Thank you for your contributions and experiences with similar setups.
My functional goals are in order of importance:
1. maximized speech intelligibility
1. center channel output for typical mono miking
2. stereo mics to be installed with stereo playback
2. coincidence of sound with video content (participant voice steering
onscreen, presentation content to presentation screen, etc.)
3. step toward Ambisonic transmission and presentation capabilities
I always have to weigh against cost and complexity and standard component
sourcing, as we need to deploy and support these in offices all around the
world.
Presently, the single screen solution is a Genelec 6010 (soon 8010) atop
the screen and a condensor mic at the table:
C
+-----+
| |
+-----+
A 3-channel output option should be available (I'd hope small "full-range"
drivers or even tweeters may suffice here for LR):
C
+-----+
L| |R
+-----+
In larger rooms, 2 screens, side-by-side, with the Genelec loudspeaker,
camera, and small computer between, with LR speakers (also Genelec/active
monitors) to either side of the displays:
+-----+ +-----+
L| |C| |R
+-----+ +-----+
I'm playing around an MS (shotgun+bidirectional) miking between the screens
to augment (and hopefully replace) the table mic(s). Alternatively, a
"dummy" head may be implemented, using the approximately head-sized/shaped
Genelec with mics velcroed to either side for a binaural recording. This
works pretty well for near by conversations, and could be preferred for
headphones listening at the other end (very common with participants
joining meetings from their laptops). This would move the loudspeaker/mics
"head" to be "among the participants", below the screen, probably near the
table.
The Trifield decode looks promising/worth dabbling with. I'd even consider
implementing in a hardware box that can be bundled with the active
loudspeaker...where it would accept 1 or 2 channel audio, route the C
channel locally and decode to L/R outputs that could be plugged into if
desired. Hmmm....
Eventually, I expect software to be able to support sending an arbitrary
number of channels and a sideband of descriptors for how they should be
arranged. And I hope for them to be decoded at the destination room
optimally based on their actual spatial distribution.
Best,
JQ
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:06 AM, <anders.vin...@bek.no> wrote:
> >>>>> "J" == JQ Adams writes:
>
> J> My question pertains to play back to a three speaker setup (left,
> J> center, right)...would it be most correct to send the 'mid'
> J> signal directly to a center speaker and the 'side' signal to
> J> speakers left and right, phase inverted from each other?
>
> It won't project to a listener anything like the same sound-field your
> recording was done in, but can nevertheless be effective for some kinds
> of playback, esp. in combination with the more standard ways.
>
> Ive experimented a bit with MS and DMS (double-MS) speaker-setups,
> setting up four speakers [Front, L (Sides), R (Sides inverted), Back]
> stacked directly on top of each other.
>
> Using standard MS-processing, effects like moving-sound, rotating
> speakers (virtual Leslie), panning, etc. come out nice, and use the room
> you're in very effective.
>
> Its possible also to project quite stable, albeit very artificial, 2d
> sound-fields from eg. DMS-recordings also with the stacks, but nothing
> close to the real thing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -anders
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140411/ea0e5b64/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
