Stefan: > Was that easy enough? <g> :-) Sure but how does it SOUND?? Who's the DECIDER in all this? The STUDIOS (i.e. Sony Pictures decides)? Or, the HTReceiver guys (i.e. Onkyo decides)? Maybe the Cable guys (i.e Comcast decides)? Who did I leave out? Mark Stahlman Brooklyn NY In a message dated 12/22/2010 4:20:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, st...@mail.telepac.pt writes:
newme...@aol.com wrote: >Folks: > >This is one of the "standard" approaches to technical standards nowadays. > >Get everyone interested to step up and pay-to-pay, divide up the issues, >hire a professional association manager (i.e. Florencia Dazzi is with Assoc. >Mgmt. Solutions.), etc . . . and give away the specifications. > >The goal is to have something for the home theater receiver DSP coders to >aim at (whereas back when I was involved with IEEE 802 it was for the chip >designers). > >The coders will make money selling microcode, Onkyo et al will make money >selling receivers, Holophone et al will make money selling microphones and >so on. > > If the supposed "standard" is so ill-prepared (for example, is Dolby "on board", or not?), I seriously doubt that this attempt will fly. Up to now, there is no information to judge anything. (I said this. Now I am much clearer on this, as we are getting into the business discussion before the facts are there to discuss anything...) Of course, some people are watching this. I am certainly not paying to be "3D audio member", for my part... :-) > >Clearly there needs to a HEIGHT addition to 5.1, since 3D video is the only > available NBT (Next Big Thing) for home video. The TVs are here and the >studios are ready to rock-and-roll. 3D sports and music are a "no-brainer." > >Btw, this is why I have been asking about Z-AXIS -- which seems to have >been MAG's keen interest all along -- on this list for the past year+. As >you might recall, the list has had little to say. <g> > > Right. But it was certainly not only you, whatever is claimed. Don't forget that there have been attempts to include height information even into 7.1 and even 5.1, although time seems to be over for such a (bad?) compromise. > >Since there is apparently NO company with a stake in Ambisonics, who will >pay-to-pay on behalf of Ambisonics? > > Maybe < we > just declare a standard? Fast track: - Ambisonics up to 3rd order, including mixed order systems - Channel order, coefficients: Furse-Malham system - B format is included (soundfield recordings) - "standard" configuration (within the standard... ;-) could be 3rd order horiz. + 1st order vertical, maybe 3rd order horiz./2nd order vert. for studio and cinema use. - Recordings in 3rd order (horiz. or "3D audio") can be translated to 5.1 configuration, of course losing a lot of information. Was that easy enough? <g> :-) Obviously, several European institutions are actively working on Ambisonics. IRCAM, BBC and Deutsche Telekom are just a few examples, in different areas. I am not sure that we would have to wait to receive some start-up money, begging for help. Right? Discussion obviously desired... Best, Stefan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20101222/e030de85/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20101222/2621b1fe/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
