Hi, Although I'm very much learning about ambisonics - I use it a lot in sound installations and surround sound musical applications. I am currently working on a couple of surround sound audio DVDs which use ambisonic panners and will work perfectly well on 5.1 systems. I found panning ambisonically leaves less of a hole than amplitude panning and even though the end result isnt an ambisonic format perse ambisonics is still used in its production. Things have been made a lot easier due to programs like MaxMSP, VST ambisonics plugins , ICST and Ircams Spat etc etc - so its much easier now than in the 80s and 90s to incorporate ambisonics into audio productions . Somebody mixing a film for 5.1 now simply needs to install a VST plugin like David Malhams to use ambisonics in the production. 5.1 isnt ubiquitous but plenty of people do have such systems. Unless I am missing something, which is possible, there is no need to have an ambisonics decoder box or special ambisonics delivery hardware to reproduce ambisonicly produced soundfields - it can be used on on any configuration and any number of speakers - all this can be done in the software and then burned to multi track disks via ac3 or whatever so a lot of the expense that was involved in its use before is now gone. There are also a lot of clubs and festivals which use ambisonics , there is even one techno artist - monolake - who used ambisonics and wavefield synthesis in his club and the audience definitely appear to have appreciated the spatial effects it rendered. So I think ambisonics is definitely seeping into the mainstream in a way it couldn't have done before due to technological and price restraints.
On 31/03/2012, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > Send Sursound mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Sursound digest..." > > > When replying, please remember to edit your Subject line to that of the > original message you are replying to, so it is more specific than "Re: > Contents of Sirsound-list digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: 32-channel capture (Simon Edmonds) > 2. Re: Thunderbird (Jascha Narveson) > 3. Re: Can anyone help with my dissertation please? (Martin Leese) > 4. Re: Can anyone help with my dissertation please? (Peter Lennox) > 5. Re: Can anyone help with my dissertation please? (Paul Hodges) > 6. Re: Can anyone help with my dissertation please? (Robert Greene) > 7. Re: Can anyone help with my dissertation please? (Robert Greene) > 8. Re: Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > ([email protected]) > 9. Re: Can anyone help with my dissertation please? (Fons Adriaensen) > 10. Re: Can anyone help with my dissertation please? (Robert Greene) > 11. Re: Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > (etienne deleflie) > 12. Re: Can anyone help with my dissertation please? (Peter Lennox) > 13. Re: Can anyone help with my dissertation please? (Eero Aro) > 14. Re: Can anyone help with my dissertation please? (Robert Greene) > 15. Re: Can anyone help with my dissertation please? (Richard Dobson) > 16. Re: Can anyone help with my dissertation please? (Eero Aro) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:09:58 +0100 > From: Simon Edmonds <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] 32-channel capture > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > @ Augustine - I am using the system for 3rd Order Ambisonics - 12 > channels in a cube and 20 channels in a dodecahedron (once I figure out > a support structure for my speakers) I am also using Behringer 4 x 50w > amplifiers driving Tannoy Reveal passive monitors collected via eBay. > > Simon Edmonds > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:34:05 -0400 > From: Jascha Narveson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Thunderbird > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > I'm waiting for Apple to start mining domestic cat species after they run > out of scary sounding wild ones. "OS Tabby", "OS Calico"... > > > On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Dave Hunt wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> If it's Macintosh I'd love it to be "Pussy Cat" >> >> Ciao, >> >> Dave Hunt >> >> >>> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:53:25 -0400 >>> From: Jascha Narveson <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> right! bolt, not bird. maybe Thunderbird's the next OS... >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 28, 2012, at 3:35 AM, <[email protected]> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> ...or you could wait for people to start making Thunderbird-enabled >>>>> audio interfaces? They'd be plenty fast, though you'd be back to >>>>> buying apple... >>>> >>>> I think you mean Thunderbolt ;} - and the rumour is that it will be >>>> coming to Asus and Sony PCs in April, so you may be able to avoid >>>> filling Apple's coffers. >>>> >>>> Chris Woolf >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sursound mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:54:17 -0600 > From: Martin Leese <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <CAAzqGd9Wcmr=mhog7bzwgf+1eux6awrdchoiib2l01twcdv...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Cara Gleeson <[email protected]> wrote: > ... >> *Outline of dissertation question*: *Why did ambisonics not take off >> between the 1970's-90's?* > > Hi Cara, > > You will probably already have found the > FAQ's spin on this. If not, visit: > http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/Ambisonic/faq_latest.html#SECTION19 > > The FAQ is not a scholarly work, so I didn't > bother with sources and no longer remember > where all this came from. > > Interviewing people who were involved sounds > like a good idea. Just be aware that their > opinions will differ, and there will not be a > consensus. (This is the sursound list; there is > never a consensus on anything.) At the end > of the day, nobody knows why it failed. > > Regards, > Martin > -- > Martin J Leese > E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org > Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/ > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:23:04 +0100 > From: Peter Lennox <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > > <28f33490c302424e98cc6dc2531b2048c18acc4...@mkt-mbx01.university.ds.derby.ac.uk> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > there is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time is right.... > it was ahead of the technology. > > I don't even think it has failed - it just took off in a 'slow burn' way > > Actually, there is more being done on spherical harmonics and ambisonics > than ever before - more experimental setups, more free tools ( look at > Wigware, for example) - it's now easy peasy to make and use ambisonics, to > convert to and from 5.1 - even stereo(UHJ) > > Ultimately, "speaker formats" are dead, to eventually be replaced by > "speaker layout agnostic" - whether ambisonic, 'scene description' (for use > in ambisonic, 5.1, 7.1, wavefield synthesis, etc) - in fact, in future, > hybrids are likely to be the norm > regards > ppl > Dr Peter Lennox > > School of Technology, > Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology > University of Derby, UK > e: [email protected] > t: 01332 593155 > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Martin Leese [[email protected]] > Sent: 30 March 2012 18:54 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > > Cara Gleeson <[email protected]> wrote: > ... >> *Outline of dissertation question*: *Why did ambisonics not take off >> between the 1970's-90's?* > > Hi Cara, > > You will probably already have found the > FAQ's spin on this. If not, visit: > http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/Ambisonic/faq_latest.html#SECTION19 > > The FAQ is not a scholarly work, so I didn't > bother with sources and no longer remember > where all this came from. > > Interviewing people who were involved sounds > like a good idea. Just be aware that their > opinions will differ, and there will not be a > consensus. (This is the sursound list; there is > never a consensus on anything.) At the end > of the day, nobody knows why it failed. > > Regards, > Martin > -- > Martin J Leese > E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org > Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/ > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > > _____________________________________________________________________ > The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves > the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this email was sent to > you in error, please notify the sender and delete this email. Please direct > any concerns to [email protected]. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:38:22 +0100 > From: Paul Hodges <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <8051D2C6EBA3997FE26683B7@[192.168.1.74]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > > --On 30 March 2012 19:23 +0100 Peter Lennox <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't even think it has failed - it just took off in a 'slow burn' way > > That's behind the scenes. My own view is that it failed in the outside > world for the same reason that quad failed - it is simply unwanted. Mono > sounded somewhat congested in the home; stereo opened that up and gave a > sense of spaciousness. Most listeners are unaware of any further possible > improvement, even when it is demonstrated to them; so all the expense and > domestic angst of doubling up the system would be wasted effort. Even now, > 5.1 surround is aimed very specifically at home theatre, and not at > surround reproduction in any greater sense. > > In my last seven years of recording in surround, I have not once found a > person off this list who could even play one of my quad decodes. Not one. > The one and only person I know who has a 5.1 system (with satellite > speakers barely 2" across) has a DVD player that can't play DTS-CDs. > > Paul > > -- > Paul Hodges > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:52:22 -0700 (PDT) > From: Robert Greene <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > > I think there were a number of reasons > > 1 It took a long time for a medium to arrive that offered > a conveninent way to present a lot of channels. Actually, > while in principle CD did, in practice this was never > used. The surround schemes that came along that worked > commercially either involved CREATING surround from stereo > or were attached to film. > > 2 Most people see/hear the point of surround in film--those helicopters > flying in--but not in music(as already pointed out). > Surround in music has never been a hit in any form and it still > is not. Moreover most music is not really enhanced by it in the minds of > most people. Orchestral music benefits enormously--most of what you hear > in an orchestra concert is all around you--but most people do not listen > to that kind of music. And canned artificial music , well, surround of any > kind hardly matters. Look at how so many people are happy listening to > stereo overhead phones today! > > Ask people on this list about this and they will start talking about all > the contemporary music that uses surround explicitly. Commercially, this > is a joke--a micro fraction of a micro fraction of a market. > > 3 High End audio, which is the natural place to introduce new > audio ideas, rejected surround, mostly because High End is very > techno-conservative and also thinks stereo works much better than it does > --if only one buys expensive enough power cords and so on. > > Also, by nature Ambisonics > requires a good deal of signal processing. And the High Enders do not > believe in that(the fact that many of the recordings they > worship were made with a lot of EQ for instance is swept under the rug). > > 4 Ambisonics was never presented to the public in a way that made > it easy. Even today, you can hardly buy a plug and play disc. > Ambisonics was invented by a mathematician(I am one myself so I am > not against them) but like most mathematicians, he (and his followers) > underestimated the extent to which the public does not want to think. > > They want to plug the blue wire into the blue socket, the red into the > red, and relax to some tunes. Ambisonics had too many options, too many > possibilities, too many ways it could be used for the general public to > deal with. It still does. > > Put this all into one package and one can see why it never happened. > > There was never any material distributed to the general public in any form > at all(except UHJ but that was also small scale and did not work all that > well), > > There was no demand for surround for music and Ambisonics for > movies was never even considered, the movies being locked up by the big > corporate players, > > There was a lot of resistance to distributing Ambisonics in a specific > speaker format(madness! No one in the public wants anything else and the > first thing that should have happened was a flood of Ambisonics discs made > to play on 5.1 --but they never showed up) > > The whole Ambisonics group of people completely resisted any kind of > sensible distribution(cf the previous). When I suggested here a lot > of 5.1 discs to demo it, there was a thundering silence in response. > > No one seemed to want to have Ambisonics presented except as the beautiful > flexible theory it is. And hence it bombed completely. > > One might as well try to write a best seller about algebraic topology > (one of my subjects) as to try to sell Ambisonics as it was sold. > People got in the habit of treating it as something esoteric > and noncommercial, and so it stayed. And so it will always stay until > people start to distribute it in speaker-dedicated format. > > NOTHING has ever succeeded in audio commercially that required thought > and effort by the public and nothing ever will. Stereo swept because > it sounded better and was EASY. Anyone could set it up on a Christmas > morning--and so they did in the late 1950s. If it had not been easy, > it would not have mattered how good it sounded. > > And so it was and is with Ambisonics. > > Now let me tell you about higher homotopy groups and why they are all > torsion for spheres beyond the dimension of the sphere except for the > (4n-1)th group for 2n spheres which has rank 1 when tensored with Q > according to rational homotopy theory. Aren't you just dying to spend > some money on that? This is one of the greatest things in mathematics > but no sensible person is expecting to sell it to the public. > > Plug and play, and discs that are speaker-matched to 5.1 setups, the only > thing that could have worked-- but no one would do it. > > Robert > > PS I love Ambisonics theory. But I am a mathematician! That approach > --explaining the theory--is not commercially viable. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:57:46 -0700 (PDT) > From: Robert Greene <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > > PS There is one more reason, which is less obvious and perhaps > not obvious at all to those of you in Europe. > Namely, Americans have never liked one point recording. > They have never liked Blumlein or ORTF(quasi one point) stereo > and they still do not. > Starting with the Bell Telephone Labs(as the organization > was called then) experiments with spaced omnis, the USA > audio industry has always recorded via some half baked > scheme based very loosely on Huygens' Principle, apparently > unaware and unconcerned that Huygens' Principle requires > infinitely many samples(or at least a very large number) > rather than two or three. > The results can be beautiful tonally but of course they > are just silly as stereo, and as a recording of what > was really there at any particular location. > > But thinking is hard. It is easier to rave on in a pseudoliterary/poetic > fashion about "soundstage" and to heck with the fact--and of > course it is a fact--that microphones spaced five meters apart > are not going to be recording anything even remotely resembling > the actual acoustic experience of one person at any one location whatever. > > This fantasy idea of recording--e.g., Telarc, the dominant force > in classical recording for decades in the USA used three spaced > omnis almost the whole time--controlled everything in the USA. > > Ambisonics pursues a goal that USA recording engineers are so far > removed from that it almost does not exist for them. The idea > of recording a real event as it was is remote to them indeed. > (And of course pop music recording has nothing to do with this at all). > Classical recordings are supposed to "sound good" and be "spacious" > and have a "soundstage". Never mind that they sound not at all > like real music. And of course stereo playback goes right along. > No one (nearly) sets up stereo that does something close to > playing back what is recorded. They try to supplement the > already way overabundant phase-iness of the spaced omni recordings > with a lot of sounds bounced off the walls with the idea of making > things (even) more "spacious". > > And into this scene, people really expected to introduce successfully > Ambisonics? > > Talk about optimism. In a country where Blumlein stereo made > almost no headway, why would one expect Ambisonics to get anywhere? > > The commercial presentation of Ambisonics was so woeful(like Siegmund > referring to himself) that it was doomed. But even a good > presentaton would have been fighting uphill against firmly entrenched > and long so wrong ideas . > > Robert > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:03:19 -0400 (EDT) > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Robert: > >> I think there were a number of reasons . . . > > Very well said!! > > As some on the list know, so I should report back on my efforts, I tried to > interest some senior people at Sony (and elsewhere) in considering a > version of Ambisonics for the "surround" component of 3D VIDEO -- including > movies, sports, live performances, etc. > > NOT music -- where everyone knows after SACD/DVD-Audio that there will > *never* be a market for surround music. > > But instead for THEATER -- which is, and has always been, the only place > where a better *surround* audio technology MIGHT become a market reality. > > No interest . . . for the simple reason that 5.1 technology is *adequate* > for that purpose. > > Which is to say, the capability of Ambisonics to deliver 3D AUDIO (i.e. > "height") was not considered an interesting enough addition to *planar* > "ambience" to be worth the trouble. > > The fact that movie theaters -- after all these years -- only deliver 2D > surround probably tells you all you need to know. > > Good enough -- case closed. > > Mark Stahlman > Brooklyn NY > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120330/544634f9/attachment.html> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:06:18 +0000 > From: Fons Adriaensen <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:52:22PM -0700, Robert Greene wrote: > >> Surround in music has never been a hit in any form and it still >> is not. Moreover most music is not really enhanced by it in the minds of >> most people. Orchestral music benefits enormously--most of what you hear >> in an orchestra concert is all around you--but most people do not listen >> to that kind of music. And canned artificial music , well, surround of >> any kind hardly matters. > > Correct. And if you want to use Ambisonics for anything beyond > listening to classical music, e.g. to compete with 5.1 for movie > sound, you need higher order. Which was near impossible or at least > horribly complicated and expensive with analog technology. > The revival of the past ten years or so is largely the result of > higher order becoming possible in practice, along with an interest > from telecom companies rather than music producers. > > Ciao, > > -- > FA > > A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. > It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris > and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:35:10 -0700 (PDT) > From: Robert Greene <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > > I am curious about this concept of revival of Ambisonics in the past ten > years. > > Is there really any commercially available Ambisonic material? > > Is anyone actually selling higher order Ambisonic products? > > I realize that of course anything at all can be implemented > on computers. > > But suppose I wanted to hear say a decoded > version of UHJ recordings of the past? > (I can do this--I have a processor--but I mean for a person > outside the field). Could you do this by just pushing a few > buttons? > > Is anyone out in the real world actually hearing any > Ambisonic material at all, people outside the group > of people interested in it in a serious quasi professional > (or really professional) way? > > My impression is that the general public, even the audio public, > has never heard of it, even now. I think the revivial of interest > is mostly just among people like the people here. > > Am I missing something? > Robert > > On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:52:22PM -0700, Robert Greene wrote: >> >>> Surround in music has never been a hit in any form and it still >>> is not. Moreover most music is not really enhanced by it in the minds of >>> most people. Orchestral music benefits enormously--most of what you hear >>> in an orchestra concert is all around you--but most people do not listen >>> to that kind of music. And canned artificial music , well, surround of >>> any kind hardly matters. >> >> Correct. And if you want to use Ambisonics for anything beyond >> listening to classical music, e.g. to compete with 5.1 for movie >> sound, you need higher order. Which was near impossible or at least >> horribly complicated and expensive with analog technology. >> The revival of the past ten years or so is largely the result of >> higher order becoming possible in practice, along with an interest >> from telecom companies rather than music producers. >> >> Ciao, >> >> -- >> FA >> >> A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. >> It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris >> and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sursound mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound >> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:11:12 +1100 > From: etienne deleflie <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <CAMri_WyTyD2FzBw0K29g0z6oujfW196CQ2z-EcQQYe+rCXe=c...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >> >> Is there really any commercially available Ambisonic material? >> > > yes ... in computer games. Buy yourself a PS3, then buy Codemaster's F1, or > Dirt games ... and you'll be hearing (IIRC) 4th order ambisonic encoding > and decoding ... you can listen in 3D sound using Simon Goodwin's hybrid > 3D7.1 layout (height produced over an adapted 7.1 layout). > > >> My impression is that the general public, even the audio public, >> has never heard of it, even now. I think the revivial of interest >> is mostly just among people like the people here. >> > > I think that is largely true. > > Ambisonics has the problem that it is impractical. I believe it is too > impractical for the home (at least with the currently available > technology). I've blogged about that here: > http://etiennedeleflie.net/2012/01/03/ambisonics-is-bad-technology/ > >> And canned artificial music , well, surround of >> any kind hardly matters. > > I think it is the exact opposite. "Canned artificial music" is the only > place where spatial audio maters and maters a lot. Here, I draw a > distinction between 'surround' ... and spatial audio. The use of our > spatial perceptual abilities to isolate sounds (auditory stream > segregation) is used and abused with great skill by contemporary > 'producers'. That's why the most important plugins in DAWs are things like > reverberation, panning, digital delay, low-pass-filters, volume control > etc. These are all *spatial* processes. I've blogger about that here: > http://etiennedeleflie.net/2012/01/04/aphex-twin-and-spatial-audio/ > > Am I missing something? > > > You are forgetting that ambisonics is inaccessible (to the masses). In this > respect Ambisonics is a half-technology. The missing half is the half that > allows people to have a consistently good and dependable spatial audio > experience by buying a product, going home and hitting 'play'. In the > consumer market place, its called *user experience*. The user-experience > delivered by today's ambisonic technologies is only sufferable by a select > few ... audio-engineers, technically minded audiophiles, academic > researchers ... > > Etienne > > >> >> Robert >> >> >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Fons Adriaensen wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:52:22PM -0700, Robert Greene wrote: >>> >>> Surround in music has never been a hit in any form and it still >>>> is not. Moreover most music is not really enhanced by it in the minds of >>>> most people. Orchestral music benefits enormously--most of what you hear >>>> in an orchestra concert is all around you--but most people do not listen >>>> to that kind of music. And canned artificial music , well, surround of >>>> any kind hardly matters. >>>> >>> >>> Correct. And if you want to use Ambisonics for anything beyond >>> listening to classical music, e.g. to compete with 5.1 for movie >>> sound, you need higher order. Which was near impossible or at least >>> horribly complicated and expensive with analog technology. >>> The revival of the past ten years or so is largely the result of >>> higher order becoming possible in practice, along with an interest >>> from telecom companies rather than music producers. >>> >>> Ciao, >>> >>> -- >>> FA >>> >>> A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. >>> It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris >>> and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> Sursound mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >> Sursound mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> >> > > > > -- > http://etiennedeleflie.net > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120331/b51f6266/attachment.html> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:44:11 +0100 > From: Peter Lennox <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > > <28f33490c302424e98cc6dc2531b2048c18acc4...@mkt-mbx01.university.ds.derby.ac.uk> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > gosh! > > this is like the mid-90s, when I first joined the list, and the topic "why > hasn't ambisonics taken off?" cropped up every few days, sometimes a week. > > It's always hard to prove why something doesn't happen - and thus, as a > basis for a dissertation, I would be very wary of advising the dissertation > question be framed this way. > > But there are some jolly good arguments here, and collecting and collating > them would be a good idea - who knows, if the dissertation is decent, it > could be hosted on ambisonia.com, when York university get it up and > running? > > Dr Peter Lennox > > School of Technology, > Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology > University of Derby, UK > e: [email protected] > t: 01332 593155 > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Robert Greene [[email protected]] > Sent: 31 March 2012 03:35 > To: Surround Sound discussion group > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > > I am curious about this concept of revival of Ambisonics in the past ten > years. > > Is there really any commercially available Ambisonic material? > > Is anyone actually selling higher order Ambisonic products? > > I realize that of course anything at all can be implemented > on computers. > > But suppose I wanted to hear say a decoded > version of UHJ recordings of the past? > (I can do this--I have a processor--but I mean for a person > outside the field). Could you do this by just pushing a few > buttons? > > Is anyone out in the real world actually hearing any > Ambisonic material at all, people outside the group > of people interested in it in a serious quasi professional > (or really professional) way? > > My impression is that the general public, even the audio public, > has never heard of it, even now. I think the revivial of interest > is mostly just among people like the people here. > > Am I missing something? > Robert > > On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:52:22PM -0700, Robert Greene wrote: >> >>> Surround in music has never been a hit in any form and it still >>> is not. Moreover most music is not really enhanced by it in the minds of >>> most people. Orchestral music benefits enormously--most of what you hear >>> in an orchestra concert is all around you--but most people do not listen >>> to that kind of music. And canned artificial music , well, surround of >>> any kind hardly matters. >> >> Correct. And if you want to use Ambisonics for anything beyond >> listening to classical music, e.g. to compete with 5.1 for movie >> sound, you need higher order. Which was near impossible or at least >> horribly complicated and expensive with analog technology. >> The revival of the past ten years or so is largely the result of >> higher order becoming possible in practice, along with an interest >> from telecom companies rather than music producers. >> >> Ciao, >> >> -- >> FA >> >> A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. >> It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris >> and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sursound mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound >> > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > > _____________________________________________________________________ > The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves > the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this email was sent to > you in error, please notify the sender and delete this email. Please direct > any concerns to [email protected]. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:30:55 +0300 > From: Eero Aro <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi > > I wasn't going to post this on the list, I actually did sent it to Cara > directly. > But as the thread took off, here it is. Let's mourn together. > > I warmly agree with Mark Stahlman about the fact that one point recording - > two speaker reproduction is a very European and especially British-German > concept. Using a lot of microphones, channels and speakers has always been > the American way. (And Japanese... 22.2...) > > My five eurocents worth: > > - Ambisonics was developed by music enthusiasts and mathematicians. > It wasn't developed by any company that has a development department. > - Ambisonics developed at a time when Quadraphonics was dying away > in the USA, at the end of the 1970's. Quadraphony didn't sell and > manufacturers lost their interest to gear and recordings. After all, > quadraphonics > didn't work either. (And remember the meaning of the Oil Crisis to world > economy.) > - Ambisonics was early, it could have survived if it had come at the same > time with digital media. Analog carriers weren't too handy for > multichannel audio. > - Two channel media needed matrixing. UHJ was developed, but there were > no decoders available for the consumers. There were only a couple of small > manufacturers that made decoders, for example Minim Ltd. > - When UHJ was used in recordings, very often it wasn't mentioned in the > record sleeve or cover at all. UHJ was also considered "phasey" and because > of that some record companies forbade their engineers to use UHJ. > - In Britain the BBC didn't allow UHJ encoding being mentioned in the > programme > details. This was because a government broadcaster must not favour a single > manufacturer. > - Very few record companies started using UHJ. > - Chicken and egg syndrome: No Music - No Equipment > - Dolby Surround was a market leader in encoded video and film sound. > Dolby decoders didn't decode UHJ or vice versa. People didn't know what > different encoding systems were and how they should have been used. > (The public had already been confused earlier about Quad, SQ, QS, CD4...) > - Dolby wasn't interested in implementing a foreign invention into their > products. NIH. Maybe Ambisonics wasn't good enough for picture audio. > (It wasn't, Dolby Surround is much more robust for that.) > - There weren't any major manufacturers who would have started making > domestic equipment for Ambisonics. The only real attempts were made by > Nimbus when they were discussing with some Japanese manufacturers. > Mitsubishi made a demo series of a preamp and Onkyo put a digital version > of the Minim AD-7 into their top-of the range Tuner-amplifier. > Discussions with > other manufacturers never lead to real products. > - The developers didn't have a marketing background. The NRDC tried to > market the consept on a license basis, but as far as I know, didn't > spend too > much energy on the thing. The business was moved over to BTG after that, > which didn't get much more sone than the NRDC had done. Both authorities > are large and Ambisonics was a tiny factor within agriculture, industy etc. > - Both professional and domestic equipment has been priced very high, except > the Minim decoders. The Soundfield microphone didn't attract sound > engineers > because it was so expensive. > - Sound engineers find it hard to use the B-Format in normal production. > Some have difficulties in understanding how B-Format works. > - Even if sound engineers did use the Soundfield, they used it as a > stereo mic. > - ProTools is a recording studio standard workstation. ProTools was designed > with stereo in mind and in the beginning it wasn't capable of handling > multichannel audio. Thus there were no multichannel plugins either. > In a professional recording studio productivity is a major thing and you > cannot > spend time by playing with different toy softwares and bounce signals > between > different programs. That is why ProTools and stereo was used in 99,9% of > productions. > > Eero > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 03:31:21 -0700 (PDT) > From: Robert Greene <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > > This surely confirms my view , at least to my mind. > When the only available items is computer games... > well, I know there is money in they, but they are not for me > and I care not at all what they sound like. > > This seems to me going out not with a bang but a definite > whimper. Gerzon would be disappointed, I think. As I understand > his life, he liked music. And that is what he was > interested in reproducing. I think it is a shame that > no way has been found for that purpose to be realized. > > Robert > > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, etienne deleflie wrote: > >>> >>> Is there really any commercially available Ambisonic material? >>> >> >> yes ... in computer games. Buy yourself a PS3, then buy Codemaster's F1, >> or >> Dirt games ... and you'll be hearing (IIRC) 4th order ambisonic encoding >> and decoding ... you can listen in 3D sound using Simon Goodwin's hybrid >> 3D7.1 layout (height produced over an adapted 7.1 layout). >> >> >>> My impression is that the general public, even the audio public, >>> has never heard of it, even now. I think the revivial of interest >>> is mostly just among people like the people here. >>> >> >> I think that is largely true. >> >> Ambisonics has the problem that it is impractical. I believe it is too >> impractical for the home (at least with the currently available >> technology). I've blogged about that here: >> http://etiennedeleflie.net/2012/01/03/ambisonics-is-bad-technology/ >> >>> And canned artificial music , well, surround of >>> any kind hardly matters. >> >> I think it is the exact opposite. "Canned artificial music" is the only >> place where spatial audio maters and maters a lot. Here, I draw a >> distinction between 'surround' ... and spatial audio. The use of our >> spatial perceptual abilities to isolate sounds (auditory stream >> segregation) is used and abused with great skill by contemporary >> 'producers'. That's why the most important plugins in DAWs are things like >> reverberation, panning, digital delay, low-pass-filters, volume control >> etc. These are all *spatial* processes. I've blogger about that here: >> http://etiennedeleflie.net/2012/01/04/aphex-twin-and-spatial-audio/ >> >> Am I missing something? >> >> >> You are forgetting that ambisonics is inaccessible (to the masses). In >> this >> respect Ambisonics is a half-technology. The missing half is the half that >> allows people to have a consistently good and dependable spatial audio >> experience by buying a product, going home and hitting 'play'. In the >> consumer market place, its called *user experience*. The user-experience >> delivered by today's ambisonic technologies is only sufferable by a select >> few ... audio-engineers, technically minded audiophiles, academic >> researchers ... >> >> Etienne >> >> >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Fons Adriaensen wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:52:22PM -0700, Robert Greene wrote: >>>> >>>> Surround in music has never been a hit in any form and it still >>>>> is not. Moreover most music is not really enhanced by it in the minds >>>>> of >>>>> most people. Orchestral music benefits enormously--most of what you >>>>> hear >>>>> in an orchestra concert is all around you--but most people do not >>>>> listen >>>>> to that kind of music. And canned artificial music , well, surround of >>>>> any kind hardly matters. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Correct. And if you want to use Ambisonics for anything beyond >>>> listening to classical music, e.g. to compete with 5.1 for movie >>>> sound, you need higher order. Which was near impossible or at least >>>> horribly complicated and expensive with analog technology. >>>> The revival of the past ten years or so is largely the result of >>>> higher order becoming possible in practice, along with an interest >>>> from telecom companies rather than music producers. >>>> >>>> Ciao, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> FA >>>> >>>> A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. >>>> It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris >>>> and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) >>>> >>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>>> Sursound mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> >>>> >>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> Sursound mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> http://etiennedeleflie.net >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120331/b51f6266/attachment.html> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sursound mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound >> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 15 > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:03:07 +0100 > From: Richard Dobson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 31/03/2012 11:30, Eero Aro wrote: >> Hi >> > .. >> - The developers didn't have a marketing background. The NRDC tried to >> market the consept on a license basis, but as far as I know, didn't >> spend too >> much energy on the thing. The business was moved over to BTG after that, >> which didn't get much more sone than the NRDC had done. Both authorities >> are large and Ambisonics was a tiny factor within agriculture, industy >> etc. > > > This article discusses the NRDC aspects in some detail: > > http://www.ambisonic.net/ambi_AM91.html > > > My own assumption when first discovering Ambsonics (public concert by > electric Phoenix, and later via CDP, from the late 80s) was that it was > purposed towards use in public diffusion - live concerts, e/a > performance etc, and above all, for enabling composers to work in > surround (including the seemingly all-important height dimension) > without having to commit to a specific speaker layout. I don't think it > ever occurred to me at the time that people in any numbers would listen > to surround at home, or that such a thing as an "ambisonic CD" would > ever exist. It was quite strange knowing that the BBC regularly > broadcast in UHJ (especially drama, apparently), but never announced the > fact; it all contributed to the sense of it being some secret > other-worldy process strictly for the "cognoscenti". > > I suspect that sense, far from diminishing, is if anything even more > palpable today. It is more than ever something for the large > presentation space, and something that the public at large will neither > know nor care about having at home. The remaining problem being that > dedicated composition tools supporting it are still not really there; > and probably never will be while it remains a technological moveable > feast reminiscent of the old problem of nailing jelly to a tree. > > Richard Dobson > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 16 > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:49:50 +0300 > From: Eero Aro <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Richard Dobson wrote: > >> My own assumption when first discovering Ambsonics (public concert by >> electric Phoenix, and later via CDP, from the late 80s) was that it was >> purposed towards use in public diffusion > > Rob Alexander describes the beginnings of Ambisonics in Gerzon's biography: > http://www.michaelgerzon.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=4 > > A small group made music recordings, had listening sessions, developed ideas > and built equipment. > > Eero > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > > > End of Sursound Digest, Vol 44, Issue 26 > **************************************** > _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
