On 12 Apr 2012, at 23:05, Fons Adriaensen <f...@linuxaudio.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:47:04PM +0200, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: >> On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:27, Fons Adriaensen <f...@linuxaudio.org> wrote: >> >>> First order definitely isn't good enough. As long a you insist that >>> one can't go up in order, just forget about it all. >> >> Tell that Meridian, and all their customers who have enjoyed immensely not >> only listening to horizontal-only 1st order Ambisonics, but also to 1st >> order horizontal-only Ambisonics crippled by UHJ matrix-encoding constraints. > > First order is certainly fine for classical orchestral music, > and I enjoy that as well even without Meridian's help. It works also for all sorts of other music that wants to create swirling sound scapes, etc. We're not trying to help blind people to target shoot by sound, we're essentially looking for artificial musical sound effects and natural sounding ambience. > But that will reach a minoriy classical music lovers audience > only. And first order fails rather miserably for anything else > compared to 5.1 which is what people already have and can compare > with. Essentially nobody listens to music in surround format, particularly not in a mass market. Also, I rather have less precise spatial resolution than what might be achievable with 5.1, but have it sound natural, not the sound out of speakers that most 5.1 productions end up having. Besides, G-Format would also end up being 5.1. > It won't produce a stable front channel for movie sound, > nor has it the the required spatial definition for effects that > work outside a very small sweet spot. Movies have no reason to switch to Ambisonics. The visual dominates the ear, and so there's no need for "natural" sound, because we're absorbed by the movie, and the movie studios are not going to change their production workflow or their love affair with DTS/Dolby anytime soon. So Ambisonics for movies is utterly irrelevant, at least until such point that it has proven to be a resounding success in music. > And what's the problem with > five or seven channels anyway ? Three things: cost, cost, and cost. The cardboard speakers that ship with affordable 5.1 systems are not suitable for music, and anything halfway acceptable is on a good sale at least $250/speaker, which means with four speakers you're at or above $1k, add a decent four channel amp, cables, speaker stands, etc. and you're well above the typical consumer price level already. This isn't about what grant money can buy in a computer lab, this is what a waiter, someone making $1500/month, etc. i.e. the typical iPad/AppleTV buyer could afford, not what a doctor or lawyer would buy if only they had a clue about technology. > This has nothing to do with 'elitism'. Try selling 256-color > computer displays to today's consumers. Won't work even if they > would do fine for 99% of all practical computer applications. > It's too late for that. Technology has moved on, and people > know it. Technology hasn't moved on. 5.1 is 4.0 plus a crappy center speaker that has a totally different tonal quality and never blends with the other four lousy speakers, plus a subwoofer to make up for the fact that the other speakers are lousy. Four full-range speakers in a 4.0 configuration is better than what 99% of people have in their homes, and cost near what they could possibly afford. To talk about higher channel count is totally disregarding economic realities. Further, it's also not about Madonna or some stars who have the budget and access to engineers who might actually understand what they are doing. This is about the majority of musicians who record themselves, or who go to some local dude with a computer and analog mixing desk that sounds horrible but looks impressive to have their music produced. These people are not going to ever understand spherical harmonics, nth order something or another. They can intuitively grasp front-back, left-right and mono. They will be able to make a stereo CD (UHJ), and have an extra gimmick to sell: now you can listen to your CD in surround sound. Nobody is talking about stable images, just as little as The Beatles stereo recordings were Blumlein stereo. But they can make sounds swirl around, and people who do location recording can get a decent ambience. All of that is better than what is accessible to most consumers, musicians, and recording studios today. It is breadth that will get something like this going. It's not the best that is winning, but the most accessible. Once limited Ambisonics is sufficiently adopted, then it's time to show that there's more to this. You're not going to get people to mix single tracks with the channel count that e.g. 2nd order requires unless there's already established demand for surround music. There are also no decent tools around, no DAWs with built-in support for 2nd or 3rd order Ambisonic production, and they won't be, because nobody is going from A directly to C without going to B first. To assume, that somehow, without the pleasant, simple, and enjoyable 1st order Ambisonics being used first, people from Artists to Producers, to recording engineers to software and computer and consumer electronic companies will blindly jump at higher order Ambisonics with all their inherent complexities, and that consumers will happily spend all the money for a 6.0 or 8.0 setup, is just so unrealistic, it defies words. Someone throwing a speaker in each corner of the room and enjoying some spaciousness in the sound they didn't have with stereo before, that is realistic. Who cares about how precise the sounds can be localized, how big the sweet spot is, as long as it has some ambience all over. It will sound spacious, regardless of whether or not it sounds like things are where they were when it was recorded (or intended to be during the mix). All it has to be is pleasant, not more, not less. Ronald _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
