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.
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
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
This is getting rather off-topic, but...
On 15 Apr 2012, at 23:02, Robert Greene wrote:
> This is very unlikely to be true, that one can justify
> getting a new TV to save electricity for the sake of the world.
> To save on your own bills will also take a very long time.
>
> People seldom do t
> can a tetrahedral mic be used to create a room (correction) impulse response
> in B format? and how?
Yes.
I can make a sensible attempt today for an Ambi rig spaced away from the walls
as the HiFi pundits and other gurus have mandated for years. This however has
near zero Wife Acceptance Fa
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 where one has to make sur
Hi,
Generally I totally agree with Ronald C.F. Antony and Robert Greene.
Ambisonics is useful and pleasing, even at first order. Until that
gets out of the starting blocks into more widespread use it will
remain a minority pursuit. I think all on this list would agree that
this is undesir
Robert Greene wrote:
I was not objecting to high order for production.
But it is never going to fly in playback terms.
Everyone takes for granted (I assume) that
people can and often do things to make recordings
that do not happen at the playback end.
(How many consumers know Protools?)
That wa
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
So who cares about bandwidth and storage? But even if these other issues were
moot, bandwidth and storage remain at a premium, because my iPad holds only
64GB, and the iPhone's music download over 3G or 4G has a rather hefty price
tag.
Yes, but your next iPad w
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 where one has to make sure the stereo version ends up on
the iPod, and the surround versio
Paul Hodges wrote:
--On 13 April 2012 03:08 +0100 Stefan Schreiber
wrote:
I am not sure that any form of surround will make it into the home,
I have quite a lot of commercial surround music recordings, on 5.1
media. However, because of my recording activities, my surround
reproduction e
vt.edu
> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 09:31:00 +
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
>
> > I've recorded with Tetramics and I've set up an HSD 3D system
>
> Mark, what is this HSD 3D system?
>
> Can it play Aaron's B-format recordings?
>
>
> I've recorded with Tetramics and I've set up an HSD 3D system
Mark, what is this HSD 3D system?
Can it play Aaron's B-format recordings?
If you have been following the BLaH series, what we've found is that hardly any
software decoders do plain FOA properly.
___
I tend to agree wi
I ain't objecting to HOA. I'd love to have a HOA system again for normal
listening; I /have/ heard it and agree it is good. But two things argue
against it: 1.) Cost for a home installation. Despite what I wrote in an
earlier message today, it was hard work to assemble even 8 /good/
speakers cheapl
On 13/04/2012 00:43, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
> The cardboard speakers that ship with affordable 5.1 systems are not suitable
> for music, and anything halfway acceptable is on a good sale at least
> $250/speaker, which means with four speakers you're at or above $1k, add a
> decent four chann
I do. I have two classic Ambisonic decoders, a old Meridian in the
sitting room, decoding to 5.1 speakers (the TV shares the speakers), and
an ancient Minim AD10-based system in my office with 4 good speakers
(soon to be extended to a 6-speaker hexagon array).
Both are horizontal-only, obviously;
On 13 Apr 2012, at 18:38, newme...@aol.com wrote:
> Beginning in the 1990s, the music industry tried to promote the *surround*
> (i.e. 5.1 style) special effect -- driven by the installed base of home
> theaters and DVD players, along with a preceived need to recapture the
> revenues being
Robert:
> Who would have predicted in 1975 the current state of things?
Many did exactly that. In particular, the reality of technology
increasing the productivity of manufacturing such that labor-arbitrage would
come to
dominate global trade and that the "post-industrial" economies woul
Being doctrinaire is really not a substitute for thinking.
Of course no reproduced music at home is going to be
identical to live experience. No one suggested
it was. But one could get closer.
And it is just silly to say "go to the performance".
The music played , even in major cities,
is a ver
Folks:
ALL reproduced music is a "special effect" -- if you wish to hear a
performance, as it was actually played, go to the performance.
MONO is a special effect.
STEREO is a special effect.
SURROUND is a special effect.
MP3 is a special effect.
None of them is a live performance.
I think that the idea that surround is not good enough
for music , good enough to matter, really does
not make sense. This is more or less like restricting
the idea of music to what works well enough in stereo
to be all right. But that is not all music, and indeed
for example it does not include
Could you explain to me this phrase:
> Amibsonics (i.e. FOA) is fabulous for AMBIENCE but, alas, not for MUSIC
> (due to the lack of frontal emphasis) and c'mon . . . we all know it.
For one, why would I want frontal emphasis? The whole point of Ambisonics is
that it does NOT have any emphasi
wme...@aol.com [newme...@aol.com]
Sent: 13 April 2012 16:09
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Ronald:
> Wrong. They would want it, if they ever heard it.
Sorry. I've heard surround and it's just not good enough to matter -- for
MUSIC.
I've heard
u.com/umashankar
> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:40:31 -0700
> From: gre...@math.ucla.edu
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
>
>
> I disagree with this. I suppose for some things like
> pop vocals that do not have a natural acoustic venue
&g
I disagree with this. I suppose for some things like
pop vocals that do not have a natural acoustic venue
surrounding them, surround is not helpful.
But for large scaled acoustic music like orchestral
music(which of course some people here would
dismiss as a niche market) it really does help
gene
I was not objecting to high order for production.
But it is never going to fly in playback terms.
Everyone takes for granted (I assume) that
people can and often do things to make recordings
that do not happen at the playback end.
(How many consumers know Protools?)
That was hardly the point.
Wh
Ronald:
> Wrong. They would want it, if they ever heard it.
Sorry. I've heard surround and it's just not good enough to matter -- for
MUSIC.
I've heard "Dark Side" and I've heard "Kind of Blue" . . . and most of the
rest of the SACD and DVD-A releases. Some are fabulous, some are not b
On 13 Apr 2012, at 15:31, newme...@aol.com wrote:
> Folks:
>
> Q: WHY would the average *music* listener want surround sound?
>
> A: They won't and, since this has already been tried (including with some
> of the best known artists of all times), no one in the MUSIC business will
> *ever*
On 13 Apr 2012, at 13:57, John Leonard wrote:
> A long time ago, I asked how many people on this list actually had any sort
> of surround systems, let alone properly set-up home-cinema 5.1 systems, in
> their homes and I think about three people said they did. I wonder how many
> there are no
Folks:
Q: WHY would the average *music* listener want surround sound?
A: They won't and, since this has already been tried (including with some
of the best known artists of all times), no one in the MUSIC business will
*ever* try it again.
Case closed.
MOVIE-watchers wanted surround
At 02:37 13/04/2012, Paul Hodges wrote:
Actually, I'd be interested to know how many people on this list
listen to surround recordings on a surround system for simple
pleasure, as opposed to in the lab or as part of specific
investigations of the process.
I try to do this; but it is not alwa
As my 'studio' is my spare room in our flat, I have decent set up where I can
use the surround set-up, which Ronald will be pleased to know uses five matched
loudspeakers, an LFE unit and has proper bass management, to listen for both
work and pleasure. I play my SACD recordings on an inexpensiv
On 13 Apr 2012, at 10:07, Jörn Nettingsmeier
wrote:
> On 04/13/2012 03:49 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
>>
>> While the mode of expression is even more emphatic
>> than my own, RCFA is to my mind right all up
>> and down the line. Talking about 3rd order is
>> just castles in the air. As a theoreti
On 13 Apr 2012, at 04:08, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
> Steven Dive wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> IMHO I can't see how FOA isn't clearly worth promoting along with up to
>> 3rd order G-format decodes for 5.1/7.1 setups for home users. Basically,
>> get UHJ and, while we are at it, superstereo into peopl
On 13/04/2012 03:08, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
..
If you promote G format, 99% would see and listen to this as a 5.1
surround file. (An 99% would listen to an UHJ as a "stereo file", cos
there are really very few decoders around. In fact, 5.1 seems to be way
more mainstream than decoded UHJ.)
On 13/04/2012 09:07, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 04/13/2012 03:49 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
While the mode of expression is even more emphatic
than my own, RCFA is to my mind right all up
and down the line. Talking about 3rd order is
just castles in the air. As a theoretical mathematician,
I sp
Me for one.
Steve
On 13 Apr 2012, at 08:37, Paul Hodges wrote:
Actually, I'd be interested to know how many people on this list
listen to surround recordings on a surround system for simple
pleasure, as opposed to in the lab or as part of specific
investigations of the process.
Paul
_
Is 5.1 better than any 2 channel can be? Surely a matter of taste and
experience. Certainly I have not heard all stereo and 5.1 recordings
ever made and, so far, no G-format material. My point is from my home
user perspective that superstereo and UHJ decoding is pretty easy
these days to in
On 04/13/2012 03:49 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
While the mode of expression is even more emphatic
than my own, RCFA is to my mind right all up
and down the line. Talking about 3rd order is
just castles in the air. As a theoretical mathematician,
I spend most of my life building castles in the air.
--On 13 April 2012 03:08 +0100 Stefan Schreiber
wrote:
I am not sure that any form of surround will make it into the home,
I have quite a lot of commercial surround music recordings, on 5.1 media.
However, because of my recording activities, my surround reproduction
equipment is tied to my
n't stop us from trying, or from
enjoying the results.
Eric
- Original Message
From: Robert Greene
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Sent: Thu, April 12, 2012 6:49:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
While the mode of expression is even more emphatic
than my ow
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
Technology hasn't moved on. 5.1 is 4.0 plus a crappy center speaker that has a totally different tonal quality and never blends with the other four lousy speakers, plus a subwoofer to make up for the fact that the other speakers are lousy. Four full-range speakers in
Steven Dive wrote:
IMHO I can't see how FOA isn't clearly worth promoting along with up
to 3rd order G-format decodes for 5.1/7.1 setups for home users.
Basically, get UHJ and, while we are at it, superstereo into people's
homes, then get on with full 1st and higher orders.
Steve
S
While the mode of expression is even more emphatic
than my own, RCFA is to my mind right all up
and down the line. Talking about 3rd order is
just castles in the air. As a theoretical mathematician,
I spend most of my life building castles in the air.
But one ought to know that that is what they
On 13 Apr 2012, at 00:53, Steven Dive wrote:
> IMHO I can't see how FOA isn't clearly worth promoting [...] Basically, get
> UHJ and, while we are at it, superstereo into people's homes, then get on
> with full 1st and higher orders.
Amen. Can't feed a baby with a steak.
Ronald
_
On 12 Apr 2012, at 23:05, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:47:04PM +0200, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
>> On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:27, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>>
>>> First order definitely isn't good enough. As long a you insist that
>>> one can't go up in order, just forget about
Meridian may be expensive, too, but at least they are sticking with
Ambisonics. Full horizontal 1st order B-format is now included in
their decoders, as well as UHJ, superstereo and Trifield. Oh, and I'm
a Meridian customer enjoying one of the few (only?) current domestic
ambisonic decoders
On 13/04/2012 12:13 AM, seva wrote:
but for me, i'd really like some tools to use in film mixing (even
with the distributed Ls and Rs speakers). anyone on the list care to
tell me what tools might be best, or "why it just won't work"? the
idea is to simply improve location and immersive aspects
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:47:04PM +0200, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:27, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
> > First order definitely isn't good enough. As long a you insist that
> > one can't go up in order, just forget about it all.
>
> Tell that Meridian, and all their customers
On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:27, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> First order definitely isn't good enough. As long a you insist that
> one can't go up in order, just forget about it all.
Tell that Meridian, and all their customers who have enjoyed immensely not only
listening to horizontal-only 1st order Amb
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:14:28PM +0200, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2012, at 02:25, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
> > 1. 3rd order .AMB format can be decoded to a 5.1 ITU/Dolby setup.
> > (Results would be clearly superior than a decoding from Ambionics
> > 1st order to 5.1 ITU. This is b
Sorry for the late answer, I was away for several days...
On 9 Apr 2012, at 02:25, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
> Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
>
>>
>> There was once a slim chance of getting Apple to move on Ambisonics, as both
>> some fundamental interest by some of Apple's CoreAudio group and relen
On 12/04/2012 18:31, Martin Leese wrote:
seva wrote:
...
but for me, i'd really like some tools to use in film mixing (even
with the distributed Ls and Rs speakers). anyone on the list care to
tell me what tools might be best, or "why it just won't work"? the
idea is to simply improve location
seva wrote:
...
> but for me, i'd really like some tools to use in film mixing (even
> with the distributed Ls and Rs speakers). anyone on the list care to
> tell me what tools might be best, or "why it just won't work"? the
> idea is to simply improve location and immersive aspects of film
> soun
yes indeed. perfect example.
and easily applied to gaming (i use that adjective with tongue
approaching cheek).
imagine the laser quest with HUD in a room, with virtual fighters,
and true sound placement around you. kids would (of all ages) pony up
large money for such an experience.
but for
tures] etc etc) 'front' would have less, if any,
>> relevance.
>> So, if that's right, stereo is predicated on quite a specialised musical
>> presentation.
>>
>> So, then, saying 'stereo is all you need' is a bit like saying 'you
eo is all you need' is a bit like saying 'you don't
need 4 wheel drive' - true, but in circumscribed circumstances.
Dr Peter Lennox
School of Technology
University of Derby, UK
tel: 01332 593155
e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk
-Original Message-
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [ma
Stefan/Robert/et al:
> Right on! Apple clearly wants to take over the world.
Not quite. Apple is in fact very pleased to be a *minority* market-share
holder -- as it is in everything except iTunes and iPads (for the moment)
-- just as long as it gets UNNATURAL margins from its products.
Right on! Apple clearly wants to take over the world.
They won't make it but they are surely giving it a try.
(And for a brief interval a while back , they
had more money than the US government).
Sometimes when you feel paranoid, someone really
is out to get you.
Robert
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, Stef
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
Again, it's FUD when people think Apple is needlessly proprietary. As
a matter of fact, when it comes to standards Apple does more to push
them than just about any other force in the market. Others push things
like Flash,
Think again of Blu-Ray (movie) support on
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
The problem is: who still needs hardware? Unless it's incorporated into
something like an Oppo DVD/BD player, which hooks up directly to a power amp,
the hardware of choice is something like an AppleTV that gets its data stream
from a computer server, i.e. iTunes.
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
The Ambisonic community keeps shooting itself in the foot, because they can't
accept that OK is better than nothing, and that once OK is the accepted
standard, one can then incrementally push for higher-order extensions to an
already existing infrastructure. Instead
newme...@aol.com wrote:
Ronald:
Whiz-bang demos won't make any difference, but
adoption by Apple's iTunes Store, or something like
that would make a difference.
Very interesting! Does iTunes currently support multi-channel audio
(other than on purchased movies)?
As best I can t
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
There was once a slim chance of getting Apple to move on Ambisonics, as both
some fundamental interest by some of Apple's CoreAudio group and relentless
lobbying by an unnamed list member in an unnamed Apple product beta test group
produced a slight opening of maybe
At some point of course, the new file format needs to be ratified (at
least as "version 1") so people can develop for it independently, safe
in the knowledge it won't change for a while. Are there any
representative downloadable examples anywhere?
Richard Dobson
On 04/04/2012 17:19, Michael
Thanks the correction.
Yes, the move was N3D _to_ SN3D.
Three years on from the original proposal and one on from
the improvements, hopefully this is stable ( ... unless there
any seismic improvemnts at York ???).
Michael
> The 2011 paper by Nachbar, et al, "ambiX - A Suggested Ambisonics
> F
The 2011 paper by Nachbar, et al, "ambiX - A Suggested Ambisonics
Format", specifies SN3D as the normalization scheme. (see eqn 3 in
section 2.1, "The normalization that seems most agreeable is SN3D...")
The papers are here
http://ambisonics.iem.at/proceedings-of-the-ambisonics-symposium-2011
>>
>>> Unless of course they publish a file format for it
>>
>> Want a minimal and purposely highly (even overtly) extensible one? That
>> I can design. In fact I've meant to do something like this from teenage
>> up. :)
>
> Please do!
>
A group of us proposed a CAF based file format at Graz
On 4 Apr 2012, at 01:13, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> Eric, could you tell us a little bit about the patent status of the CAF
> implementation within libsndfile? And while we're at it, what would be tha
> chance of getting some newer, purely open source format into the library, if
> coded by an out
On 04/04/2012 00:54, Marc Lavallée wrote:
The CAF format is not patented, but there are patented file formats
like GIF, ASF or PDF.
Ah yes, I suppose those are the exceptions that prove the rule.
The general issue arises when a file format pretends to be a container
format but in fact specif
On 04/04/2012 00:13, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
..
So why *not* do it, since it's really, really good even on the minimum
four speakers?
Good question. The answer is always given that first order is "not good
enough". The perfect really is the enemy of the good, or the better. You
could call it "
The CAF format is not patented, but there are patented file formats
like GIF, ASF or PDF.
Richard Dobson a écrit:
> On 04/04/2012 00:13, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> > On 2012-04-03, Richard Dobson wrote:
> >
> >> Well, we don't need to get hyper-paranoid about it. Apple have
> >> defined channel IDs
At 08:49 03/04/2012, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
>Frankly, I have ZERO interest in 2nd and higher-order Ambisonics,
>because anything beyond a 5.1/4.0 setup is impractical in any home
>listening environment for 90%+ of consumers, particularly if the
>speakers and amps are supposed to be of a qualit
On 04/04/2012 00:13, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2012-04-03, Richard Dobson wrote:
Well, we don't need to get hyper-paranoid about it. Apple have defined
channel IDs for WXYZ, which goes no further than make it possible to
create a 1st-order CAF file.
Agreed. And whatever ambisonic related patent
On 2012-04-03, Richard Dobson wrote:
Well, we don't need to get hyper-paranoid about it. Apple have defined
channel IDs for WXYZ, which goes no further than make it possible to
create a 1st-order CAF file.
Agreed. And whatever ambisonic related patents there are for first
order, they will ha
On 3 Apr 2012, at 22:15, Richard Dobson wrote:
> The Apple lossless codec was made open-source last year.
Some people might as: why was it not published earlier?
To that I'd answer:
- legal issues: a company like Apple has huge potential legal liabilities.
Before they release something like
On 3 Apr 2012, at 21:26, Rev Tony Newnham
wrote:
> What about "Apple lossless compression", Quicktime - and so on?
>
>> Apple has no history of pushing proprietary file formats, except for DRM.
Apple Lossless is fully published:
http://alac.macosforge.org/
It's reason to exist is that Appl
sic.vt.edu]
On
Behalf Of Ronald C.F. Antony
Sent: 03 April 2012 20:06
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Apple has no history of pushing proprietary file formats, except for DRM.
___
Sursound mailing lis
Well, we don't need to get hyper-paranoid about it. Apple have defined
channel IDs for WXYZ, which goes no further than make it possible to
create a 1st-order CAF file. CAF is not closed, the spec is fully open
and documented. It is supported in libsndfile (along with AMB), among
other things.
ssion group
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
>
>
> Apple has no history of pushing proprietary file formats, except for DRM.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
On 3 Apr 2012, at 18:03, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> I would fear an "applelization" of ambisonics. Apple could impose its
> own "ok" format (probably as a CAF "chunk" specification) with patents
> and lock-ins, because it's a common practice in the audio industry. Not
> everything in this world needs
I agree. My appeal for material to listen to
was not intended as a call to get Apple to take
over. The blood curdles.
Robert
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012, Marc Lavall?e wrote:
I would fear an "applelization" of ambisonics. Apple could impose its
own "ok" format (probably as a CAF "chunk" specification)
eter Lennox
School of Technology
University of Derby, UK
tel: 01332 593155
e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk
-Original Message-
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu]
On Behalf Of Dave Malham
Sent: 03 April 2012 09:49
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject
I would fear an "applelization" of ambisonics. Apple could impose its
own "ok" format (probably as a CAF "chunk" specification) with patents
and lock-ins, because it's a common practice in the audio industry. Not
everything in this world needs to be mainstream (but that's just my
opinion).
"Ronal
ing 'you don't
need 4 wheel drive' - true, but in circumscribed circumstances.
Dr Peter Lennox
School of Technology
University of Derby, UK
tel: 01332 593155
e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk
-Original Message-
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@musi
On 3 Apr 2012, at 16:52, newme...@aol.com wrote:
> Ronald:
>
>> Whiz-bang demos won't make any difference, but
>> adoption by Apple's iTunes Store, or something like
>> that would make a difference.
>
> Very interesting! Does iTunes currently support multi-channel audio
> (other than on pu
Ronald:
> Whiz-bang demos won't make any difference, but
> adoption by Apple's iTunes Store, or something like
> that would make a difference.
Very interesting! Does iTunes currently support multi-channel audio
(other than on purchased movies)?
As best I can tell, they do not. Why would
edu] On
Behalf Of Dave Malham
Sent: 03 April 2012 09:49
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
Hi Robert,
Umm - I was making exactly the opposite point - invented in the
16th century makes it, as far as music is concerned, a very new
concept. On the other
On 2 Apr 2012, at 23:48, newme...@aol.com wrote:
> No whiz-bang demos will make any difference! Ambisonics is what people
> are doing on this list and that's just as it should be -- PLAYING with
> *sound* with our friends!
Whiz-bang demos won't make any difference, but adoption by Apple's iT
Hi Robert,
Umm - I was making exactly the opposite point - invented in the
16th century makes it, as far as music is concerned, a very new
concept. On the other hand,when talking about "acoustic _concert_
music", it's almost tautologous that they are frontally presented,
because the whole conce
Ten days ago, I made an archive recording of Birmingham Opera's presentation of
Jonathan Dove's new work, Life Is A Dream at a disused factory: the orchestra
were in a fixed position, but the performers, including a 100-strong amateur
chorus, and the audience, moved around the space. I was very
Two weeks ago, I saw a performance of Répons by Boulez. It was a
canadian première, 30 years after its creation. The audience surrounded
the orchestra, and six percussion instruments surrounded the audience,
along with 6 speakers. It was happening in a very large room (an old
boat factory), so the
At 10:34 02/04/2012, Robert Greene wrote:
It may be old but it is still all but universal
in acoustic concert music.
I think it is disingenuous to say that it is not.
How many symphony concerts have you been to
recently where the orchestra surrounded the audience.
The other way around, sure.
But
Ronald:
> I tend to disagree, because there is a difference between technology and
content.
Ah but we AGREE! Sorry to be (partly) cliched here but consider the
*full* statement -- "the medium is the message . . . and the USER is the
content"!
That second part is almost always left off -
On 2 Apr 2012, at 20:53, newme...@aol.com wrote:
> But, in the context of this list and this thread, these "larger forces"
> must also be taken into account -- which, ultimately, lead to the perfectly
> understandable reasons why Ambisonics could never and should never become a
> "mass-mark
Robert:
> This sounds plausible except that it is clearly completely
> wrong. Hunger Games has grossed about one quarter billion
> dollars in a few weeks worldwide. Don't talk about small
> taking over!
But it has -- in the way that the NEW always "takes over" from the OLD by
*displacing* it
This sounds plausible except that it is clearly completely
wrong. Hunger Games has grossed about one quarter billion
dollars in a few weeks worldwide. Don't talk about small
taking over!
Small is there, all right. But large is still there, too.
Taylor Swift's Speak Now sold over a million in the
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
