paine
> ga...@activatedspace.com
>
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
>
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120709/011f
a78f/attachment.html
> >
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120709/0ff
7109a/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

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

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Michael Chapman]

> Thank for all this guidance.
>
> If the min is (N+1)².
> Surely for 3rd order that is
> (3+1)² = 16 speakers?
>
> This is what has been confusing me as I see reports of third order over 8
> speakers which seems to go against the rules.
>
> Cheers Garth

Eight 'is' a cube, the classic first order periphony.
(I say 'is' as you can arrange eight in an infinite number of ways ;-)>

(It is also a classic pantophonic ring ... which may explain the "reports"?)

You have to face two other problems:

1) The number of symmetric solids with (n+1)^2 faces or vertices
is fairly limited.
You can depart from them, but it gets trickier.

2) Once you pass first order, you have to start (and I hyperbolise)
digging holes in the floor, placing sound-transparent floors, placing
overhead loudspeakers ...
You can go for domes (hemispheres), but that rather leaves the
original question behind.

One compromise is to have two (or three) rings of loudspeakers.
A cube is one such (and a 'perfect' solution for first order).

Rings are practical to install.
One argument in their favour is that vertical information is
not 'as great' (a symphony orchestra has a wide soundstage,
but not a very high one).
The counter-argument is that, for a symphony orchestra, as
the vertical differences are smaller, they need higher precision
to catch the nuances ...

A good point to discuss in a bar ... but for most people (I
suspect) the mechanical problems of placing speakers are
decisive.

Not sure these musings take you much further ...

Michael



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

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:13:04PM +1000, GP wrote:

> If the min is (N+1)².  
> Surely for 3rd order that is 
> (3+1)² = 16 speakers?

The minimum is (M + 1)^2 for 3D, and (2 * M) + 1 for 2D, but

- You better use at least on more,
- For 3D, the minimum is 8, even for first order. That is because
  the the equations above assume a systematic decoder, but a decoder
  should be systematic only at LF, and for anything based on energy
  vectors the angle between the speakers can't be too big. 
  
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

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[GP]

I did wonder about using Daniel Courville's plugins to do decoding for the 
height info separate to HARPEX. The HARPEX decoding does sound good ( how can I 
confirm it is 3rd order over 8 speakers?) and so if I could add height using 
another approach that would be good. I need to look at how to get height only 
from Daniel's plugs. 

Cheers Garth
Sent on the Move

On 09/07/2012, at 22:03, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:

> On 07/09/2012 01:57 PM, Garth Paine wrote:
>> Thanks for that feedback - I have HARPEX, but did not realise it does 
>> third-order horizontal?  One drawback with Harpex is it does not do height
> 
> you could do HARPEX on the 8 horizontal speakers, then take two virtual 
> microphones, aim them into the upper part of your first-order b-format, run 
> them through an allpass and maybe a bit of delay and mix the resulting 
> signals to the upper speakers, to taste. not the canonical method, i do 
> confess, but it will sound ok :)
> 
> -- 
> 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
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[GP]

Thank for all this guidance. 

If the min is (N+1)².  
Surely for 3rd order that is 
(3+1)² = 16 speakers?

This is what has been confusing me as I see reports of third order over 8 
speakers which seems to go against the rules. 

Cheers Garth
Sent on the Move

On 09/07/2012, at 22:07, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:

> On 07/09/2012 01:32 PM, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>> that is for 3d by the way but not sure ... anyone ?
> 
> 
> there are no hard upper limits. the absolute lower limit is (N+1)².
> 
> in horizontal layouts, i find 8 too much for first order, and 12 too much for 
> third order. the issue is that additional speakers will create a more 
> prominent phasing pattern. which might not be an issue if the audience is 
> seated, but for walk-around environments, it's something to keep in mind.
> 
> another (useless) datapoint: two rings of 18 and five in the ceiling is too 
> much for third order periphonic :-D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 07/09/2012 01:32 PM, Augustine Leudar wrote:

that is for 3d by the way but not sure ... anyone ?



there are no hard upper limits. the absolute lower limit is (N+1)².

in horizontal layouts, i find 8 too much for first order, and 12 too 
much for third order. the issue is that additional speakers will create 
a more prominent phasing pattern. which might not be an issue if the 
audience is seated, but for walk-around environments, it's something to 
keep in mind.


another (useless) datapoint: two rings of 18 and five in the ceiling is 
too much for third order periphonic :-D





--
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

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 07/09/2012 01:57 PM, Garth Paine wrote:

Thanks for that feedback - I have HARPEX, but did not realise it does 
third-order horizontal?  One drawback with Harpex is it does not do height


you could do HARPEX on the 8 horizontal speakers, then take two virtual 
microphones, aim them into the upper part of your first-order b-format, 
run them through an allpass and maybe a bit of delay and mix the 
resulting signals to the upper speakers, to taste. not the canonical 
method, i do confess, but it will sound ok :)


--
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

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Garth Paine]

Thanks for that feedback - I have HARPEX, but did not realise it does 
third-order horizontal?  One drawback with Harpex is it does not do height

Cheers

Garth

http://www.activatedspace.com
http://www.syncsonics.com



On 09/07/2012, at 9:27 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:

> On 07/09/2012 01:17 PM, Garth Paine wrote:
>> Hi everyone
>> 
>> I have been gathering lots of ambient field recordings in A-Format
>> for a few years using my SPS200 Soundfiled mike and a 788T.  I have
>> experimented with playback over an 8 channel circle, and also with 3
>> circles of 8 at different heights (roof, 3M, 1M), and some other
>> arrangements.  I am currently working on 2 dance works where I want
>> to use some of this material and also spatialise other synthesized
>> material.  I have 8 Meyer UPJ-1 to use in the space and may be able
>> to get 2 more for height (not certain adn these may not be available
>> at all venues).
> 
> try height, it will improve envelopment a lot, but don't expect any 
> meaningful height localisation with only two speakers up there.
> 
> here's my take on with-height surround:
> http://stackingdwarves.net/public_stuff/linux_audio/lac2012/day3_1000_The_why_and_how_of_with-height_surround_production_in_Ambisonics.ogv
> 
>> I would like to achieve better localization than I have found easy to
>> do using lower order playback and wonder if it is possible to
>> undertake higher order playback with only 8 speakers?
> 
> yes. an octogon will give you wonderful third-order horizontal, which will 
> provide very good localisation even for largish audiences, and very little 
> phasing.
> 
> to use your first-order recordings on an octogon, try the HARPEX decoder. 
> there's some content it chokes on, but generally the results are very good.
> 
>> ALso would it
>> make sense to have the speakers in the circle at different heights -
>> would that allow a hint of the height information (I would tell the
>> plugin where they are), or just distort the render?
> 
> it will just distort the rendering, and compromise the horizontal precision.
> 
> 
> best,
> 
> 
> jörn
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jörn Nettingsmeier
> Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
> 
> Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
> Tonmeister VDT
> 
> http://stackingdwarves.net
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

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

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Augustine Leudar]

that is for 3d by the way but not sure ... anyone ?


On 9 July 2012 12:31, Augustine Leudar  wrote:

> I cant remember the formula off hand but it important ,I am told, to use
> the correct number of speakers for the order you are using - so if you use
> too many speakers for the order that can also muddy up the localisation.
> Someone will enlighten us Im sure but is it :
>
>  the order number + 1 squared ?
>
> If thats correct you should use 9 speakers for second order ?
> cheers,
> Gus
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Augustine Leudar]

I cant remember the formula off hand but it important ,I am told, to use
the correct number of speakers for the order you are using - so if you use
too many speakers for the order that can also muddy up the localisation.
Someone will enlighten us Im sure but is it :

 the order number + 1 squared ?

If thats correct you should use 9 speakers for second order ?
cheers,
Gus

On 9 July 2012 12:17, Garth Paine  wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> I have been gathering lots of ambient field recordings in A-Format for a
> few years using my SPS200 Soundfiled mike and a 788T.  I have experimented
> with playback over an 8 channel circle, and also with 3 circles of 8 at
> different heights (roof, 3M, 1M), and some other arrangements.  I am
> currently working on 2 dance works where I want to use some of this
> material and also spatialise other synthesized material.  I have 8 Meyer
> UPJ-1 to use in the space and may be able to get 2 more for height (not
> certain adn these may not be available at all venues).
>
> I would like to achieve better localization than I have found easy to do
> using lower order playback and wonder if it is possible to undertake higher
> order playback with only 8 speakers?  ALso would it make sense to have the
> speakers in the circle at different heights - would that allow a hint of
> the height information (I would tell the plugin where they are), or just
> distort the render?
>
> Thanks in advance for your advice
>
> Cheers,
> Garth Paine
> ga...@activatedspace.com
>
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120709/011fa78f/attachment.html
> >
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 07/09/2012 01:17 PM, Garth Paine wrote:

Hi everyone

I have been gathering lots of ambient field recordings in A-Format
for a few years using my SPS200 Soundfiled mike and a 788T.  I have
experimented with playback over an 8 channel circle, and also with 3
circles of 8 at different heights (roof, 3M, 1M), and some other
arrangements.  I am currently working on 2 dance works where I want
to use some of this material and also spatialise other synthesized
material.  I have 8 Meyer UPJ-1 to use in the space and may be able
to get 2 more for height (not certain adn these may not be available
at all venues).


try height, it will improve envelopment a lot, but don't expect any 
meaningful height localisation with only two speakers up there.


here's my take on with-height surround:
http://stackingdwarves.net/public_stuff/linux_audio/lac2012/day3_1000_The_why_and_how_of_with-height_surround_production_in_Ambisonics.ogv


I would like to achieve better localization than I have found easy to
do using lower order playback and wonder if it is possible to
undertake higher order playback with only 8 speakers?


yes. an octogon will give you wonderful third-order horizontal, which 
will provide very good localisation even for largish audiences, and very 
little phasing.


to use your first-order recordings on an octogon, try the HARPEX 
decoder. there's some content it chokes on, but generally the results 
are very good.



ALso would it
make sense to have the speakers in the circle at different heights -
would that allow a hint of the height information (I would tell the
plugin where they are), or just distort the render?


it will just distort the rendering, and compromise the horizontal precision.


best,


jörn



--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487

Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT

http://stackingdwarves.net



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

Re: [Sursound] higher order ambisonics over 8 to 10 loudspeakers

[Garth Paine]

Hi everyone

I have been gathering lots of ambient field recordings in A-Format for a few 
years using my SPS200 Soundfiled mike and a 788T.  I have experimented with 
playback over an 8 channel circle, and also with 3 circles of 8 at different 
heights (roof, 3M, 1M), and some other arrangements.  I am currently working on 
2 dance works where I want to use some of this material and also spatialise 
other synthesized material.  I have 8 Meyer UPJ-1 to use in the space and may 
be able to get 2 more for height (not certain adn these may not be available at 
all venues).

I would like to achieve better localization than I have found easy to do using 
lower order playback and wonder if it is possible to undertake higher order 
playback with only 8 speakers?  ALso would it make sense to have the speakers 
in the circle at different heights - would that allow a hint of the height 
information (I would tell the plugin where they are), or just distort the 
render?

Thanks in advance for your advice 

Cheers,
Garth Paine
ga...@activatedspace.com


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

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