Re: [Sursound] Study Comparing Ambisonic and Channel Based Systems

thanks Ralph and Augustine for input on the tangential query, and Michael for posting the original question... taken together, there are plenty of useful suggestions, cheers! On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 3:53 AM Michael Bevers wrote: > Thanks for the reply, Pierre! Sounds like I have some more

Re: [Sursound] Study Comparing Ambisonic and Channel Based Systems

> You should consider Ambiophonics. well, not sure it would integrate with my workflow, primarily using Nuendo and Max right now. With four speakers and 4.0 media such as > Dolby Atmos or Auro3D or B format, you can have a full circle of direct > sound in the horizontal plane. > Have zero

Re: [Sursound] Study Comparing Ambisonic and Channel Based Systems

Reading above, curious then, for those of us who don't have the luxury of working with 24 channels plus, what is the best way to utilise 8 speakers such that one can produce with a larger array in mind? (or at least approach an approximation of how it might sound). How to approach monitoring

Re: [Sursound] Rode - A/B Format trademark?

://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/4/EU005348602 Interestingly, Nimbus Records had trademarked Ambisonic but it's now dead: https://ipo.gov.uk/trademark/history/GB501500177.pdf On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 6:42 PM Paul Hodges wrote: > --On 15 September 2018 18:25 +0100 Phi Shu wr

[Sursound] Rode - A/B Format trademark?

Noticed Rode are using a little 'TM' now as in A-Format™, B-Format™ see in the specs for the Soundfield plug-in: https://www.rode.com/soundfieldplugin#footer_download Surely not something that can be granted considering the terms have been widely used for decades? -- next part

Re: [Sursound] Looking for mic advice

Buy a second order if you can afford it, also, not sure about Tetramic, but the Bramha standalone had real issues with radio frequency interference, shielding was horrendous, doing soundscape recordings in an urban setting was often impossible if a phone mast, radio transmitter etc, was anywhere

Re: [Sursound] Sound Based Composition(surround)

> I have a close family member who is a Professor of physics - she tells me > it is quite common for students to signifiy they wish to do a PhD without > knowing the exact area they will be studying - it is the dpartment that > tells them what their PhD thesis will be on - and oft

Re: [Sursound] Sound Based Composition(surround)

8, 2017 at 6:42 AM, David Pickett <d...@fugato.com> wrote: > At 20:06 17-08-17, Phi Shu wrote: > > >Just curious, why do you want to do a PhD at all? are you planning on > being > >an academic? > > It is a relatively recent requirement of academics that they hold a Ph

Re: [Sursound] Sound Based Composition(surround)

> > "No-one would deny that many of the greatest artists of our time made huge > progress and developments in the arts - but often would write nothing at > all about their work." how many of the "greatest artists of our time" bothered doing a PhD? Artists electing to do a PhD is a relatively

Re: [Sursound] Sound Based Composition(surround)

true that International Art English (IAE) is problematic, at the same time there is an awful lot of sound/music/whatever based work that suffers from over dependence on spectacle and technical contrivance, a lot it is really

Re: [Sursound] Sound Based Composition(surround)

Just curious, why do you want to do a PhD at all? are you planning on being an academic? Also, you seem to be in a muddle with all the labels and text book definitions you are citing. The whole sound versus music thing (be it sonic arts, sound art, electroacoustic music, acousmatic music etc.

Re: [Sursound] [allowed] Speaker numbering

e of two Quad II valve amps, > in my case at York). This leads almost automatically to going left-right, > left-right, left-right, left-right from front to back. > > Dave > > > On 18 November 2016 at 16:24, Phi Shu <phi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > an

Re: [Sursound] [allowed] Speaker numbering

and that's probably why there is no "standard," all the well known large arrays use proprietary systems. In contrast, so called loudspeaker orchestras - originally intended for diffusing stereo works - tend to apply the rationale of having multiple stereo pairs - mapped directly to individual

Re: [Sursound] Speaker numbering

meant 1 2 83 74 6 5 in second example. On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:20 PM, Phi Shu <phi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >1 2 > 3 4 > 5 6 >7 8 > > this is generally treated as 4 stereo pairs, not a circle of eight, hence >

Re: [Sursound] Speaker numbering

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 this is generally treated as 4 stereo pairs, not a circle of eight, hence the numbering, left odd, right even. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 this kind of numbering I would generally use for a front center configuration but as follows: 1 2

Re: [Sursound] Decode options for WX only

Thanks to everyone for the input here...very useful I can confirm that it was an original ST250 with the supplied control unit, the switch "B" was not disengaged at any point, and yes there was no evidence of signal on the YZ channels until right before it decided to start working again; with

[Sursound] Decode options for WX only

I've been editing some old B-Format field recordings, one of which was made in a very humid climate where there were issues with the mic (ST250); such that two channels dropped out completely for some the session. For those sections what I'm left with is a W & X feed. Running these through a