I am curious about how the following paper fits into all this:
Arnaud Laborie, Remy Bruno, and Sebastien Montoya, "Reproducing
multichannel sound on any speaker layout," 118th AES Convention, Paper
#6375, 2005 May 28–31 Barcelona, Spain.
I know the authors are not addressing ambisonics - but
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 07:51:28PM -0800, Aaron Heller wrote:
> Good ideas. In fact, for the 3rd-order solution for the CCRMA array
> (352 parameters) I had to switch to a local optimizer, PRAXIS, with
> initial values from the pseudoinverse modified by the rE-max per order
> gains to get it to
Le 29 févr. 2012 à 23:51, Miguel Negrao a écrit :
>
>> Accuracy is required if the production and reproduction environments
>> are independent. If they are not there's a lot of headroom.
>
> Yes, my intended use is for real-time encode and decode on the spot. All the
> spatial information is st
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Aaron Heller wrote:
>> 22 speakers, 3rd-order is 352 parameters so some strategy
>> is needed to guide it.
>
> It wouldn't work for a 3D array of 22 speakers— but for an irregular
> layout with the same nu
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Aaron Heller wrote:
> 22 speakers, 3rd-order is 352 parameters so some strategy
> is needed to guide it.
It wouldn't work for a 3D array of 22 speakers— but for an irregular
layout with the same number of speakers as a regular one (easy in 2D,
fewer choices in 3D
The code that goes with the LAC2012 conference paper does 3D and
higher orders. In fact we used it to make a new 3rd-order Ambdec
config for CCRMA's 22 speaker array. Its written in MATLAB/Gnu
Octave, and it's not a lot of code. So plenty of opportunity for
tinkering with the goal functions.
O
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> Personally what I find a bit worrisome is that this sort of optimization
> retains the blackbox leanings of machine learning as a general discipline.
> None of the ambisonic specific, closed form optimization literature, or the
> derived spec
A 29/02/2012, às 21:24, Fons Adriaensen escreveu:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 08:55:05PM +, Miguel Negrao wrote:
>
>> Would an automated “blind" search algorithm possibly give worse
>> results then just using the equations for the symmetrical case ?
>> I know many people using ambisonics for e
ents to
be exported.
It's well worth a listen though, honest!
--Richard
-Original Message-
From: Richard Furse [mailto:rich...@muse440.com]
Sent: 29 February 2012 22:25
To: 'Surround Sound discussion group'
Subject: RE: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetrical
ustard
Ah, if only we could find some intelligence to apply to the problem.
Eric
- Original Message
From: Sampo Syreeni
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Sent: Wed, February 29, 2012 2:19:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetrical setups
On 2012-02-29
nt: 29 February 2012 13:16
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetrical setups
Hi list,
Ive been a bit disconnected from the ambisonics world. From my past reading
on this list it is my understanding that there isnt an explicit formula for
On 2012-02-29, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Would an automated “blind" search algorithm possibly
Speaking of that, you probably want to search the list archives for a
thread I started in 2009 titled:
"A stupid optimizer for irregular ambisonic layouts"
In it I provide the source for a simplistic
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Miguel Negrao
wrote:
> Would an automated “blind" search algorithm possibly
Speaking of that, you probably want to search the list archives for a
thread I started in 2009 titled:
"A stupid optimizer for irregular ambisonic layouts"
In it I provide the source for
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 08:55:05PM +, Miguel Negrao wrote:
> Would an automated “blind" search algorithm possibly give worse
> results then just using the equations for the symmetrical case ?
> I know many people using ambisonics for eletroacoustic music and
> I think all of them use the equa
ations as to which of several compromised solutions is
> better.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message
> From: Fons Adriaensen
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Sent: Wed, February 29, 2012 6:28:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetri
as to which of several compromised solutions is
> better.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message
> From: Fons Adriaensen
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Sent: Wed, February 29, 2012 6:28:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetric
ing indications as to which of several compromised solutions is
better.
Eric
- Original Message
From: Fons Adriaensen
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Sent: Wed, February 29, 2012 6:28:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Decoding coefficients for non symmetrical setups
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 01:15:4
Ah - I withdraw that about the Wigware decoders as the versions on Bruce's website are probably not
sufficiently flexible for your purposes, though the actual heuristic methodology probably is.
Dave
On 29/02/2012 14:47, Dave Malham wrote:
There's a third method - Bruce Wiggins' Heuristic al
There's a third method - Bruce Wiggins' Heuristic algorithm based methodology
(http://www2.derby.ac.uk/sparg-content/pdfs/bw_aes31_paper.pdf). This is, I believe, available in
his "Wigware" decoder plugins.There is also some work from China on genetic algorithm based design,
but I don't know wha
I think IRCAM Spat is doing that quite well.
I do not know what algorithm lies behind. Maybe Thibaut Carpentier I
sometimes see on this list could tell us something more about that...
Ciao
simonefontana
On 2/29/12 3:28 PM, "Fons Adriaensen" wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 01:15:40PM +, Migue
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 01:15:40PM +, Miguel Negrao wrote:
> I’ve been a bit disconnected from the ambisonics world. From my past reading
> on this list it is my understanding that there isn’t an explicit formula for
> decoding coefficients for non-symmetrical setups. Are there currently
>
Hi list,
I’ve been a bit disconnected from the ambisonics world. From my past reading on
this list it is my understanding that there isn’t an explicit formula for
decoding coefficients for non-symmetrical setups. Are there currently available
tools to generate decoding coefficients for non-symm
22 matches
Mail list logo
