Hello Richard,
I was going to pipe up with very similar comments of my own... particularly as
my creative work often uses close mic material recorded with the Soundfield mic.
I've recently compared some of these close mic materials I've recorded with the
Soundfield and then transcoded to binaur
Hi,
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:24:55 -
From: Richard Lee
Mr. Hunt, I hope Sampo & Fons have been sufficiently enlightening. A
Classic Ambi rig or soundfield mike has no concept of a "unit circle".
They record & present distance as presented to them. The m
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
On 2011-07-25, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
Especially because, as you pointed out for quadrupoles, the
sensitivity goes up exponentially.
Actually to be more exact, isn't the increase something like quadratic
in order?
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-50-57
On 2011-07-24, Eric Benjamin wrote:
We can model the W output as being composed of a zeroth order
(monopole) component plus a quadrapole component, which is frequency
dependant. A quadrapole has a squared proximity effect, so for very
close sources the proximity effect due to the quadrapole be
ssion group
Sent: Sun, July 24, 2011 9:40:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their
viability for actual 360 degree sound
On 2011-07-24, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> In a normal SF mic the effect could become significant if the distance
> between
>t
und Sound discussion group
Sent: Sat, July 23, 2011 5:45:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their
viability for actual 360 degree sound
I feel a little diffident in commenting on this in the presence of so many
experts on the Soundfield mike in theory as well as
On 2011-07-24, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
In a normal SF mic the effect could become significant if the distance
between the capsules is a non-trivial fraction of the source distance
AND of the wavelength, so not really at low F.
Does that really matter, though? I mean, by definition XYZ contain
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 05:45:48PM -0700, Robert Greene wrote:
> To make sense of this jargon, suppose a source is on the line that is
> equistant from three of the capsules. Then its distance to those three
> will always be the same, and if the source is reasonably far away the
> distance to
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 09:35:41PM +0100, dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote:
> I have an interesting question (well, I think it's interesting). The
> Soundfield microphone, like any directional microphone, has a boosted
> bass response to close sounds. When listening to this through a speaker
>
On 2011-07-23, Robert Greene wrote:
I feel a little diffident in commenting on this in the presence of so
many experts on the Soundfield mike in theory as well as in practice,
but unless I am misunderstanding how it works, there are VERY serious
problems of other kinds with using it at the kin
On 2011-07-23, dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote:
(For some reason Dave H's post didn't arrive at me as-is. Dave Malham
appears once quoted and Dave Hunt as twice, in below. Sorry about the
hassle.)
I have an interesting question (well, I think it's interesting). The
Soundfield microphone, like a
I feel a little diffident in commenting on this in the presence of so many
experts on the Soundfield mike in theory as well as in practice,
but unless I am misunderstanding how it works, there are VERY serious
problems of other kinds with using it at the kinds of distances (fractions
of a mete
Hi Folks,
I have an interesting question (well, I think it's interesting). The
Soundfield microphone, like any directional microphone, has a boosted bass
response to close sounds. When listening to this through a speaker rig, we
hear this boost and tend to interpret it as meaning the sound
Hi again,
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:01:41 +0300 (EEST)
From: Sampo Syreeni
On 2011-07-21, Dave Hunt wrote:
There is certainly no consideration of values outside the unit
sphere.
[...]
Correct, and we've been here before.
We certainly have.
As BLaH points out, even the first
order dec
On 2011-07-21, Dave Hunt wrote:
There is certainly no consideration of values outside the unit sphere.
[...]
Correct, and we've been here before. As BLaH points out, even the first
order decoder handles distance as well as it possibly can. So does the
SoundField mic on the encoding side. But
Hi again,
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:45:45 -
From: Richard Lee
It is true that 1st order ambisonics doesn't consider distance,
with all
sources being reproduced at the distance of the speakers,
.
synthesis, the ambisonic encoding equations do not include distance,
Both of these ar
On Jul 21 2011, "Bearcat M. Şandor" wrote:
On 07/20/2011 03:49 AM, Richard Dobson wrote:
So - noisy pterodactyls and dragons are mixing it with the brass
section. How weird is that likely to sound? Especially if the music
track itself has been recorded in surround the way so many people
enthu
On Jul 20 2011, Dave Hunt wrote:
Hi,
Date: 20 Jul 2011 11:36:10 +0100
From: dave.mal...@york.ac.uk
Hi all,
I think that one of the problems with all these discussions is
that we
tend to think of the distance of an audio object as being the
exactly the
same sort of thing as the coordina
On 07/20/2011 03:49 AM, Richard Dobson wrote:
>So - noisy pterodactyls and dragons are mixing it with the brass section. How
>weird
> is that likely to sound? Especially if the music track itself has been
> recorded in surround the way so many people enthuse about here"?
>
Dragons in the Brass se
> It is true that 1st order ambisonics doesn't consider distance, with all
sources being reproduced at the distance of the speakers,
.
> synthesis, the ambisonic encoding equations do not include distance,
Both of these are untrue.
For the second, see the Appendix of BLaH3 "Is my decoder Amb
PS FIrst line refers to Dave's message not mine
Also some words got left out--
later on in the opening of the second paragraph it
is supposed to say that one cannot expect to hear
any kind of exact distance except
if things are very near by
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Robert Greene wrote:
Here is t
Here is the truth!
I have spent a LOT of time at live musical events(when
the music was not too interesting , while I waited
for what I came to hear or just sat through if I had
gone for some social reason only) listening with my eyes closed
to whether one could hear the distance of things.
My a
Hi,
Date: 20 Jul 2011 11:36:10 +0100
From: dave.mal...@york.ac.uk
Hi all,
I think that one of the problems with all these discussions is
that we
tend to think of the distance of an audio object as being the
exactly the
same sort of thing as the coordinates of the object w.r.t. the
list
Dave Hunt wrote:
It is true that 1st order ambisonics doesn't consider distance, with
all sources being reproduced at the distance of the speakers,
although Gerzon did consider distance panning. A Soundfield mic
recording contains distance information. If attempting spatial
synthesis, t
Thanks for your (thoughtful) answer.
IMO it is not very efficient to (en)code 3D audio in maybe 32 audio
tracks (including some metadata, tracks maybe in 96Hz), or to
transmit/store even more "audio objects".
Therefore, they should consider or include Ambisonics (up to 3rd or 4th
order) into
Hi all,
I think that one of the problems with all these discussions is that we
tend to think of the distance of an audio object as being the exactly the
same sort of thing as the coordinates of the object w.r.t. the listener -
but it's not because, unlike direction, we humans can't determine
On 20/07/2011 09:53, Dave Malham wrote:
...
Sorry, but their blurb reads like snake oil sales talk so I called it
that. It wasn't a comment on the system - since I haven't heard it and
have no technical information to go on, I couldn't do so. It would, of
course, not be unknown for companies who
Hi,
The next thing that you heard with CC3D was another psychoacoustic
phenomenon that we kind of discovered last year about what sounds do
when they come closer versus moving farther away. And we found
that we
were able to simulate something that normally can?t be done with
traditional surro
On 20/07/2011 01:07, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Dave Malham wrote:
Surround is not just about Ambisonics and maybe WFS, yet again.
True - but they are ones that work and are well established.
Dave
Ambisonics and WFS are well-established?! Depends on your view on this...
In the sens
Dave Malham wrote:
Hi Jörn,
Saved me some typing - pretty well what I would have said :-)
Dave
Absolutely same opinion, right? :-D
Surround is not just about Ambisonics and maybe WFS, yet again.
True - but they are ones that work and are well established.
Dave
Ambi
There is now an Android app that includes RACE. It was developed in Latvia and
you can see it at www.neutronmp.com It is basically a digital audio
workstation with every option imaginable including an RTA, 32 bit processing,
crossfading, dithering, more than 30 file formats, earphone crosstalk
Dave Malham wrote:
On 18/07/2011 19:34, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/18/2011 06:18 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
So we’re taking advantage of
what we learned there to create this feeling that things are being
projected into space in the D axis, the depth axis
On 18/07/2011 19:34, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/18/2011 06:18 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
So we’re taking advantage of
what we learned there to create this feeling that things are being
projected into space in the D axis, the depth axis.
the what?
so t
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
"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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
--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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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 07/10/2011 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
_
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'
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
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
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
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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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
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
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
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
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 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 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
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
