Daw ☺damn you autocorrect. On Thursday, 22 October 2015, Augustine Leudar <augustineleu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You should also look at the Behringer x32 - 32 channels, midas preamps, > motorised faders, proven reliability, works as a usb multichannel > soundcard and door controller. 1000 pounds. > > On Tuesday, 20 October 2015, Michael Chapman <s...@mchapman.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','s...@mchapman.com');>> wrote: > >> Fons Adriaensen wrote (Thu, October 15, 2015 6:47 pm) : >> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:59:46PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: >> > >> >> We've seen all those outlandish claims of magical waveguides that >> >> are just fractions of the wavelength in diameter and yet shape the >> >> sound so wonderfully that a 20Hz beam will travel all the way to the >> >> moon (using the revolutionary VacuProof™ technology that will >> >> finally bring cinema-friendly space battles). The problem is, this >> >> waveshaping is not physically possible. >> > >> > Yes, it's a simple as that - not physically possible. >> > >> > If you think in ambisonic (spherical harmonic) terms it's >> > easy to see why. Orders zero and one correspond to physical >> > quantities, pressure and velocity, so these can be generated >> > directly at any point. Higher order SH can't. >> > >> > Which means that you can have cardioid subs, or even >> > supercardioid ones, but anything expected to create more >> > directional beams will need to be of a size comparable >> > to wavelenght. >> > >> > Can be (and is) done for open-air PA systems using very big >> > arrays. But not in any normal room, there simply isn't the >> > space to do it. >> > >> >> There's something I've missed here ... for several years (as Feynman >> commented <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTRVlUT665U> there's a point >> when it's too late to ask idiot questions, but here goes;-)> : >> >> If X,Y,Z correspond to velocity >> then does W correspond to some displacement of (a notional membrane say >> in) the aether in Jorn's vacuum of space;-)> >> >> If so ... by extension (always dangerous) ... then don't the next five >> (second order) components relate to acceleration ? >> >> >> To rephrase the question with no idiot presumptions: >> Why, in ambisonics, do we repeatedly refer to velcocity but never >> acceleration? >> (If one exists, then so must the other.) >> >> >> I feel an idiot even asking, so harsh replies accepted ;-)> >> >> Michael >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sursound mailing list >> Sursound@music.vt.edu >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, >> edit account or options, view archives and so on. >> > > > -- > www.augustineleudar.com > > -- www.augustineleudar.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151022/52b67514/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
