Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 12/23/2010 04:32 PM, newme...@aol.com wrote:
Jorn:
My question about how it SOUNDS wasn't merely rhetorical.
just to make sure we talk about the same thing: stefan was suggesting
building upon third-order systems, which is what my comments were about
(since i've been working with third order for well over a year now).
Presumably, the 3D/AA has embraced "object-oriented audio" in order to a)
abstract from speaker layouts b) reduce number of audio "channels" to 6 or 8
(i.e. fit into 5.1/7.1 distribution media like Blu-ray) and c) to make
production more streamlined.
object-oriented audio with a limited number of real channels in the
traditional sense is an utter non-starter. tell any hollywood foley
artist or sound designer to make do with no more than 8 sounds at a
time, when film mixes routinely max out 96 channel consoles.
Small ammendment, and yet again:
The data rate for 32 (reduced from 96) PCM channels is very high, and
unfortunately a lot higher than you need to transport < HD video > or <
3D video > nowadays.
This track-based model doesn't look like a good transmission format,
unless you would use lossy compression. Even then I would not be
convinced...
(Note that from 2012 on, the new Mpeg/ITU video codec H.265/HEVC would
reduce the required bitrate for high quality HD video even further. The
proposed released date for the 3D audio standard is 2012, so I think we
have to consider H.265 here. Note that Internet video streams use a lot
DD+ nowadays, to reduce the surround audio bitrate...)
I also don't think it is good or "esthetic" to have maybe 8, 20 or many
more channels in such a file/stream. (Huge possible differences.)
Mark won't buy into these arguments (which are not offciaially supported
by anybody), but sometimes you can't argue with simple technical
considerations. :-)
object-oriented audio is a very interesting concept, but it's not at all
clear how to deliver it to end users. and besides its inability to
represent natural recordings properly (except as an extra object that
basically has to be ambisonics or a similar format), there is the
interesting question of "copy protection": do you think hollywood sound
designers would like to deliver to the unwashed masses what is
essentially a very good discrete sample library of their very best work,
to be ripped off and re-used at the consumer's convenience?
Good point, and would say that Hollywod didn't think about this. (If
they have been asked...)
...
But how will it SOUND?
If the quality of the resulting 3D surround sounds terrible -- yes, QUAD
comes to mind -- then what a waste of time it will have been.
the big issue is to make HOA foolproof and user-friendly. a major
investment, which is forever being prevented by the chicken-and-egg
problem of "no native content".
so i'm advocating ambisonics as a production format, and exploring
toolchains to deliver 5.1 and stero from it, in the hope that in a few
years, there will be a small body of ambisonic masters out there that
pave the ground for wider adoption.
But don't forget suround headphones, or "3D audio headphones". Maybe
with head-tracking?
Nowadays there are so many low-cost gyroscopes around that is < should >
be possible to get some real progress in this field.
For me, this is the best chance to bring surround sound/3D audio to the
so-called "masses".
incidentally, i've just tested a large-scale third-order horizontal rig
made of eight line arrays and four 4x15" bass stacks yesterday night,
with very promising results. the idea is go take a look at ambisonics
from yet another angle, namely rock-opera kind of shows or techno events
with creative djs who wounld want to explore extra degrees of freedom in
their work. a write-up will follow soon.
Is there an Ambisonic and/or Ambi-derived system that sounds really good
that should be considered?
plain old third order ambisonics is very nice indeed. usable sweet spot
for very good domestic renderings, and enough side-lobe rejection that
you can use it in arrays with 20m diameter (possibly more) and have to
get closer than 2m to a speaker opposite of the source before the sound
field collapses (tested with line arrays with very little level drop
over the entire coverage area, the performance with traditional point
sources might be slightly worse).
i'm aware of at least 3 places in europe which are capable of supporting
3rd-order periphonic post-productions, and i'd venture the guess that
within a year, that number will have tripled.
Keep your good work on this!
Stefan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20101224/2987c471/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
