Oops - small, but very important correction (since it changes the
meaning completely ....)
"Not that it's easier with WFS or HOA to get some of the other cues right,"
SHOULD read
"Note that it's easier with WFS or HOA to get some of the other cues right,"
Hopefully I've got this out before anyone shouts at me!
Dave
On 30 May 2012 14:48, Dave Malham <dave.mal...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
> One thing to bear in mind is that the perception of proximity is far easier
> to achieve with (fairly rapidly) moving sources. If you get the changing
> patterns of simulated early reflections right, the ear/brain will focus on
> the consistent cues (early reflections) and tend to ignore the inconsistent
> ones like the direct to reverb ratio. Unfortunately, once the sound stops
> moving, the direct to reverb ratio becomes more consistent, so....
>
> However, with any loudspeaker based system, you are continually battling
> against the loudspeaker radius (a.k.a. "reverberation radius" or "critical
> distance") problem - that is, the sound from a loudspeaker (or loudspeakers)
> always tries to sound like it is coming from not less than the distance of
> the loudspeaker, simply because (one of) the strongest distance cue is the
> ratio of direct to reverberant sound. It's easier if you have a very dead
> room and the soundscape you are trying to reproduce has noticeably more
> reverberation, since you can then get the direct-to-reverberant ratio more
> closely right. Not that it's easier with WFS or HOA to get some of the other
> cues right, such as wavefront curvature and this helps greatly - but is not
> a panacea. There are only two ways (at present) that I am aware of in which
> you can, even theoretically, do it - short of physically having moving
> loudspeakers. The first is individually headtracked binaural synthesis over
> headphones, the other is the use of steerable spots of sound produced by
> crossing, modulated ultrasonic beams - a bit like Holophonics Acoustic
> Spotlights but with more widely spread transducers, so that the demodulation
> only occurs where the beams cross.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> On 30/05/2012 14:10, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>
> This is also something I've been wondering about and trying to achieve in
> sound installations. A fly landed on a microphone once when I was recording
> in the jungle and when played back it sort of worked - sort of - but I do
> think the cognitive visual factors (the sound installation was in a large
> indoor jungle at the eden project) helped enormously with believability -
> but anyone listening carefully would have heard a fly about 1 foot high !
> I am told Wavefiled synthesis what you decribe , though haven't heard it
> myelf - I will be building a small WFS setup this summer - quite looking
> forward to hearing it. Another low tech solution which is really crude but
> would probably work would be to have a tiny speaker on an invisible string
> and pulley system pulling it round the room. We are considering introducing
> fireflies to the sound installation this year and that was one idea that
> crossed my mind.... Realistic proximity is a tricky thing to achieve !
>
> FA
> This touches on something i've wondered for a while now. Discrete surround
> always sounds as though it's in a fixed ring to me. Sounds are always the
> same
> distance away. I've experianced that with binaural recordings as well. Is
> there
> a surround sound method that will reproduce actual depth enough so that you
> could track the movment of a fly in a room? I'd love a system where i
> could hear
> a fly moving towards my face, veering off a few inches away, moving at a
> diagonal to 5' away then zig-zaging back and around my head.
>
> Would the lack of a visual component effect that strongly? I can still
> locate a
> fly without seeing it.
>
> Can ambisonics do that with a good mic for the W?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bearcat
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 198 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120529/b153f60d/attachment.bin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120530/352e76fd/attachment.html>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>
>
> --
> These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
> /*********************************************************************/
> /* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */
> /* Music Research Centre */
> /* Department of Music "http://music.york.ac.uk/"; */
> /* The University of York Phone 01904 322448 */
> /* Heslington Fax 01904 322450 */
> /* York YO10 5DD */
> /* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */
> /* "http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/"; */
> /*********************************************************************/
--
These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
Dave Malham
Music Research Centre
Department of Music
The University of York
Heslington
York YO10 5DD
UK
Phone 01904 322448
Fax 01904 322450
'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
