On 21/12/2013 13:28, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
dw wrote:
On 21/12/2013 10:58, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
dw wrote:
On 12/12/2013 12:40, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Hi Étienne.
etienne deleflie <edelef...@gmail.com> a écrit :
... and then ambisonics is suddenly available to
masses of people, for very cheap, and with a consistent and quality
spatial experience (assuming the HRTF decoding can be done right).
Etienne
HRTF decoding is the problem here. Finding a proper HRTF profile by
trying many (over of hundred) is not a solution; realistic binaural
reproduction works only when I listen to my own binaural recordings.
So, to enjoy "mass produced" ambisonics, I'd need personalized HRTF
measurements, a service that is not cheap and non-existent for a
majority of "HRTF challenged" people; for us, decoding ambisonics
over
4 speakers is a better option,
It is undeniable that listening to FOA over a bunch of speakers
will mess up your 'personallised (actual) HRTFs' considerably..
???
Frankly, this is a messed up statement. You need HRTFs if listening
via headphones.
When listening over speakers "decoding ambisonics over 4 speakers is
a better option, ", you are listening via the the superposition of
several of your natural HRTFs with varying amplitudes and delays. In
the time domain this is not equivalent your HRIR for any real source.
Interpolation between these several speaker-head IRs will occur at
the sweet spot to give more or less correct ILD and ITD values, but
outside of the sweet spot, and at high frequencies, the resulting IR
is alien.
Or you are just listening to the "model" of a (natural, complete,
ideal) soundfield, even if this soundfield is reduced? , despite
There is NO RECONSRUCTION of the original soundfield, despite the
microphone by that name, and hype, if you understand 'field' to mean a
volume or plane.
At best it reconstructs the sound at a point, (in terms of dimensions in
terms of wavelength) and CREATES a new soundfield, which may be plausable.
you are listening via the the superpositioBun of several of your
natural HRTFs with varying amplitudes and delays.
Does this also happen if you/I attend a concert? I had to ask this
one, for further clarification.
Not normally, but I suppose it could if you were surounded by singers
who were in-phase and in tune. (see Griesinger)
http://www.davidgriesinger.com/Acous...b_sound_3.pptx
<http://www.davidgriesinger.com/Acoustics_Today/Pitch,%20Timbre,%20Source%20Separation_talk_web_sound_3.pptx>
Note that I did not say that it 'mattered' if you listen via an 'alien'
HRTF, but it might. You just don't get your 'own' whether by listening
to a real speaker, or through DSP convolution. At least you can stay in
the sweet spot using headphones, and you get a chance to 'learn' it
before it all changes again!
On 21/12/2013 10:58, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Just for clarification. (Nobody corrected this.)
The Ambisonic scientologists don't want to play?
"In 1901, Allen Upward <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Upward>
coined /Scientology/ "as a disparaging term, to indicate a blind,
unthinking acceptance of scientific doctrine"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
Naaah. I am just a musician, and I always like to question theories,
including your's - because you have presented a technical/scientific
theory, or at least some interpretation of what happens if FOA is
decoded via 4 loudspeakers! The latter ain't be perfect, but this is
certainly not related to binaural representation. (But I am aware that
we are listening with two ears, at least in the normal case! )
I would never accuse _you_ of not wanting to play, or having a strange
religion, or having undue respect for The Science..
And: I don't adhere to any "Scientologist" community or network... ;-)
The < undeniable > tag doesn't help a lot, BTW.
Thanks for that.
De nada! (I just wanted to express my "belief" that most to all
theories are not undeniable. Further reading: Wittgenstein, "Über
Gewissheit". And Karl Popper basically says that theories can be
easily falsified, whereas the < verification > is a more complex
issue. Of course, scientologist philosophers won't prove my
argument... O:-) )
It is pretty undeniable that each driven (working..) speaker in an
Ambisonic array will make a sound which will arrive at each ear... and
is simply summed in the time domain, or must be summed as
vectors/phasors (taking into account phase/delay, as well as amplitude)
in the frequency domain. I would not call this 'theories' and certainly
not mine..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle
Best,
Stefan
Just for clarification. (Nobody corrected this.)
The < undeniable > tag doesn't help a lot, BTW.
Superposition of IRs is a fact of life.
Best,
Stefan Schreiber
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
_______________________________________________
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/20131221/a390caff/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
