Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
UHJ Stereo requires no special equipment, because primarily the majority of users can use it as stereo material. The same wasn't true for the 90s experiments, which required different, considerably more expensive media, and toying around with remotes and menu structure
The solution to establish any mass market for surround would be
obviously to look into better playback via headphones.
(binaural, 5.1, FOA, .AMB, etc.)
Listening via (4-x) speakers at home would be higher en.
Motion-compensated playback is possible nowadays. Many devices have
motion sensors.
Excellent! Most serious manufacturers seem to feel thatthe way to make an
inexpensive speaker is to take the top two thirds of a more expensiveone.
But of course it is a kind of convention of High End audio that
warmth and so on are really not importnat nor perhaps even desirable
Cf my guest ed
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
Did I say anything different? The thing is FOA sounds just fine with 4 speakers, and 4 decent speakers are a
lot more affordable than 6, 8, or more decent speakers. The way the world economy is going (stagnant wages
combined with inflation in the "rich" countries, a
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
and then there < might > be a few issues. (Mathematically-logically, it is
impossible to press 3 channels into 2. You will have some artefacts if presenting
surround sound in just 2-channels.)
The artefacts are not significant. They are certainly less of a
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
On 14 Apr 2012, at 16:47, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
UHJ is simple and convenient, because people can buy it as a regular stereo
track like the rest of the music. No pop-up with a choice: stereo or surround
version, no playlists whe
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120416/5d17d3be/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Robert Greene
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Why Ambisonics Didn't Become A Standard, OT:
> Spatial Music; Low Cost Speakers
> To: Surround Sound discussion group
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; f
Hi Richard,
As we announced at the conference, Ambisonia is well on the way to being resurrected, thanks to
the efforts of Oli Larkin, Marc Lavallée and Ettienne Deleflie. There's lots of fiddly details and
housekeeping to finish off, but...RSN
Dave
On 14/04/2012 10:31, Richard Le
I have to say I don't hear any bells ringing - and I'm (almost) from that era. Like Ronald said, a
scan of the passage might help...
Dave
On 15/04/2012 10:07, Gregorio Garcia Karman wrote:
Dear sursounders,
I found a reference in a musical text of the 1960s originated in the UK that ment
On 14/04/2012 18:23, Martin Leese wrote:
Somebody who was involved at the time (which I was not) would be better able to answer this.
Thatcher came to power in 1979. In 1981, the NRDC was merged into the British Technology Group. It
is true that development and promotion of Ambisonics was the
On 16 Apr 2012, at 04:12, David Pickett wrote:
> At 19:44 15/04/2012, Len Moskowitz wrote:
>
> A lot of stuff, with which I agree, plus:
>
>> Ronald Antony talked about the cost of good speakers being a barrier: " ...
>> and anything halfway acceptable is on a good sale at
>> least $250/speake
12 matches
Mail list logo
