On 10/16/2012 12:31 AM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:33:09PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
regardless of whether you consider a two-source phantom spectrum
good or bad, i guess we can agree a three-source one is wy
worse?
No. Why should that be ?
Theile always rep
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:33:09PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> regardless of whether you consider a two-source phantom spectrum
> good or bad, i guess we can agree a three-source one is wy
> worse?
No. Why should that be ?
Theile always repeats that we can handle two correlated sourc
On 10/12/2012 09:22 AM, Dave Malham wrote:
Some other interesting statements, for instance page 7, "Thus,
stationary-source elevation cannot practically be accomplished" -
it's been a while since i read that paper, but isn't that sentence
specifically about auro-3d?
the title seems to suggest
On 10/14/2012 09:45 AM, Richard Lee wrote:
well, depends. iirc, theile's argument is that a two-speaker
phantom source should be a mess in terms of spectrum, but isn't (as
two-speaker stereophony demonstrates). so for some reason, the
brain is able to sort it out. more than two correlated sources
This seems to me somewhat exaggerated(the remarks about stereo and the
center image). Sure, the center phantom image
generated as a sum of two identical L/R signals sounds a little different.
But little is the operative word. The correction for this fairly small
(Meridian used to have it up on
> well, depends. iirc, theile's argument is that a two-speaker phantom source
> should be a mess in terms of spectrum, but isn't (as two-speaker stereophony
> demonstrates). so for some reason, the brain is able to sort it out. more
> than two correlated sources, and things go awry, e.g. L/C/R
On 11 October 2012 21:34, Jörn Nettingsmeier
wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 09:09 AM, Dave Malham wrote:
>>
>> Some other interesting statements, for instance page 7, "Thus,
>> stationary-source elevation cannot practically be accomplished" -
>
>
> it's been a while since i read that paper, but isn't tha
On 10/11/2012 09:09 AM, Dave Malham wrote:
Hmm, just got round to looking at the Wittek/Thiele paper.
"Interesting" is right. I have the greatest of respect for both Helmut
and Gunther, but paper isn't really up to their normal, very high,
standards. Just two mentions of (higher order) Ambisonics
On 10/05/2012 03:40 PM, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:
As I visited the MPEG Symposium in Stockholm this summer and listened to the 3D
sound session I want to give a pointer to
http://www.auro-technologies.com/consumer/experience
There will be Titles released on the movies this autum using this tech
Hmm, just got round to looking at the Wittek/Thiele paper.
"Interesting" is right. I have the greatest of respect for both Helmut
and Gunther, but paper isn't really up to their normal, very high,
standards. Just two mentions of (higher order) Ambisonics and no
inclusion of it in the comparison tab
On 5 Oct 2012, at 15:40, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:
> As I visited the MPEG Symposium in Stockholm this summer and listened to the
> 3D sound session I want to give a pointer to
> http://www.auro-technologies.com/consumer/experience
There's also some interesting info about Auro3D on Helmut ("Schoe
As I visited the MPEG Symposium in Stockholm this summer and listened to the 3D
sound session I want to give a pointer to
http://www.auro-technologies.com/consumer/experience
There will be Titles released on the movies this autum using this technology
for 3D sound according to the presenter.
12 matches
Mail list logo
