On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 07:51:54PM +, d...@york.ac.uk wrote:
>I'm wondering if the phase anomalies could be employed in a
> positive fashion. Since, in this case, on the 6 pole designs at
> higher sample rates the problems are worst (or can be made to be
> worst) at the low end, maybe this
On 2011-01-18, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
1 degree phase error at 14 kHz corresponds to 0.067 mm at the speed
of sound. Are your pinnae that stable ?
Fons has it right, here. At HF, minute phase errors really, really don't
matter. At all.
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://d
On 2011-01-18, Geoffrey Barton wrote:
How do you justify that assertion?
The complex condition number of the UHJ encode/decode matrices tells at
least half of the story. It's not swell, but not abysmal either.
Phase shifts changing with frequency also translate into amplitude
errors when t
On 2011-01-17, Paul Hodges wrote:
With all this discussion of the accuracy of IIR-based encoders, where
does the use of convolution using (for instance) Angelo's impulses
stand - with respect to accuracy, and I guess also speed (it's fast
enough for me, being about 8x realtime at 44.1kHz on th
On 2011-01-17, d...@york.ac.uk wrote:
I'm wondering if the phase anomalies could be employed in a positive
fashion.
I was led to wonder about the same, but from a different direction. I
mean, how about trading total phase delay for differential phase delay,
like everybody did in the analog h
f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 05:53:01PM +, Geoffrey Barton wrote:
How do you justify that assertion?
How do you justify your assertion that phase errors of 1 degree are
OK but 4 degrees are not ?
Phase shifts changing with frequency also translate into
On 01/15/2011 07:26 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 01/15/2011 07:19 PM, d...@york.ac.uk wrote:
What I'd
be really interested in is if anyone has any code (Scilab, Octave or
even Matlab) to optimise the choice of poles
there used to be a graphical linux tool called polarbear, written by
m
Oops - that was an earlier set of measurements - it should be 4 degrees at
16 k, 12 degrees at 18 k and 40 degrees at 20kHz.
Dave
On Jan 18 2011, dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote:
On Jan 18 2011, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:49:00PM +, dave.mal...@york.ac.uk
On Jan 18 2011, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:49:00PM +, dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote:
At 44.1kHz, on the other hand, it's difficult to keep within the +-0.5
degree above 14kHz without the low frequencies going out of bounds
(that's a fudge factor of around 21) so
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:49:00PM +, dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote:
> At 44.1kHz, on the other hand, it's difficult to keep within the +-0.5
> degree above 14kHz without the low frequencies going out of bounds
> (that's a fudge factor of around 21) so I suspect that the
> symmetrical around fs
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 05:53:01PM +, Geoffrey Barton wrote:
> How do you justify that assertion?
How do you justify your assertion that phase errors of 1 degree are
OK but 4 degrees are not ?
> Phase shifts changing with frequency also translate into amplitude
> errors when the phase shifte
On Jan 17 2011, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2011-01-14, Dave Malham wrote:
D*mn, I'm just finishing off a (VST/AU) encoder myself using an IIR
filter set based on the analogue all pass filters in the original
Calrec unit (as designed by Geoffrey)- if I'd realised Fons had done
so already, I coul
On 18 Jan 2011, at 17:00, sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu wrote:
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:34:52 +0100
> From: f...@kokkinizita.net
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Available UHJ encoders?
> To: Surround Sound dis
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 09:56:50PM +, Paul Hodges wrote:
> With all this discussion of the accuracy of IIR-based encoders,
> where does the use of convolution using (for instance) Angelo's
> impulses stand - with respect to accuracy, and I guess also speed
> (it's fast enough for me, being abo
With all this discussion of the accuracy of IIR-based encoders, where does
the use of convolution using (for instance) Angelo's impulses stand - with
respect to accuracy, and I guess also speed (it's fast enough for me, being
about 8x realtime at 44.1kHz on the last processor I measured it on)?
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 08:46:04AM +, Geoffrey Barton wrote:
> UHJ needs all the help it can get, and the analogue design Dave referred to
> is 6 pole/zeroes in each of the 0 and 90 degree sections, designed for a
> phase ripple of <1degree 20~20k. Too much ripple gives blurring and
> mis-l
On 2011-01-14, Dave Malham wrote:
D*mn, I'm just finishing off a (VST/AU) encoder myself using an IIR
filter set based on the analogue all pass filters in the original
Calrec unit (as designed by Geoffrey)- if I'd realised Fons had done
so already, I could have nicked his code and saved myself
On Jan 17 2011, Geoffrey Barton wrote:
UHJ needs all the help it can get, and the analogue design Dave referred
to is 6 pole/zeroes in each of the 0 and 90 degree sections, designed for
a phase ripple of <1degree 20~20k. Too much ripple gives blurring and
mis-location in the images. IMHO 4 deg
>
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 19:44:05 +0100
> From: f...@kokkinizita.net
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Available UHJ encoders?
> To: Surround Sound discussion group
> Message-ID: <20110115184405.GA4117@zita2>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-asci
On Jan 15 2011, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
That means you are using the filter coefficients (_c1..._c4) as
computed by prepare() for 96 kHz also at 192 kHz. That won't work.
Try this as the input to prepare() for 192 kHz:
Yep, ran it at 96k first so the filters were initialized to that, then
At 7:03 PM -0500 1/15/11, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
Thanks! Any plans for updating the code to handle higher sample rates
Even at 192k, the lowest 2 octaves will only be slightly degraded.
No, I can't tell you exactly how much.
or to process/output undithered 32-bit float?
No. If
Thanks! Any plans for updating the code to handle higher sample rates or to
process/output undithered 32-bit float?
PS: are your SSP-1 still being built/sold?
Ronald
On 15 Jan 2011, at 14:13, Michael Dunn wrote:
> There's my clunky old Python version. Works well, if slowly, though these
> da
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 07:47:55PM +, d...@york.ac.uk wrote:
> For a 20Hz signal I'm getting -3 degrees error at 96kHz but -37
> degrees at 192kHz. Not done any sweeps yet, just spot measurements.
> If this is different from yours, it's probably something I've done
> in porting the code over
Hi Fons,
For a 20Hz signal I'm getting -3 degrees error at 96kHz but -37 degrees
at 192kHz. Not done any sweeps yet, just spot measurements. If this is
different from yours, it's probably something I've done in porting the code
over to a VST
Dave
On Jan 15 2011, f...@kokkinizit
There's my clunky old Python version. Works well, if slowly, though
these days, it should be fast enough!
http://www.cantares.on.ca/UHJenc.htm
Michael Dunn
Cantares Electronic Design and Consulting
Kitchener, ON, Canada
(519) 744-9395
inqu
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 06:19:33PM +, d...@york.ac.uk wrote:
> problem with Fon's code is that the filter poles are pre-optimised
> for a limited range of sample rates (44.1/88.2 and 48/96) and I'd
> like more even more choice.
192 kHz ???
> It shows a little bit more phase
> difference vari
On 01/15/2011 07:19 PM, d...@york.ac.uk wrote:
What I'd
be really interested in is if anyone has any code (Scilab, Octave or
even Matlab) to optimise the choice of poles
there used to be a graphical linux tool called polarbear, written by
maarten de boer, iirc. haven't tried to build it in
--
Saturday, January 15, 2011, 10:38:34 AM, Geoffrey wrote:
On 14 Jan 2011, at 17:00, sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu wrote:
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:52:17 +
From: Dave Malham
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Available UHJ encoders?
To
; DSP platform can implement z^-2 can be implemented at less than twice
> the cost of z^-1.
> Peter
>
> Saturday, January 15, 2011, 10:38:34 AM, Geoffrey wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2011, at 17:00, sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu wrote:
>>>
>>> Message: 7
>
an 2011 08:52:17 +0000
>> From: Dave Malham
>> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Available UHJ encoders?
>> To: Surround Sound discussion group
>> Message-ID: <4d300ec1.7080...@york.ac.uk>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>&g
On 14 Jan 2011, at 17:00, sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu wrote:
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:52:17 +
> From: Dave Malham
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Available UHJ encoders?
> To: Surround Sound discussion group
> Message-ID: <4d300ec1.7080...@york.ac.
On 14/01/2011 01:54, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
under linux, you can run jconvolver with the uhjenc plugin, sounds very good, but introduces 2048
samples of latency.
and fons has recently added an IIR-based uhj encoder to the AMB plugin set (with zero latency but
likely some compromises in so
On 01/13/2011 04:36 PM, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:
I like the way a tetramic recording sounds in UHJ stereo but my work
flow is not really convinient.
I have a windows commandline encoder for B-format to UHJ that I use,
but I have forgotten where I found it.
Do anyone have a pointer to a jack ena
I like the way a tetramic recording sounds in UHJ stereo but my work flow is
not really convinient.
I have a windows commandline encoder for B-format to UHJ that I use, but I have
forgotten where I found it.
Do anyone have a pointer to a jack enabled UHJ encoder, settings for VVMIC or a
VST
34 matches
Mail list logo
