Augustine Leudar wrote:
You can't just make up a new type of amplitude panning like that Stefan.
There is a process involved - there has to be naming ceremony and at least
two research papers with fancy looking graphs in them. Tsk tsk.
Ok, fully agreed!
< Irony on >
I < could > have extended my MNNAP basic assumptions to microphone
theory, but now I won't... :-X
I would have shown why it is hard to build some < dense > stereophonic
microphone. It is basically a consequence of the scientific findings in
my previous sursound posting... If some (now real) acoustical source
shows up in too many < neighbouring/near > capsules, results ain't be
pretty!
I tried to build some "naive" 22.2 mike to plot some "fancy looking
graphs" which would have shown some amazing amount of X-talks between <
non-neighbouring > capsules - explaining why the microphone was supposed
to sound quite badly. (in listening tests. Double-blind, comparing to
5.1 mikes and old quad recordings...Especially the quad recordings
didn't show any significant < non-neighbouring > X-talk!)
After all, the 22.2 mike prototype didn't sound too bad. I couldn't
prove my theory and had to stop this project...
This happens if practice doesn't comply w/ theory... I couldn't publish
some paper, because some practical application should not have worked -
and yet did!
Not good... :-D
< Irony off >
Best,
Stefan
On 10 January 2017 at 23:19, Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:23:47PM +0000, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
If you use amplitude panning between more than 2 (2D) or 3 (3D/VBAP)
speakers, you could run into some trouble. Including X-talk between
more than 2 speakers in the horizont. plain... (same phantom source)
This might lead to quite messy ITD and ILD problems.
So I believe it could make a lot of sense to apply amplitude panning
to the exact minimum amount of speakers you would need to produce
some phantom image effect. Which means 2 speakers in the 2D case, 3
in the 3D case.
This was actually proven wrong long ago, and it is what Ambisonic
decoding gets right.
Nice, because I didn't reproduce anthing and just made up my own little
theory about "minimum neighbour number amplitude panning". (MNNAP.)
Stefan
P.S.:
It's really similar to what happens if you interpolate between
samples using only the two nearest ones.
Two <nearest neighbour samples>, see above! ;-)
Not 1, not 5...
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
