Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Eric Benjamin
Rober Greene wrote: > There was a method developed by Finsterle Tell us more about it.  Is the method described elsewhere?  Is it embodied in a device, or software?  Who is Finsterle? Eric - Original Message From: Robert Greene To: Surround Sound discussion group Sent: Sat, July 9

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Jörn Nettingsmeier
On 07/10/2011 12:32 AM, dw wrote: I was thinking more of recording in mono, computing the vectors in various bands from the output of some large microphone array and then encoding (the mono sound) into the required number of spherical harmonics. i don't think that's possible. imagine two simila

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

2011-07-10 Thread Michael Chapman
"Fons Adriaensen" wrote on Sat, July 9, 2011 at 10:55 pm >> ppps How are higher-order microphones coming aloing these days, or are >> we still happy truncating the infinite series at one order above an >> omni? > > There are none ATM that can produce full frequency range higher order, > and I dou

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Jörn Nettingsmeier
On 07/10/2011 03:41 AM, Marc Lavallée wrote: I'm waiting for a pair of very directional speakers that should (hopefully) help me enjoy conventional stereo. then the manger might be for you: http://manger-msw.de/index.php?language=en this is a speaker that has been optimized for very good impul

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Fons Adriaensen
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:41:04PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote: > If you could help me understand spherical harmonics, I'd be a "MAG > fanboy" in no time. The best didactic resource I found is a very > strange article titled "Notes on Basic Ideas of Spherical Harmonics". > It's so good that I bare

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread dw
On 10/07/2011 09:00, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: On 07/10/2011 12:32 AM, dw wrote: I was thinking more of recording in mono, computing the vectors in various bands from the output of some large microphone array and then encoding (the mono sound) into the required number of spherical harmonics. i

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

2011-07-10 Thread Fons Adriaensen
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 08:26:03AM -, Michael Chapman wrote: > "Fons Adriaensen" wrote > on Sat, July 9, 2011 at 10:55 pm > > >> ppps How are higher-order microphones coming aloing these days, or are > >> we still happy truncating the infinite series at one order above an > >> omni? > > > > T

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Fons Adriaensen
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:10:49AM +0100, dw wrote: > Any microphone capable of separating two sound sources MUST be large in > terms of wavelengths (similar to the diffraction limit for telescopes) > The soundfield microphone cannot separate two or more sound sources at > _any_ frequency for

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread dw
On 10/07/2011 11:02, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:10:49AM +0100, dw wrote: Any microphone capable of separating two sound sources MUST be large in terms of wavelengths (similar to the diffraction limit for telescopes) The soundfield microphone cannot separate two or more

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

2011-07-10 Thread umashankar mantravadi
se some of the problems we have at > LF with e.g. the eigenmike. But it requires 64 channels... > > Ciao, > > -- > FA > > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailma

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Fons Adriaensen
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:49:49AM +0100, dw wrote: > You snipped the context. > > "i don't think that's possible. imagine two similar instruments, one at > 0° and the other at 180°. once recorded in mono, they will be fused > together irrevocably. you won't be able to separate them with the h

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

2011-07-10 Thread Fons Adriaensen
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 04:29:46PM +0530, umashankar mantravadi wrote: > > just a thought (please shoot me down if i am talking air). all the > microphones we currently use (except for some cell phone microphones, > according to the patents) are first order microphones the patterns just a > com

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Robert Greene
Is this the one you mean(the "strange article")? http://www.regonaudio.com/SphericalHarmonics.pdf I wrote it myself! I surely did not mean for it to be strange at all. But the idea is intrinsically a bit complicated. What one is really doing is developing ad hoc eigenfunctions of the Laplacian

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Marc Lavallée
Jörn Nettingsmeier a écrit : > On 07/10/2011 03:41 AM, Marc Lavallée wrote: > > I'm waiting for a pair of > > very directional speakers that should (hopefully) help me enjoy > > conventional stereo. > > then the manger might be for you: > http://manger-msw.de/index.php?language=en > > this is a

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Marc Lavallée
Robert Greene a écrit : > Is this the one you mean(the "strange article")? > > http://www.regonaudio.com/SphericalHarmonics.pdf Yes! :) > I wrote it myself! > I surely did not mean for it to be strange at all. > But the idea is intrinsically a bit complicated. > What one is really doing is dev

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Ralph Glasgal
next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110710/286b6ae2/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailm

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Stefan Schreiber
ect about this. ;-) I don't want to annoy anybody or you, but don't explain acoustics via square waves... Best, Stefan -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110710/6c9

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Fons Adriaensen
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 05:44:50PM +0100, Stefan Schreiber wrote: > As a violinist, my choice would be the sawtooth wave, just for > demonstrational purposes. Which has the same problems (infinite bandwidth etc.) But yes, as a violinist it would probably hurt your ears less... Ciao, -- FA _

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Marc Lavallée
Stefan Schreiber a écrit : > I don't want to annoy anybody or you, but don't explain acoustics via > square waves... I think that square waves is a good choice because of the amount of resolution required, and because of their harmonic distribution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6crWlxKB_E ht

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Stefan Schreiber
-- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110710/65aef2ea/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Stefan Schreiber
is about electronics. Full stop. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110710/288b5990/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Su

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Marc Lavallée
Stefan Schreiber a écrit : > Now come on, a square wave is not about music! Iannis Xenakis would not agree with you... -- Marc ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Stefan Schreiber
, Stefan -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110710/90a6b180/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread dw
On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote: If you can't reproduce full horizontal 360º surround via two front speakers, then the "binaural via two loudspeakers" approach doesn't work, and there is no solution to reproduce "3D sound" in this way. (Your colleague Choueiri claims this on the

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Marc Lavallée
dw a écrit : > On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote: > > > > > > If you can't reproduce full horizontal 360º surround via two front > > speakers, then the "binaural via two loudspeakers" approach doesn't > > work, and there is no solution to reproduce "3D sound" in this way. > > (Your c

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread dw
On 10/07/2011 19:36, Marc Lavallée wrote: dw a écrit : On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote: If you can't reproduce full horizontal 360º surround via two front speakers, then the "binaural via two loudspeakers" approach doesn't work, and there is no solution to reproduce "3D sound" in

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread dw
This one is vaguely in-head rather than down, and also well-out-of head. I am doing these with the my public domain 'stereo' filter, which is not ideal for this. I have deleted my stuff as I am turning my back on audio for another decade after I tidy up some loose ends. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Jörn Nettingsmeier
On 07/10/2011 06:14 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote: Jörn Nettingsmeier a écrit : and don't mind around 10% THD in the low frequencies (which is not as bad as it sounds, but also not as good as manger make it sound), oops, this is bogus. THD means "total harmonic distortion", so it makes no sense to

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

2011-07-10 Thread Jörn Nettingsmeier
On 07/10/2011 12:59 PM, umashankar mantravadi wrote: just a thought (please shoot me down if i am talking air). all the microphones we currently use (except for some cell phone microphones, according to the patents) are first order microphones the patterns just a combination of omni and figure o

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Ralph Glasgal
scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110710/045f7811/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Stefan Schreiber
Ralph Glasgal wrote: Thanks Stefan. The very bottom remarks are really about previous posts. In theory it is possible to do full periphonic sound via two somethings (maybe not looudspeakers as we know them). Choueiri believes he can come close to this by using laser-like loudspeakers, preci

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Stefan Schreiber
Hello Marc... I don't get access to the (dropbox) file. Error (404) We can't find the page you're looking for. Is this because I am not based in the USA? Best, Stefan Marc Lavallée wrote: dw a écrit : On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote: If you can't reproduce

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Marc Lavallée
Stefan Schreiber a écrit : > Hello Marc... > > I don't get access to the (dropbox) file. > > > > > Error (404) > > > > We can't find the page you're looking for. It's not my DropBox, it's David's. He probably removed the file. I get the same error. His last message was : "I have deleted my

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Robert Greene
No speaker requires a "fast" amplifier, whatever that means. ALL amplifiers that are not defective are far faster in any reasonable sense than any speaker is. Some amps have a tiny roll off of the extreme top on account of output networks or the like. But really this is a nonissue for any serious

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Marc Lavallée
You can read the propaganda from Mangler about the "required" rise time of an amplifier: http://www.manger-audio.co.uk/products.htm Robert Greene a écrit : > No speaker requires a "fast" amplifier, > whatever that means. ALL amplifiers that > are not defective are far faster in any reasonable

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Bearcat M. Şandor
On 07/10/2011 11:10 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote: > To clarify a few basic things: > > The first poster in this thread (and obviously some other people who > maybe should have known better) are claiming that you could receive a > 360º representation via just two (supposedly narrow) front speakers.

Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound

2011-07-10 Thread Marc Lavallée
Jörn Nettingsmeier a écrit : > have you seen jerome daniel's "experimenter's corner"? I tried to read the beginning of his doctoral thesis; because it's in French, I though it would be easier to understand than the vast majority of papers in English, but I was wrong because the common language