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
