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 it
absolutely, but only as implied via the object's (and our) interaction with
the environment. For a unknown distant stationary source in an anechoic
environment there are _no_ cues as to distance, unless the listener can
move and gain something via parallax or loudness variation. For close
sources (i.e. in the curved wavefront zone) there may be some cues from
bass lift, but even these would be ambiguous for median plane sources if
head turning is not allowed (Greene-Lee head brace, anyone?)
Dave M.
On Jul 20 2011, Dave Hunt wrote:
Hi,
Modelling distance, and controlling it on a per source basis, is
founded on sound physical principles and can be made 'convincing',
even with low order ambisonics. Agreed that it is 'bolted on', though
synthesis (being the converse of analysis) involves controlling a
large number of parameters to simulate what occurs naturally.
Even WFS, as described in the literature, suggests that sources be
recorded individually as dry and close as possible, and the 'scene'
then reconstructed on playback. So it too synthesises distance.
Ciao,
Dave Hunt
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
