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.
<sound of coffee being expelled through the nose>
the what?
so this is 4d spacetime, right? x, y, z, and d :) now this funny
drone noise, is that minkowski spinning in his grave?
Careful, here I differ!
In a parametric approach, d makes a lot of sense. It is not clear
from the interview < how > the distance cues are reproduced, agreed.
And I (re)differ. In a parametric approach it makes no sense (and may
even be harmful) to define a parameter twice, as this implies. If we
assume the _actually_ mean distance when they talk of depth, then that
is already given by the audio object's position w.r.t. the
listener.Anything else is just mumbo-jumbo..or, rather, it is
mistaking the affect of having audio objects (including early
reflections and so on) presented at many different distances, rather
than at similar apparent distances, for something that is real and
physical.
Agreed, I was wrong on this.
Music representation according to this approach is clearly
five-dimensional (x,y,z, d and t!), so they call this "multidimensial
audio"/MDA... O:-) :-)
You've forgotten timbre, loudness, rhythm and so on..hang on, isn't
getting to sound a bit like string theory (and if it is, ain't that
going to annoy the wind and percussion sections.......). Sorry,
sorry, couldn't resist.
Why are you sorry? I was kidding... Some physical theories are
actually using (just) 5 dimensions. String theory requires more, but I
am very unsure if string theory is really "hot" at the moment... Had
recently a long discussion with a French cosmologist after a concert.
All this dark energy/dark matter stuff and the missing particles at
CERN might be pretty unrelated to string theory, right?! Anyway, I
actually learned that dark energy is not the same as inflation, even if
this is not clear from the start... You never know, though. String
theory? This is so ridiculously 80s, come on... :-D
However, X-talk cancelling techniques would require close speakers.
i'm not sure about this. from what i've heard, rwth aachen are
running a CAVE with head tracking and binaural feeds delivered by a
cube of speakers (as that is the only layout that wouldn't interfere
too much with their screen configuration). no idea how exactly they
do it, but there should be some papers out there. iirc they can even
accomodate more than one listener. haven't heard it, though.
See
http://darwin.bth.rwth-aachen.de/opus3/volltexte/2009/2713/pdf/Assenmacher_Ingo.pdfts";.
Thanks, I will look into this when I have more time.
However, if they can't track more than one listener, the system is DOA.
Nice research, but keep developping something for a more social experience.
...
Don't think he's saying it's vapourware - just that it sounds like
snake-oil sales talk...but a truly modern version of this should
include the "q" word in it at least once (well, strictly speaking, it
would be superimposed an infinite number of times, but would collapse
to a single state on being read)
My opinion: It is the right time to introduce some improved surround
system into the market, at least in the cinema area there seems to be
real demand.
Scientifically, we should have gathered enough knowledge to be able
to do so, by now.
Agreed (and so, apparently, do the BBC and many others)
You know my opinion: They should introduce some form of sound field
approach into the supposed "general" 3D audio standard, if there is a
standard at all. Say Ambisonics up to 3rd order, F-M higher order format.
Even more important will be to design relatively simple systems which
are able to reproduce surround sound and 3D audio at home, or even in
cinemas. I think they should consider both headphone and loudspeaker
systems, from the start. (If some systems are not "complete", say 3D7.1,
they still might offer new possibilities.)
Surround is not just about Ambisonics and maybe WFS, yet again.
True - but they are ones that work and are well established.
Dave
See above: I believe that the reproduction side is actually more
important. If you have found some convincing solution on the
reproduction side, the "coding" of 3D audio is a solved issue. On the
other hand, if nobody actually can hear to the beauty of sound fields or
fast-moving audio objects...
I actually don't like the parametric/object approach a lot, but for some
reasons they might be able to define at least < some > standard. To have
some standard is better than not to agree on anything.
What is more interesting to me is < how > SRS is actually reproducing 3D
and distance cues.
Again I would like to refer to the article which was cited! There seems
to be a complex system A...
After the preliminaries, I was led to the company’s Advanced Rendering
Lab, a big room equipped with powered studio monitors crossing every
wall and firing down from the ceiling—22 of them in all.
...and a simpler "CE system" B...
So, when you have this two-speaker concept, this
minimal-number-of-speakers concept, you can create a much more
immersive soundfield because it’s matching playback to the human
ear-brain system, to the perception system, in a much better way than
you can when you’re just simulating surround by putting speakers
around the room.
RS: Are you saying that in the ideal surround sound world, the only
time you’d have more than a pair of speakers up front is when you were
maybe just needing to fill the back part of a large auditorium or
listening room?
AK: Almost. The other reason is to sometimes put something directly
behind you, rather than having only this kind of immersive field of
depth projection [from the front]. Most of the stuff that occurs when
you’re watching a movie or TV is occurring in front of you, though
occasionally there are things that kind of fly in from behind you.
So what we’re working on now is essentially a multichannel or 5.1
version of the twochannel system that you heard. You can have speakers
back there, as long as you treat all the speakers with the same kind
of technology to maintain this immersion.
This is not really explained, but probably the CE/cinema system they are
aiming at.
The next and good question would be if this is actually about 3D Audio
(they are behind the 3DAA). If it doesn't work like this, IMO this
system doesn't stand a chance.
Some people want to introduce 3D audio in film/cinemas, which is behind
the recent activities of SRS in this area.
It is also a big chance for Ambisonics, but probably I am repeating a
phrase I wrote some years ago..
However, I wish the BBC good luck. Maybe they will succeed this time. (I
don't will clarify "in what". :-) )
Best regards
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
