Michael Chapman wrote:
This may all be OT, but if:
-ambisonics had developed twenty years later
-if there had been no patents on it
would the World have been different?
Michael
Michael, I don't want to be unpolite. But some people should stop this
whining about "what would have been if" and go on, at least by now.
Patents didn't play a role in the failure of Ambisonics.
Facts:
- Different quadraphonics systems had failed in the 70s/80s
- UHJ stereo didn't make it. Disadvantages if played back without decoder?
- Dolby Stereo and (after) Dolby Digital / DTS occupied the cinema
surround space...
Obviously, Dolby Labs owned a lot of patents. Therefore, patents are
very probably not the reason for the failure of Ambisonics in the market!
Regarding the next suround-system, the requirement list usually includes
things like "independent of speaker configuration" and "3D Audio".
Therefore, the (future) chances for application of Ambisonics are good.
(There are obviously plans to include "3D audio" in "3D movies". )
WFS is not a 3D technology, unless you apply 300+ speakers. (?)
Parametric attempts I don't like, in the sense that you don't know how
much memory the audio channels would require, and especially what audio
bitrate is needed for transmission. Could be pretty high, and you might
not know how much... Suround for broadcast television, which has a
channel stucture? Mobile Internet?
(Please note that the required video bitrate for HD video might be a lot
less in the near future, thanks to H.265/HEVC. It is quite odd if you
need a higher audio bitrate than video bitrate, which might happen with
parametric and "up to 32 channel" approaches. I am not going into details.)
Therefore, I think Ambisonics 3rd order (including mixed oders) is
well-defined, has a very reasonable performance and is an "efficient"
approach, compared to WFS and parametric poposals.
Best,
Stefan Schreiber
P.S.: In other words
IF they need a 3D audio technology, Ambisonics had this "feature" from
day one, and a huge lead to anything else.
P.S. 2: 5.1 is still a valid surround technology, such as certain
binaural techniques etc.
My personal interest would be to use suround techniques for music
recording/reproduction, because very obviously you will have a much more
realistic experience than stereo can ever offer.
IMHO, the recording labels have failed in this area, and are not
considering that they have a certain obligation to offer certain
high-quality technologies to the customer. 5.1 has been around since 20
years! (Instead, the trend to MP3, range compression and "mastered for
iTunes".)
Even if the introduction of available technologies would not help them a
lot in the shot term, it is no long-term strategy at all to ignore any
progress which is available on the recording side.
(The hundreds of failed and existing Internet music services are mostly
or maybe all no game changer, in the sense that all this is more about
trade and the access to music. The music industry also didn't care
about any premium format whereas Hollywood DID. Strangely, the vinyl
sales have increased seveal hundred percent during the last 5 years or
so, showing some obvious demand where currently no offer is. The vinyl
renaissance won't save the music industry, though... O:-)
Therefore, the lack of success of Ambisonics in the recording
"industry" is related to the complete lack of interest in any mid- or
long-term strategy to establish anything improved, to grow something
new, etc. It was / is even not so much about costs. Decision makers in
the recording business are usually too uninformed, don't have any
technological department to consult and are not prepared to go into
something they don't know. They currently try to strike some content and
right deals with the dozens of Internet startups. This might be not
enough in a time when people already own physical AND digital libraries
of music. The scapegoat for any lack of success is piracy, which existed
always. Didn't we "tape" music when we were teenagers? Was even legal
then, probably cos Sonie sold all these tapes... They don't sell enough
hard discs or Flash memory, though. :-) )
P.S. 3: End of rant.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110921/6aad8060/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
