Folks,
I've been reading up on the various proposals for 3D sound from a set of
stereo speakers. The 3D Audio Alliance is working on such a system.
Astound Surround is getting ready to market, Edward Choueiri is working
on the same idea (see:
http://www.studio360.org/2011/apr/29/adventures-3d-soun
There's loadsa good stuff being discussed here. If I can comment on just
one or two
> When listening to this through a speaker rig, we hear this boost and tend
to interpret it as meaning the sound is close especially in a dry acoustic
with a Greene-Lee head brace etc., etc.,. However, sur
My personal opinion:
a) 3D sound from 2 speakers
Rubbish. Unless energy is arriving from the general direction of the supposed
source, the best any system can do is present some psycho-acoustically
confusing cues that attempt to fool the brain, but sadly (for the 2-channel
snake-oil folk) the
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:19:15PM -0400, Neil Waterman wrote:
> My personal opinion:
>
> a) 3D sound from 2 speakers
> Rubbish. Unless energy is arriving from the general direction of the supposed
> source, the best any system can do is present some psycho-acoustically
> confusing cues that
On 08/07/2011 19:09, "Bearcat M. Şandor" wrote:
Folks,
I've been reading up on the various proposals for 3D sound from a set of
stereo speakers. The 3D Audio Alliance is working on such a system.
Astound Surround is getting ready to market, Edward Choueiri is working
on the same idea (see:
http:
On 7/8/2011 12:41 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:19:15PM -0400, Neil Waterman wrote:
My personal opinion:
a) 3D sound from 2 speakers
Rubbish. Unless energy is arriving from the general direction of the supposed
source, the best any system can do is present some psycho-
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:06:37PM -0600, Bearcat M. Sandor wrote:
> The ear canal is just a tube, so there's no
> directionality once the waves are in there.
"Once they are in there". Which is why you can make things
work with headphones plus head motion tracking.
When using speakers, the so
On 7/8/2011 2:40 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:06:37PM -0600, Bearcat M. Sandor wrote:
The ear canal is just a tube, so there's no
directionality once the waves are in there.
"Once they are in there". Which is why you can make things
work with headphones plus head mot
On 08/07/2011 21:40, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:06:37PM -0600, Bearcat M. Sandor wrote:
The ear canal is just a tube, so there's no
directionality once the waves are in there.
"Once they are in there". Which is why you can make things
work with headphones plus head mot
I think one has to distinguish here various factors.
First of all, if one subtracts the effects of head movements
on perception and also assumes that the listener is
willing to keep their head absolutely still, then
there would seem to be no problem with producing any
sound one cared to at the en
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 09:53:31PM +0100, dw wrote:
> One would never be able to locate the source of a gun shot then, since
> you don't have time to sample the soundfield.
In anechoic conditions the direction of such a sound could be
ambiguous, apart from pinna coloration if there is enough HF
Robert Greene wrote:
I think one has to distinguish here various factors.
First of all, if one subtracts the effects of head movements
on perception and also assumes that the listener is
willing to keep their head absolutely still, then
there would seem to be no problem with producing any
sound
http://www.studio360.org/2011/apr/29/adventures-3d-sound/
"Video: The Science behind 3D sound"
Here, the demonstration works, but this is "180º horizontal surround".
Or should we call this "wide-stereo"?
The recording might be (technically) a binaural recording (actually, it
is :-) ), but th
On 08/07/2011 22:48, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 09:53:31PM +0100, dw wrote:
One would never be able to locate the source of a gun shot then, since
you don't have time to sample the soundfield.
In anechoic conditions the direction of such a sound could be
ambiguous, apart fr
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 11:34:18PM +0100, dw wrote:
> 60 degrees seems excessive head movement for someone seated listening to
> speakers..
Why ? It's a natural thing to do if there is any significant sound
from that direction. Why should being listening to speakers make
any difference ? I lik
[Hello to all - It was good 2 C some of you at ICAD Budapest - and +ve 2 C a
deal of activity in ambisonics for auditory design.]
On 09/07/2011, at 6:40 AM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:06:37PM -0600, Bearcat M. Sandor wrote:
>
>> The ear canal is just a tube, so there's
Fons Adriaensen a écrit :
> And *if* I turn my head, for whatever reason, and the illusion
> collapses, I'm not impressed...
I just tried turning my head while listening to XTC. I can turn it more
than 45 degrees in both directions without destroying the stereo image.
So if turning the head is p
On 09/07/2011 18:07, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Fons Adriaensen a écrit :
And *if* I turn my head, for whatever reason, and the illusion
collapses, I'm not impressed...
I just tried turning my head while listening to XTC. I can turn it more
than 45 degrees in both directions without destroying the
ML: "Maybe it can; is there a way to "up convert" non-ambisonics recordings to
horizontal ambisonics?"
If you down sample a 48kHz recording to 16kHz what happens? All the audio
information above 8kHz is lost right?
If you up convert back to 48kHz can you recover the bandwidth lost? No. You
ju
Neil, I used the wrong words.
Please excuse my "up-converting" nonsense, and let me ask again.
The perceived "directional bandwidth" of stereo recordings is better
than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reproduce.
So, is it possible to adapt a stereo recording to play on a horizon
--On 09 July 2011 14:04 -0400 Marc Lavallée wrote:
So, is it possible to adapt a stereo recording to play on a horizontal
ambisonics system, in order to get a better stereo image than with
conventional stereo? A kind of "restored stereo" experience that
ambisonics can provide because of its dir
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> The perceived "directional bandwidth" of stereo recordings is better
> than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reproduce.
This is again a game of words.
Most stereo recordings are made to be reproduced by two speakers
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
The perceived "directional bandwidth" of stereo recordings is better
than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reproduce.
This is again a game of words.
Most stereo recordings are made t
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:19:07PM +0100, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
> Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
>>
>>> The perceived "directional bandwidth" of stereo recordings is better
>>> than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reprodu
On 07/09/2011 10:19 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
The perceived "directional bandwidth" of stereo recordings is better
than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reproduce.
This is again a game of
Totally agree 100%.
Personally I would state that I have a totally different experience when
listening to the same recordings via loudspeakers versus headphones.
Headphones rarely give me a "the orchestra/band" is in front of me
presentation (and no it is not a function of cheap or crappy
he
On 09/07/2011 21:38, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:19:07PM +0100, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
The perceived "directional bandwidth" of stereo recordings is better
than what conventional ste
On 07/09/2011 11:13 PM, dw wrote:
Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo
recording for me to play with.
well, this kind of stand-off isn't likely to lead anywhere. "sounds
good" is very hard to define or even test.
i'm not terribly interested in applying xtc to
On 09/07/2011 22:28, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/09/2011 11:13 PM, dw wrote:
Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo
recording for me to play with.
well, this kind of stand-off isn't likely to lead anywhere. "sounds
good" is very hard to define or even test.
On 07/09/2011 11:49 PM, dw wrote:
On 09/07/2011 22:28, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
ps. I am sure M Gerzon knew that ambisonics (low order) has theoretical
sweet spot the size of a pea, but it still sounds good to some people,
His fans are still as self-righteous as ever.
i could imagine way wo
On 09/07/2011 23:10, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/09/2011 11:49 PM, dw wrote:
On 09/07/2011 22:28, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
ps. I am sure M Gerzon knew that ambisonics (low order) has
theoretical
sweet spot the size of a pea, but it still sounds good to some people,
His fans are still as
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 10:13:13PM +0100, dw wrote:
> Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo
> recording for me to play with.
If it's anything I produced myself you'd just say I engineered
it to fail with XTC :-) Which indeed I could easily do...
I've been listeni
Fons Adriaensen a écrit :
> Most stereo recordings are made to be reproduced by two speakers,
> seen by the listener at an angle of 60 to 90 degrees, and such that
> the signals from either speaker reach both ears. That is the way it
> is supposed to work. There is a solid theory behind this. Cal
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 06:58:29PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> I understand your clinical point of view, but I don't consider the act
> of listening to reproduced music as a scientific activity.
Agreed 100%. But the act of analysing and discussing the merits
of technical systems to reproduce so
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/09/2011 11:13 PM, dw wrote:
Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo
recording for me to play with.
well, this kind of stand-off isn't likely to lead anywhere. "sounds
good" is very hard to define or even test.
i'm not terribly
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 10:13:13PM +0100, dw wrote:
Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo
recording for me to play with.
If it's anything I produced myself you'd just say I engineered
it to fail with XTC :-) Which indeed I could
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/09/2011 10:19 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
The perceived "directional bandwidth" of stereo recordings is better
than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reprodu
Fons Adriaensen a écrit :
> As to material produced for conventional speaker playback, some
> of it produces a 'nice' sound, with a clear spatial effect, as
> long as you are not trying to focus your attention on individual
> sources or instruments. Which is something I can't avoid doing
> being
There was a method developed by Finsterle that worked very well
indeed, much better than Trifield(which has always seemed to me
to have a serious "center detent".
Finsterle's method had sound in the rear psychoacoustically
encoded not to sound in the rear but to solidify the front
images.
This w
uly 9, 2011 8:22:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their
viability for actual 360 degree sound
There was a method developed by Finsterle that worked very well
indeed, much better than Trifield(which has always seemed to me
to have a serious "cente
On 07/10/2011 12:32 AM, dw wrote:
I was thinking more of recording in mono, computing the vectors in
various bands from the output of some large microphone array and then
encoding (the mono sound) into the required number of spherical
harmonics.
i don't think that's possible. imagine two simila
On 07/10/2011 03:41 AM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
I'm waiting for a pair of
very directional speakers that should (hopefully) help me enjoy
conventional stereo.
then the manger might be for you: http://manger-msw.de/index.php?language=en
this is a speaker that has been optimized for very good impul
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:41:04PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> If you could help me understand spherical harmonics, I'd be a "MAG
> fanboy" in no time. The best didactic resource I found is a very
> strange article titled "Notes on Basic Ideas of Spherical Harmonics".
> It's so good that I bare
On 10/07/2011 09:00, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/10/2011 12:32 AM, dw wrote:
I was thinking more of recording in mono, computing the vectors in
various bands from the output of some large microphone array and then
encoding (the mono sound) into the required number of spherical
harmonics.
i
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:10:49AM +0100, dw wrote:
> Any microphone capable of separating two sound sources MUST be large in
> terms of wavelengths (similar to the diffraction limit for telescopes)
> The soundfield microphone cannot separate two or more sound sources at
> _any_ frequency for
On 10/07/2011 11:02, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:10:49AM +0100, dw wrote:
Any microphone capable of separating two sound sources MUST be large in
terms of wavelengths (similar to the diffraction limit for telescopes)
The soundfield microphone cannot separate two or more
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:49:49AM +0100, dw wrote:
> You snipped the context.
>
> "i don't think that's possible. imagine two similar instruments, one at
> 0° and the other at 180°. once recorded in mono, they will be fused
> together irrevocably. you won't be able to separate them with the h
Is this the one you mean(the "strange article")?
http://www.regonaudio.com/SphericalHarmonics.pdf
I wrote it myself!
I surely did not mean for it to be strange at all.
But the idea is intrinsically a bit complicated.
What one is really doing is developing ad hoc
eigenfunctions of the Laplacian
Jörn Nettingsmeier a écrit :
> On 07/10/2011 03:41 AM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> > I'm waiting for a pair of
> > very directional speakers that should (hopefully) help me enjoy
> > conventional stereo.
>
> then the manger might be for you:
> http://manger-msw.de/index.php?language=en
>
> this is a
Robert Greene a écrit :
> Is this the one you mean(the "strange article")?
>
> http://www.regonaudio.com/SphericalHarmonics.pdf
Yes! :)
> I wrote it myself!
> I surely did not mean for it to be strange at all.
> But the idea is intrinsically a bit complicated.
> What one is really doing is dev
Although I have done this many times before, I again put on a left right test
track using RACE and two line source ESL speakers and I can rotate my head as
much as my neck permits without detecting any noticeable shift in the
localization of the voices at the extreme right and left. With two sp
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:41:04PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
If you could help me understand spherical harmonics, I'd be a "MAG
fanboy" in no time. The best didactic resource I found is a very
strange article titled "Notes on Basic Ideas of Spherical Harmonics".
It'
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 05:44:50PM +0100, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
> As a violinist, my choice would be the sawtooth wave, just for
> demonstrational purposes.
Which has the same problems (infinite bandwidth etc.)
But yes, as a violinist it would probably hurt your
ears less...
Ciao,
--
FA
_
Stefan Schreiber a écrit :
> I don't want to annoy anybody or you, but don't explain acoustics via
> square waves...
I think that square waves is a good choice because of the amount of
resolution required, and because of their harmonic distribution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6crWlxKB_E
ht
Ralph Glasgal wrote:
Although I have done this many times before, I again put on a left right test
track using RACE and two line source ESL speakers and I can rotate my head as
much as my neck permits without detecting any noticeable shift in the
localization of the voices at the extreme righ
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 05:44:50PM +0100, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
As a violinist, my choice would be the sawtooth wave, just for
demonstrational purposes.
Which has the same problems (infinite bandwidth etc.)
But yes, as a violinist it would probably hurt your
Stefan Schreiber a écrit :
> Now come on, a square wave is not about music!
Iannis Xenakis would not agree with you...
--
Marc
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Stefan Schreiber a écrit :
Now come on, a square wave is not about music!
Iannis Xenakis would not agree with you...
--
Marc
___
But HIS square waves are irregular, or a chain of singularities. :-)
Best,
Ste
On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
If you can't reproduce full horizontal 360º surround via two front
speakers, then the "binaural via two loudspeakers" approach doesn't
work, and there is no solution to reproduce "3D sound" in this way.
(Your colleague Choueiri claims this on the
dw a écrit :
> On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
> >
> >
> > If you can't reproduce full horizontal 360º surround via two front
> > speakers, then the "binaural via two loudspeakers" approach doesn't
> > work, and there is no solution to reproduce "3D sound" in this way.
> > (Your c
On 10/07/2011 19:36, Marc Lavallée wrote:
dw a écrit :
On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
If you can't reproduce full horizontal 360º surround via two front
speakers, then the "binaural via two loudspeakers" approach doesn't
work, and there is no solution to reproduce "3D sound" in
This one is vaguely in-head rather than down, and also well-out-of head.
I am doing these with the my public domain 'stereo' filter, which is not
ideal for this. I have deleted my stuff as I am turning my back on audio
for another decade after I tidy up some loose ends.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/
On 07/10/2011 06:14 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeier a écrit :
and don't mind around 10% THD in the low frequencies (which is not as
bad as it sounds, but also not as good as manger make it sound),
oops, this is bogus. THD means "total harmonic distortion", so it makes
no sense to
Thanks Stefan. The very bottom remarks are really about previous posts.
In theory it is possible to do full periphonic sound via two somethings (maybe
not looudspeakers as we know them). Choueiri believes he can come close to
this by using laser-like loudspeakers, precision placed in a quiet
Ralph Glasgal wrote:
Thanks Stefan. The very bottom remarks are really about previous posts.
In theory it is possible to do full periphonic sound via two somethings (maybe
not looudspeakers as we know them). Choueiri believes he can come close to
this by using laser-like loudspeakers, preci
Hello Marc...
I don't get access to the (dropbox) file.
Error (404)
We can't find the page you're looking for.
Is this because I am not based in the USA?
Best,
Stefan
Marc Lavallée wrote:
dw a écrit :
On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
If you can't reproduce
Stefan Schreiber a écrit :
> Hello Marc...
>
> I don't get access to the (dropbox) file.
>
> >
> > Error (404)
> >
> > We can't find the page you're looking for.
It's not my DropBox, it's David's.
He probably removed the file. I get the same error.
His last message was :
"I have deleted my
No speaker requires a "fast" amplifier,
whatever that means. ALL amplifiers that
are not defective are far faster in any reasonable
sense than any speaker is. Some amps
have a tiny roll off of the extreme top
on account of output networks or the like.
But really this is a nonissue for any serious
You can read the propaganda from Mangler
about the "required" rise time of an amplifier:
http://www.manger-audio.co.uk/products.htm
Robert Greene a écrit :
> No speaker requires a "fast" amplifier,
> whatever that means. ALL amplifiers that
> are not defective are far faster in any reasonable
On 07/10/2011 11:10 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
> To clarify a few basic things:
>
> The first poster in this thread (and obviously some other people who
> maybe should have known better) are claiming that you could receive a
> 360º representation via just two (supposedly narrow) front speakers.
Jörn Nettingsmeier a écrit :
> have you seen jerome daniel's "experimenter's corner"?
I tried to read the beginning of his doctoral thesis; because it's in
French, I though it would be easier to understand than the vast
majority of papers in English, but I was wrong because the common
language
On 07/11/2011 12:39 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
With all these efforts, why is actually nobody just marketing a
headphone solution with head-tracking?
smyth research makes one (called the realizer), or there's the
beyerdynamic headzone.
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Te
Well, unless the amplifier encounters some of the elusive square
(freak) waves... :-D
Stefan
Robert Greene wrote:
No speaker requires a "fast" amplifier,
whatever that means. ALL amplifiers that
are not defective are far faster in any reasonable
sense than any speaker is. Some amps
hav
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/11/2011 12:39 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
With all these efforts, why is actually nobody just marketing a
headphone solution with head-tracking?
smyth research makes one (called the realizer), or there's the
beyerdynamic headzone.
We have discussed the s
Bearcat M. Şandor wrote:
On 07/10/2011 11:10 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
To clarify a few basic things:
The first poster in this thread (and obviously some other people who
maybe should have known better) are claiming that you could receive a
360º representation via just two (supposedly na
sity 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 David Worrall
Sent: 09 July 2011 17:20
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D
On 7/11/2011 8:30 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
However, the "12+ channel" audio system (for Ambisonics?) is a
caricature, at best. 8 horizontal speakers would be enough for
Ambisonics 3rd order, for home purposes. 1st order can be reproduced
with 4 speakers, you really won't need more than 6.
On 7/11/2011 8:30 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
However, the "12+ channel" audio system (for Ambisonics?) is a
caricature, at best. 8 horizontal speakers would be enough for
Ambisonics 3rd order, for home purposes. 1st order can be reproduced
with 4 speakers, you really won't need more than 6.
--On 10 July 2011 22:47 +0200 Jörn Nettingsmeier
wrote:
the demise of ambisonia.com is lamentable,
Indeed. But I'd like just to remind people that all of my material that
was on there (plus a bit more), and all of John Leonard's, and Richard
Lee's articles, are now available from my site
al sounds fairly well covered. Now we need some more variety!
I'll contact you off-list.
Eric
- Original Message
From: Paul Hodges
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 12:45:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their
viabi
Bearcat M. Sandor wrote:
On 7/11/2011 8:30 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
However, the "12+ channel" audio system (for Ambisonics?) is a
caricature, at best. 8 horizontal speakers would be enough for
Ambisonics 3rd order, for home purposes. 1st order can be reproduced
with 4 speakers, you re
Stefan Schreiber a écrit :
> > Right. I was speaking of 360 horizontal. Just to be clear, how
> > many speakers are necessary at minimum for a "full sphere 3D"
> > system? I've been told that a double twisted hex (3 in front, 3 in
> > back at ear level, and 3 in front, 3 in back up high twisted
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 01:56:08 +0100, Stefan Schreiber
wrote:
The minimum for surround with height is 8 speakers, for Ambisonics 1st
order. If the sphere is full-sphere (and not half-sphere), you probably
need 12+ speakers, although I suspect there could be a solution with
less speakers th
On 07/12/2011 03:24 PM, Tom Jordaan wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 01:56:08 +0100, Stefan Schreiber
wrote:
The minimum for surround with height is 8 speakers, for Ambisonics 1st
order. If the sphere is full-sphere (and not half-sphere), you
probably need 12+ speakers, although I suspect there coul
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/12/2011 03:24 PM, Tom Jordaan wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 01:56:08 +0100, Stefan Schreiber
wrote:
The minimum for surround with height is 8 speakers, for Ambisonics 1st
order. If the sphere is full-sphere (and not half-sphere), you
probably need 12+ speakers,
On 07/12/2011 05:39 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
there is an AES paper by simon goodwin that deals with this layout:
www.codemasters.com/research/3D_sound_for_3D_games.pdf
the rationale is that you can deliver a pre-decoded stream over the
eight channels of a hdmi link
"Tom Jordaan" wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 01:56:08 +0100, Stefan Schreiber
> wrote:
>> The minimum for surround with height is 8 speakers, for Ambisonics 1st
>> order. If the sphere is full-sphere (and not half-sphere), you probably
>> need 12+ speakers, although I suspect there could be a solu
Both links work for me, too.
Dave (from home)
On Jul 12 2011, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/12/2011 05:39 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
there is an AES paper by simon goodwin that deals with this layout:
www.codemasters.com/research/3D_sound_for_3D_games.pdf
the
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/12/2011 05:39 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
there is an AES paper by simon goodwin that deals with this layout:
www.codemasters.com/research/3D_sound_for_3D_games.pdf
the rationale is that you can deliver a pre-decoded stream over the
the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their
viability for actual 360 degree sound
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 01:56:08 +0100, Stefan Schreiber
wrote:
> The minimum for surround with height is 8 speakers, for Ambisonics 1st >
> order. If the sphere is full-sphere (and not half-spher
11, 2011 8:01 am
Subject: Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their
viability for actual 360 degree sound
On 07/11/2011 12:39 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
> With all these efforts, why is actually nobody just marketing a
> headphone solution with head-tracking?
I found that review/interview of the 2 channel surround sound i was
referring to earlier:
http://www.hometheater.com/content/tech-spotlight-srs-future-surround
The first copy i saw didn't have the 2nd page. In it it's explained that
you'd need speakers behind you to hear things behind you.
They
On 07/16/2011 01:32 AM, "Bearcat M. Şandor" wrote:
I found that review/interview of the 2 channel surround sound i was
referring to earlier:
http://www.hometheater.com/content/tech-spotlight-srs-future-surround
The first copy i saw didn't have the 2nd page. In it it's explained that
you'd need
Hi Jörn and Bearcat
On 16/07/2011 06:56, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/16/2011 01:32 AM, "Bearcat M. Şandor" wrote:
I found that review/interview of the 2 channel surround sound i was
referring to earlier:
http://www.hometheater.com/content/tech-spotlight-srs-future-surround
The first copy
Hi David...
As you are a knowledgeable expert on this stuff :-) , I would like to
take the discussion of this article/interview to a higher level...
The interesting part of the interview is on the 2nd page:
http://www.hometheater.com/content/tech-spotlight-page-2
But with the full evolut
On 07/18/2011 06:18 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Now, it turns out that one of the techniques for projecting sound into
space based on the auditory system is something called HRTF, or
head-related transfer functions, where the frequency or spectral
characteristics of a broadband audio signal, lik
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 07:27:26PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
>
Now _that_ would be an interesting case: how to render this
so it appears to be the listener's nose doing the work...
I hope you managed to clean your keyboard. It could have
happened to me as well...
Ciao,
--
FA
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/18/2011 06:18 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Which means that they are probably using HRTF techniques. Because HRTF
is an individual parameter, they would have to use some form of
"standard" HRTF, as long as they don't perform individual measurements.
For me, th
Hi Jörn,
Saved me some typing - pretty well what I would have said :-)
Dave
On 18/07/2011 18:27, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/18/2011 06:18 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Now, it turns out that one of the techniques for projecting sound into
space based on the auditory system is som
On 18/07/2011 19:01, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 07:27:26PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
I hope you managed to clean your keyboard. It could have
happened to me as well...
I was fortunately luck enough not to have brewed any yet this morning...
Dave
--
These are
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
