On 2010-11-05, Franz Zotter wrote:
I don't know how rigorous your "rE should be constant" constraint is.
I don't want to incite another war, but... rE and rV are just metrics
evaluated over the full sphere of directions. They could attain pretty
much any value given a certain speaker setup a
Hi,
On Friday 05 November 2010 07:12:03 f...@libero.it wrote:
> On the other hand, this is an issue if you use the hermitian transpose as an
> inverse, but the pseudo-inverse should solve the problem, I believe.
>
> This is what I know about loudspeaker arrangement, but I have no idea how
> thi
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 07:12:03AM +0100, f...@libero.it wrote:
> the icosahedron (faces) does not provide a uniform spherical sampling in the
> sense that the spherical harmonics are orthogonal (well spotted Dave!).
> If you look for example at my thesis p. 167 you can observe that with such
>
be all equal
(apart from the null-space of the pseudo inverse - i.e. S.V.=0, if you allow
me this lack of math. rigour...)
I hope this helps.
Greetings from SF
Filippo
>Message: 9
>Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 02:11:21 +0100
>From: f...@kokkinizita.net
>Subject: Re: [Sursound] Help !! -- Fo
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 01:20:40AM +0200, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> On 2010-11-04, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
>
> >But it should have been clear that the context was testing some
> >code supposed to produce a max-rE decode but failing to do so. The
> >question then is why not - is the code buggy or
On 2010-11-04, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
But it should have been clear that the context was testing some code
supposed to produce a max-rE decode but failing to do so. The question
then is why not - is the code buggy or are my expectations wrong (it
turned out to be the last).
And my tenta
On 2010-11-04, Peter Lennox wrote:
I love it when you egg-heads start talking dirty.
It's only dirty once you invoke the axiom of choice or somesuch vile
notion: http://xkcd.com/804/ . Apparently they now also have a site to
explain it: http://www.explainxkcd.com/2010/10/11/pumpkin-carving/
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 11:36:21PM +0200, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> On 2010-11-04, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
>
> >Seems you are completely out of touch with the context of this thread.
>
> That more than possible. But still, if you don't mind my asking, why
> be so harsh about it, all of a sudden
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf
Of Sampo Syreeni [de...@iki.fi]
Sent: 04 November 2010 21:36
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Help !! -- For AMB-decoding theory freaks only
On 2010-11-04, f...@kokkinizit
On 2010-11-04, d...@york.ac.uk wrote:
The interesting thing is, if I interpreted your earlier emails right,
that having _some_ portion of 3rd order is better than having none at
all.
Well, of course. Take for instance the 5.0 ITU setup, and try to imagine
*not* how you would approach it from
On 2010-11-04, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
Seems you are completely out of touch with the context of this thread.
That more than possible. But still, if you don't mind my asking, why be
so harsh about it, all of a sudden?
There's nothing 'naïve' about in-phase. It may look as something
fun
On Nov 4 2010, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
it turns out that the 3rd
degree spherical harmonics are neither normalised nor orthogonal
when summed over the set of directions corresponding to the faces
of an icosahedron (but lower degrees are). This is confirmed by
the set of singular values obtai
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 10:36:45PM +, d...@york.ac.uk wrote:
> I'm still not sure what is bothering me about this but I _think_
> it's something to do with the precise nature of the relationship
> between the symmetries in the icosahedron and the symmetries in the
> 3rd order spherical harmoni
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 01:08:21AM +0200, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> On 2010-11-03, d...@york.ac.uk wrote:
>
> >I'm still not sure what is bothering me about this but I _think_
> >it's something to do with the precise nature of the relationship
> >between the symmetries in the icosahedron and the symm
On 2010-11-03, d...@york.ac.uk wrote:
I'm still not sure what is bothering me about this but I _think_ it's
something to do with the precise nature of the relationship between
the symmetries in the icosahedron and the symmetries in the 3rd order
spherical harmonics.
Hmm. Why don't you first
I'm still not sure what is bothering me about this but I _think_ it's
something to do with the precise nature of the relationship between the
symmetries in the icosahedron and the symmetries in the 3rd order spherical
harmonics. The pictures you posted look like a spatial aliasing problem
but,
I'm pretty sure that the per order windowing functions aren't doing what
you're expecting with the non-axisymmetric beam patterns that mode-matching
decoding produces. I've seen people do this weighting before with decoding
using pinv (I think there's a recent paper by N. Epain from a 3rd order
ar
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 10:32:27AM -0700, Aaron Heller wrote:
> Fons... I assume what your doing is making a decoder with shelf gains
> given by Moreau and Daniel and then testing it numerically and not
> getting the expected value of rE.
Exactly.
> I have code to do that as well and
> will ta
Fons... I assume what your doing is making a decoder with shelf gains
given by Moreau and Daniel and then testing it numerically and not
getting the expected value of rE. I have code to do that as well and
will take a look it it after the AES Convention this weekend.
Aaron
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 a
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:12 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 04:07:40PM -0700, Eric Benjamin wrote:
>
>> I don't know how to compute the gain factors for 3rd order other than by
>> numerical methods. I'm aware that Moreau published the gains of (1.000,
>> .862,
>> .612, and .305) but I don'
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 11:02:12AM +, Dave Malham wrote:
> Something else - are you solving for face mounted or vertices mounted
> speakers?
There are 20 speakers, positions correspond to the faces of an
icosahedron or the vertices of a dodecahedron. 12 wouldn't work
for 3rd order, you need
Something else - are you solving for face mounted or vertices mounted speakers?
Dave
On 03/11/2010 09:40, Dave Malham wrote:
Hi Fons,
Have you any images of how the irregularity is distributed? There's something about the
icosahedron that's niggling at my brain but I can't qui
On 11/03/2010 12:07 AM, Eric Benjamin wrote:
Fons,
I don't know how to compute the gain factors for 3rd order other than by
numerical methods. I'm aware that Moreau published the gains of (1.000, .862,
.612, and .305) but I don't know if those are correct or if there was a general
solution publ
Hi Fons,
Have you any images of how the irregularity is distributed? There's something about the
icosahedron that's niggling at my brain but I can't quite put my finger on it, so I thought an image
might help
Dave
On 02/11/2010 22:51, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
Hello all,
For
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 04:07:40PM -0700, Eric Benjamin wrote:
> I don't know how to compute the gain factors for 3rd order other than by
> numerical methods. I'm aware that Moreau published the gains of (1.000,
> .862,
> .612, and .305) but I don't know if those are correct or if there was a
n?
Eric
- Original Message
From: "f...@kokkinizita.net"
To: Surround sound list
Sent: Tue, November 2, 2010 3:51:00 PM
Subject: [Sursound] Help !! -- For AMB-decoding theory freaks only
Hello all,
For most of the day and evening I've been trying to find the error
in s
Hello all,
For most of the day and evening I've been trying to find the error
in some of the code I use to compute AMB decoders and which has been
updated and extended recently. It fails on one of the test cases.
If
- I compute a systematic 3rd order decoder for a regular icosahedron,
using th
27 matches
Mail list logo
