Discussion:
Speaker numbering
(too old to reply)
Augustine Leudar
2016-11-16 22:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
across.. Using the example of an octophonic array
The first way seems to be circular :

1 2
8 3
7 4
6 5

The other way is as follows :

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8

There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was curious as to
how other sursounders number their speakers ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161116/493aaff8/attachment.html>
Phi Shu
2016-11-16 23:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8

this is generally treated as 4 stereo pairs, not a circle of eight, hence
the numbering, left odd, right even.

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8

this kind of numbering I would generally use for a front center
configuration but as follows:

1
2 8
3 7
4 6
5

mainly because I tend to use Wigware decoders, and that's the order
indicated..... : )

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Augustine Leudar <
***@gmail.com> wrote:

> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array
> The first way seems to be circular :
>
> 1 2
> 8 3
> 7 4
> 6 5
>
> The other way is as follows :
>
> 1 2
> 3 4
> 5 6
> 7 8
>
> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was curious as to
> how other sursounders number their speakers ?
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> attachments/20161116/493aaff8/attachment.html>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161116/1cb744af/attachment.html>
Phi Shu
2016-11-16 23:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
meant

1 2
8 3
7 4
6 5

in second example.....

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:20 PM, Phi Shu <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 1 2
> 3 4
> 5 6
> 7 8
>
> this is generally treated as 4 stereo pairs, not a circle of eight, hence
> the numbering, left odd, right even.
>
> 1 2
> 3 4
> 5 6
> 7 8
>
> this kind of numbering I would generally use for a front center
> configuration but as follows:
>
> 1
> 2 8
> 3 7
> 4 6
> 5
>
> mainly because I tend to use Wigware decoders, and that's the order
> indicated..... : )
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Augustine Leudar <
> ***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
>> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array
>> The first way seems to be circular :
>>
>> 1 2
>> 8 3
>> 7 4
>> 6 5
>>
>> The other way is as follows :
>>
>> 1 2
>> 3 4
>> 5 6
>> 7 8
>>
>> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was curious as
>> to
>> how other sursounders number their speakers ?
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachme
>> nts/20161116/493aaff8/attachment.html>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sursound mailing list
>> ***@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
>> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161116/a89e221d/attachment.html>
Dave Malham
2016-11-17 11:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Your second layout is what I always tended to do when I had control of the
numbering but when working in a venue other than your own you often don't.
Personally, I'm not sure about "standards" for something as variable as a
multispeaker array since I would ALWAYS want to check that they really,
really were connected to the standard - I have been caught out too many
times over the years :-(

Dave

PS Actually, I would usually check my own rig, just in case someone had
played silly buggers with the leads since last time I used it. Like I said,
been caught out too many times....


On 16 November 2016 at 22:12, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array
> The first way seems to be circular :
>
> 1 2
> 8 3
> 7 4
> 6 5
>
> The other way is as follows :
>
> 1 2
> 3 4
> 5 6
> 7 8
>
> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was curious as to
> how other sursounders number their speakers ?
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> attachments/20161116/493aaff8/attachment.html>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



--

As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.

These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University

Dave Malham
Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
The University of York
York YO10 5DD
UK

'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161117/5bf90225/attachment.html>
Peter Lennox
2016-11-17 13:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I once spent two days trying to understand the mapping of a 32 (periphonic) speaker rig, as there were 3 different speaker numbering 'conventions' in use, by 3 different parties: one used counterclockwise numbering of 'slices' - middle, top, bottom, another used a similar system but clockwise, and another used weird kind of helical 'start at the top, downwards in stripes', kind of system. Each party thought their system was logical and obvious, so it didn't need documenting.
Trying to understand what was actually wired to what was a comical nightmare.

Dr. Peter Lennox
Senior Lecturer in Perception
College of Arts
University of Derby, UK
e: ***@derby.ac.uk
t: 01332 593155
https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox

-----Original Message-----
From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-***@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Malham
Sent: 17 November 2016 11:10
To: Surround Sound discussion group <***@music.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Speaker numbering

Your second layout is what I always tended to do when I had control of the numbering but when working in a venue other than your own you often don't.
Personally, I'm not sure about "standards" for something as variable as a multispeaker array since I would ALWAYS want to check that they really, really were connected to the standard - I have been caught out too many times over the years :-(

Dave

PS Actually, I would usually check my own rig, just in case someone had played silly buggers with the leads since last time I used it. Like I said, been caught out too many times....


On 16 November 2016 at 22:12, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array The first way seems
> to be circular :
>
> 1 2
> 8 3
> 7 4
> 6 5
>
> The other way is as follows :
>
> 1 2
> 3 4
> 5 6
> 7 8
>
> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was curious
> as to how other sursounders number their speakers ?
> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> attachments/20161116/493aaff8/attachment.html>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



--

As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.

These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University

Dave Malham
Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
The University of York
York YO10 5DD
UK

'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161117/5bf90225/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
***@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.


The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the right to monitor email traffic.
If you believe this was sent to you in error, please reply to the sender and let them know.

Key University contacts: http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/
David Pickett
2016-11-19 12:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In order to check that everything is correct, despite one's
impeccable logic in imagining a virtual transformation matrix between
how one thinks the signals should be numbered and the reality of the
specific situation, I recommend that everyone have a test recording
that identifies each channel. With this it is relatively easy to
check and correct, while avoiding total confusion.

David

At 14:21 17-11-16, Peter Lennox wrote:
>I once spent two days trying to understand the mapping of a 32
>(periphonic) speaker rig, as there were 3 different speaker numbering
>'conventions' in use, by 3 different parties: one used
>counterclockwise numbering of 'slices' - middle, top, bottom, another
>used a similar system but clockwise, and another used weird kind of
>helical 'start at the top, downwards in stripes', kind of system. Each
>party thought their system was logical and obvious, so it didn't need
>documenting.
>Trying to understand what was actually wired to what was a comical nightmare.
>
>Dr. Peter Lennox
>Senior Lecturer in Perception
>College of Arts
>University of Derby, UK
>e: ***@derby.ac.uk
>t: 01332 593155
>https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-***@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of
Dave Malham
>Sent: 17 November 2016 11:10
>To: Surround Sound discussion group <***@music.vt.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Sursound] Speaker numbering
>
>Your second layout is what I always tended to do when I had control of
>the numbering but when working in a venue other than your own you
often don't.
>Personally, I'm not sure about "standards" for something as variable
>as a multispeaker array since I would ALWAYS want to check that they
>really, really were connected to the standard - I have been caught out
>too many times over the years :-(
>
> Dave
>
>PS Actually, I would usually check my own rig, just in case someone
>had played silly buggers with the leads since last time I used it.
>Like I said, been caught out too many times....
>
>
>On 16 November 2016 at 22:12, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
>> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array The first way seems
>> to be circular :
>>
>> 1 2
>> 8 3
>> 7 4
>> 6 5
>>
>> The other way is as follows :
>>
>> 1 2
>> 3 4
>> 5 6
>> 7 8
>>
>> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was curious
>> as to how other sursounders number their speakers ?
>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>> scrubbed...
>> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/>>
attachments/20161116/493aaff8/attachment.html>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sursound mailing list
>> ***@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
>> here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>>
>
>
>
>--
>
>As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.
>
>These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University
>
>Dave Malham
>Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
>The University of York
>York YO10 5DD
>UK
>
>'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
><https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/201611>17/5bf90225/attachment.html>
>_______________________________________________
>Sursound mailing list
>***@music.vt.edu
>https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
>here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>
>
>The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and
>reserves the right to monitor email traffic.
>If you believe this was sent to you in error, please reply to the
>sender and let them know.
>
>Key University contacts: http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/
>_______________________________________________
>Sursound mailing list
>***@music.vt.edu
>https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
>here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Augustine Leudar
2016-11-19 14:43:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
yep - I always do that David - number one - number two etc - when its me
that's setting the thing up that works fine - but when your number one is
the technicians number two.... thats where the fun begins :) Another thing
Ive done is provide a speaker map but usually its just easier to ask what
numbering system they use.
then theres the front left, front right test recordings etc - but theres
no agreement on what specific speaker positions should be called for larger
speaker arrays either. It really would be nice if the AES could just decide
on a standard .

On 19 November 2016 at 12:50, David Pickett <***@fugato.com> wrote:

> In order to check that everything is correct, despite one's impeccable
> logic in imagining a virtual transformation matrix between how one thinks
> the signals should be numbered and the reality of the specific situation, I
> recommend that everyone have a test recording that identifies each
> channel. With this it is relatively easy to check and correct, while
> avoiding total confusion.
>
> David
>
>
> At 14:21 17-11-16, Peter Lennox wrote:
> >I once spent two days trying to understand the mapping of a 32
> >(periphonic) speaker rig, as there were 3 different speaker numbering
> >'conventions' in use, by 3 different parties: one used
> >counterclockwise numbering of 'slices' - middle, top, bottom, another
> >used a similar system but clockwise, and another used weird kind of
> >helical 'start at the top, downwards in stripes', kind of system. Each
> >party thought their system was logical and obvious, so it didn't need
> >documenting.
> >Trying to understand what was actually wired to what was a comical
> nightmare.
> >
> >Dr. Peter Lennox
> >Senior Lecturer in Perception
> >College of Arts
> >University of Derby, UK
> >e: ***@derby.ac.uk
> >t: 01332 593155
> >https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox
> >https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-***@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Dave
> Malham
> >Sent: 17 November 2016 11:10
> >To: Surround Sound discussion group <***@music.vt.edu>
> >Subject: Re: [Sursound] Speaker numbering
> >
> >Your second layout is what I always tended to do when I had control of
> >the numbering but when working in a venue other than your own you often
> don't.
> >Personally, I'm not sure about "standards" for something as variable
> >as a multispeaker array since I would ALWAYS want to check that they
> >really, really were connected to the standard - I have been caught out
> >too many times over the years :-(
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >PS Actually, I would usually check my own rig, just in case someone
> >had played silly buggers with the leads since last time I used it.
> >Like I said, been caught out too many times....
> >
> >
> >On 16 November 2016 at 22:12, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com
> >
> >wrote:
> >
> >> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
> >> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array The first way seems
> >> to be circular :
> >>
> >> 1 2
> >> 8 3
> >> 7 4
> >> 6 5
> >>
> >> The other way is as follows :
> >>
> >> 1 2
> >> 3 4
> >> 5 6
> >> 7 8
> >>
> >> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was curious
> >> as to how other sursounders number their speakers ?
> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> >> scrubbed...
> >> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/>>
> attachments/20161116/493aaff8/attachment.html>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Sursound mailing list
> >> ***@music.vt.edu
> >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> >> here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.
> >
> >These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University
> >
> >Dave Malham
> >Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
> >The University of York
> >York YO10 5DD
> >UK
> >
> >'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
> >-------------- next part --------------
> >An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >URL:
> ><https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/201611
> >17/5bf90225/attachment.html>
> >_______________________________________________
> >Sursound mailing list
> >***@music.vt.edu
> >https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> >here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >
> >
> >The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and
> >reserves the right to monitor email traffic.
> >If you believe this was sent to you in error, please reply to the
> >sender and let them know.
> >
> >Key University contacts: http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/
> >_______________________________________________
> >Sursound mailing list
> >***@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
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



--
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161119/70f56bbf/attachment.html>
Dave Malham
2016-11-19 15:03:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Absolutely - there speaks the voice of long experience. Never, never
blindly trust labels on cables. If you do, sooner or later they'll turn
round and bite. Labels help vastly but always run test signals to check
things to be sure. Incidentally, Trinov make a 3-d mic system that is
specifically designed for making acoustic measurements including, most
importantly for this discussion, loudspeaker positions. See
http://www.trinnov.com/technologies/3d-microphone/ . If you can measure the
speaker positions directly (and have the time before the gig!) that avoids
the need to get the labels right since,assuming you can route signals
flexibly in your source system, you can just get everything right there.

If you don't want to do the acoustic measurements, just get the loudspeaker
positions, a similar job can be done with cheaper, unmatched, electrets
spaced more widely so that simple time-of-flight measurements can be used
rather than acoustic analysis as I belief Trinnov are doing. That way
you've only got the connections to the measurement system to get right to
ensure you've gotten the speakers connected appropriately for your
purposes.

Dave

On 19 November 2016 at 12:50, David Pickett <***@fugato.com> wrote:

> In order to check that everything is correct, despite one's impeccable
> logic in imagining a virtual transformation matrix between how one thinks
> the signals should be numbered and the reality of the specific situation, I
> recommend that everyone have a test recording that identifies each
> channel. With this it is relatively easy to check and correct, while
> avoiding total confusion.
>
> David
>
> At 14:21 17-11-16, Peter Lennox wrote:
> >I once spent two days trying to understand the mapping of a 32
> >(periphonic) speaker rig, as there were 3 different speaker numbering
> >'conventions' in use, by 3 different parties: one used
> >counterclockwise numbering of 'slices' - middle, top, bottom, another
> >used a similar system but clockwise, and another used weird kind of
> >helical 'start at the top, downwards in stripes', kind of system. Each
> >party thought their system was logical and obvious, so it didn't need
> >documenting.
> >Trying to understand what was actually wired to what was a comical
> nightmare.
> >
> >Dr. Peter Lennox
> >Senior Lecturer in Perception
> >College of Arts
> >University of Derby, UK
> >e: ***@derby.ac.uk
> >t: 01332 593155
> >https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox
> >https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-***@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Dave
> Malham
> >Sent: 17 November 2016 11:10
> >To: Surround Sound discussion group <***@music.vt.edu>
> >Subject: Re: [Sursound] Speaker numbering
> >
> >Your second layout is what I always tended to do when I had control of
> >the numbering but when working in a venue other than your own you often
> don't.
> >Personally, I'm not sure about "standards" for something as variable
> >as a multispeaker array since I would ALWAYS want to check that they
> >really, really were connected to the standard - I have been caught out
> >too many times over the years :-(
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >PS Actually, I would usually check my own rig, just in case someone
> >had played silly buggers with the leads since last time I used it.
> >Like I said, been caught out too many times....
> >
> >
> >On 16 November 2016 at 22:12, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com
> >
> >wrote:
> >
> >> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
> >> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array The first way seems
> >> to be circular :
> >>
> >> 1 2
> >> 8 3
> >> 7 4
> >> 6 5
> >>
> >> The other way is as follows :
> >>
> >> 1 2
> >> 3 4
> >> 5 6
> >> 7 8
> >>
> >> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was curious
> >> as to how other sursounders number their speakers ?
> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> >> scrubbed...
> >> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/>>
> attachments/20161116/493aaff8/attachment.html>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Sursound mailing list
> >> ***@music.vt.edu
> >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> >> here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.
> >
> >These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University
> >
> >Dave Malham
> >Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
> >The University of York
> >York YO10 5DD
> >UK
> >
> >'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
> >-------------- next part --------------
> >An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >URL:
> ><https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/201611
> >17/5bf90225/attachment.html>
> >_______________________________________________
> >Sursound mailing list
> >***@music.vt.edu
> >https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> >here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >
> >
> >The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and
> >reserves the right to monitor email traffic.
> >If you believe this was sent to you in error, please reply to the
> >sender and let them know.
> >
> >Key University contacts: http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/
> >_______________________________________________
> >Sursound mailing list
> >***@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
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



--

As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.

These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University

Dave Malham
Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
The University of York
York YO10 5DD
UK

'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161119/bdc26fc6/attachment.html>
Marc Lavallée
2016-11-19 15:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If speaker positions are expressed in terms of azimuth, elevation and
distance, the numbering could be a function of those 3 parameters.
--
Marc

Le Sat, 19 Nov 2016 15:03:44 +0000,
Dave Malham <***@york.ac.uk> a écrit :

> Absolutely - there speaks the voice of long experience. Never, never
> blindly trust labels on cables. If you do, sooner or later they'll
> turn round and bite. Labels help vastly but always run test signals
> to check things to be sure. Incidentally, Trinov make a 3-d mic
> system that is specifically designed for making acoustic measurements
> including, most importantly for this discussion, loudspeaker
> positions. See http://www.trinnov.com/technologies/3d-microphone/ .
> If you can measure the speaker positions directly (and have the time
> before the gig!) that avoids the need to get the labels right
> since,assuming you can route signals flexibly in your source system,
> you can just get everything right there.
>
> If you don't want to do the acoustic measurements, just get the
> loudspeaker positions, a similar job can be done with cheaper,
> unmatched, electrets spaced more widely so that simple time-of-flight
> measurements can be used rather than acoustic analysis as I belief
> Trinnov are doing. That way you've only got the connections to the
> measurement system to get right to ensure you've gotten the speakers
> connected appropriately for your purposes.
>
> Dave
>
> On 19 November 2016 at 12:50, David Pickett <***@fugato.com> wrote:
>
> > In order to check that everything is correct, despite one's
> > impeccable logic in imagining a virtual transformation matrix
> > between how one thinks the signals should be numbered and the
> > reality of the specific situation, I recommend that everyone have a
> > test recording that identifies each channel. With this it is
> > relatively easy to check and correct, while avoiding total
> > confusion.
> >
> > David
> >
> > At 14:21 17-11-16, Peter Lennox wrote:
> > >I once spent two days trying to understand the mapping of a 32
> > >(periphonic) speaker rig, as there were 3 different speaker
> > >numbering 'conventions' in use, by 3 different parties: one used
> > >counterclockwise numbering of 'slices' - middle, top, bottom,
> > >another used a similar system but clockwise, and another used
> > >weird kind of helical 'start at the top, downwards in stripes',
> > >kind of system. Each party thought their system was logical and
> > >obvious, so it didn't need documenting.
> > >Trying to understand what was actually wired to what was a
> > >comical
> > nightmare.
> > >
> > >Dr. Peter Lennox
> > >Senior Lecturer in Perception
> > >College of Arts
> > >University of Derby, UK
> > >e: ***@derby.ac.uk
> > >t: 01332 593155
> > >https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox
> > >https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-***@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of
> > >Dave
> > Malham
> > >Sent: 17 November 2016 11:10
> > >To: Surround Sound discussion group <***@music.vt.edu>
> > >Subject: Re: [Sursound] Speaker numbering
> > >
> > >Your second layout is what I always tended to do when I had
> > >control of the numbering but when working in a venue other than
> > >your own you often
> > don't.
> > >Personally, I'm not sure about "standards" for something as
> > >variable as a multispeaker array since I would ALWAYS want to
> > >check that they really, really were connected to the standard - I
> > >have been caught out too many times over the years :-(
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > >PS Actually, I would usually check my own rig, just in case someone
> > >had played silly buggers with the leads since last time I used it.
> > >Like I said, been caught out too many times....
> > >
> > >
> > >On 16 November 2016 at 22:12, Augustine Leudar
> > ><***@gmail.com
> > >
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've
> > >> come across.. Using the example of an octophonic array The first
> > >> way seems to be circular :
> > >>
> > >> 1 2
> > >> 8 3
> > >> 7 4
> > >> 6 5
> > >>
> > >> The other way is as follows :
> > >>
> > >> 1 2
> > >> 3 4
> > >> 5 6
> > >> 7 8
> > >>
> > >> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was
> > >> curious as to how other sursounders number their speakers ?
> > >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> > >> scrubbed...
> > >> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/>>
> > attachments/20161116/493aaff8/attachment.html>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Sursound mailing list
> > >> ***@music.vt.edu
> > >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> > >> here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >
> > >As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.
> > >
> > >These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the
> > >University
> > >
> > >Dave Malham
> > >Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
> > >The University of York
> > >York YO10 5DD
> > >UK
> > >
> > >'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
> > >-------------- next part --------------
> > >An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > >URL:
> > ><https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/201611
> > >17/5bf90225/attachment.html>
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Sursound mailing list
> > >***@music.vt.edu
> > >https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> > >here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> > >
> > >
> > >The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and
> > >reserves the right to monitor email traffic.
> > >If you believe this was sent to you in error, please reply to the
> > >sender and let them know.
> > >
> > >Key University contacts: http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Sursound mailing list
> > >***@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
> > ***@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> > here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >
>
>
>
Gerard Lardner
2016-11-18 00:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Surely it must depend on the convention used in your decoder software.
For example, Harpex-B uses

1 8
2 7
3 6
4 5

for an 8-speaker horizontal ring, or

1 6
2 5
3 4

for a 6-speaker ring, but VVMic uses

1 2
3 4
5 6

Gerard Lardner


On 16/11/2016 22:12, Augustine Leudar wrote:
> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array
> The first way seems to be circular :
>
> 1 2
> 8 3
> 7 4
> 6 5
>
> The other way is as follows :
>
> 1 2
> 3 4
> 5 6
> 7 8
>
> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was curious as to
> how other sursounders number their speakers ?
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161118/32efde5d/attachment.html>
Augustine Leudar
2016-11-18 03:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Not really Gerard - there's plenty of techniques on spatial audio that dont
use decoders and have nothing to do with ambisonics.

On 18 November 2016 at 00:46, Gerard Lardner <***@iol.ie> wrote:

> Surely it must depend on the convention used in your decoder software. For
> example, Harpex-B uses
>
> 1 8
> 2 7
> 3 6
> 4 5
>
> for an 8-speaker horizontal ring, or
>
> 1 6
> 2 5
> 3 4
>
> for a 6-speaker ring, but VVMic uses
>
> 1 2
> 3 4
> 5 6
>
> Gerard Lardner
>
>
>
> On 16/11/2016 22:12, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>
>> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
>> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array
>> The first way seems to be circular :
>>
>> 1 2
>> 8 3
>> 7 4
>> 6 5
>>
>> The other way is as follows :
>>
>> 1 2
>> 3 4
>> 5 6
>> 7 8
>>
>> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was curious as
>> to
>> how other sursounders number their speakers ?
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachme
> nts/20161118/32efde5d/attachment.html>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



--
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161118/7ad82a29/attachment.html>
Phi Shu
2016-11-18 16:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
and that's probably why there is no "standard," all the well known large
arrays use proprietary systems.

In contrast, so called loudspeaker orchestras - originally intended for
diffusing stereo works - tend to apply the rationale of having multiple
stereo pairs - mapped directly to individual faders - and I would guess
it's for this reason that the numbering is as such in the second numbered
sequence you posted; because an acousmatic composer who composes an
octophonc work for that set-up can more easily present it, or even diffuse
it, in a setting that uses multiple speaker pairs.

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Not really Gerard - there's plenty of techniques on spatial audio that dont
> use decoders and have nothing to do with ambisonics.
>
> On 18 November 2016 at 00:46, Gerard Lardner <***@iol.ie> wrote:
>
> > Surely it must depend on the convention used in your decoder software.
> For
> > example, Harpex-B uses
> >
> > 1 8
> > 2 7
> > 3 6
> > 4 5
> >
> > for an 8-speaker horizontal ring, or
> >
> > 1 6
> > 2 5
> > 3 4
> >
> > for a 6-speaker ring, but VVMic uses
> >
> > 1 2
> > 3 4
> > 5 6
> >
> > Gerard Lardner
> >
> >
> >
> > On 16/11/2016 22:12, Augustine Leudar wrote:
> >
> >> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
> >> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array
> >> The first way seems to be circular :
> >>
> >> 1 2
> >> 8 3
> >> 7 4
> >> 6 5
> >>
> >> The other way is as follows :
> >>
> >> 1 2
> >> 3 4
> >> 5 6
> >> 7 8
> >>
> >> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was curious as
> >> to
> >> how other sursounders number their speakers ?
> >>
> >>
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachme
> > nts/20161118/32efde5d/attachment.html>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sursound mailing list
> > ***@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Augustine Leudar
> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> Company Number : NI635217
> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> Belfast BT88LL
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> attachments/20161118/7ad82a29/attachment.html>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161118/a0831c5a/attachment.html>
Dave Malham
2016-11-19 08:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I don't think I would entirely agree that loudspeaker orchestras were all
"originally intended for diffusing stereo works". Mostly, yes indeed they
were, but particularly in the earlier days (1950's or before) the sources
were mostly mono (Pierre Schaeffer) or crudely linked (like the multiple
optical recorders used for Disney's Fantasia) multichannel. I think there
is something in the "stereo" thing but it's simpler than appearance of
loudspeaker orchestra diffusion or potentiometre d'espace based
systems (Jacques
Poullin) or whatever, it's just that by the 1960's stereo amplifiers were
widely available and many of us used bunches of them rather than double
the number of mono units (one Quad 303 in place of two Quad II valve amps,
in my case at York). This leads almost automatically to going left-right,
left-right, left-right, left-right from front to back.

Dave


On 18 November 2016 at 16:24, Phi Shu <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> and that's probably why there is no "standard," all the well known large
> arrays use proprietary systems.
>
> In contrast, so called loudspeaker orchestras - originally intended for
> diffusing stereo works - tend to apply the rationale of having multiple
> stereo pairs - mapped directly to individual faders - and I would guess
> it's for this reason that the numbering is as such in the second numbered
> sequence you posted; because an acousmatic composer who composes an
> octophonc work for that set-up can more easily present it, or even diffuse
> it, in a setting that uses multiple speaker pairs.
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Augustine Leudar <
> ***@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Not really Gerard - there's plenty of techniques on spatial audio that
> dont
> > use decoders and have nothing to do with ambisonics.
> >
> > On 18 November 2016 at 00:46, Gerard Lardner <***@iol.ie> wrote:
> >
> > > Surely it must depend on the convention used in your decoder software.
> > For
> > > example, Harpex-B uses
> > >
> > > 1 8
> > > 2 7
> > > 3 6
> > > 4 5
> > >
> > > for an 8-speaker horizontal ring, or
> > >
> > > 1 6
> > > 2 5
> > > 3 4
> > >
> > > for a 6-speaker ring, but VVMic uses
> > >
> > > 1 2
> > > 3 4
> > > 5 6
> > >
> > > Gerard Lardner
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 16/11/2016 22:12, Augustine Leudar wrote:
> > >
> > >> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
> > >> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array
> > >> The first way seems to be circular :
> > >>
> > >> 1 2
> > >> 8 3
> > >> 7 4
> > >> 6 5
> > >>
> > >> The other way is as follows :
> > >>
> > >> 1 2
> > >> 3 4
> > >> 5 6
> > >> 7 8
> > >>
> > >> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was curious
> as
> > >> to
> > >> how other sursounders number their speakers ?
> > >>
> > >>
> > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachme
> > > nts/20161118/32efde5d/attachment.html>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Sursound mailing list
> > > ***@music.vt.edu
> > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> here,
> > > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Augustine Leudar
> > Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> > Company Number : NI635217
> > Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> > Belfast BT88LL
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> > attachments/20161118/7ad82a29/attachment.html>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sursound mailing list
> > ***@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> attachments/20161118/a0831c5a/attachment.html>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



--

As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.

These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University

Dave Malham
Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
The University of York
York YO10 5DD
UK

'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161119/bb1742dc/attachment.html>
Augustine Leudar
2016-11-19 09:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In theory it wouldnt be impossible to settle upon a standard regardless of
what speaker configuration or technique was used during composition. At the
end of the day the technician at the venue is not going to rewire the
speaker array for each composition that decided it was going to use this
that or the other numbering system. Its simply a matter of the technician
saying "I use this numbering system" and you labeling your .wav / .aif
files accordingly. So if you render 8 files - if your original speaker 5 is
the technicians speaker 1 you number accordingly. I dont see there should
be a problem in settling on a standard speaker array numbering sytem and it
may make everyone's life simpler in the long run. Except for awkward
bastards like myself using irregular speaker arrays of course - but who
cares about them anyway.

On 19 November 2016 at 08:55, Dave Malham <***@york.ac.uk> wrote:

> I don't think I would entirely agree that loudspeaker orchestras were all
> "originally intended for diffusing stereo works". Mostly, yes indeed they
> were, but particularly in the earlier days (1950's or before) the sources
> were mostly mono (Pierre Schaeffer) or crudely linked (like the multiple
> optical recorders used for Disney's Fantasia) multichannel. I think there
> is something in the "stereo" thing but it's simpler than appearance of
> loudspeaker orchestra diffusion or potentiometre d'espace based
> systems (Jacques
> Poullin) or whatever, it's just that by the 1960's stereo amplifiers were
> widely available and many of us used bunches of them rather than double
> the number of mono units (one Quad 303 in place of two Quad II valve amps,
> in my case at York). This leads almost automatically to going left-right,
> left-right, left-right, left-right from front to back.
>
> Dave
>
>
> On 18 November 2016 at 16:24, Phi Shu <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > and that's probably why there is no "standard," all the well known large
> > arrays use proprietary systems.
> >
> > In contrast, so called loudspeaker orchestras - originally intended for
> > diffusing stereo works - tend to apply the rationale of having multiple
> > stereo pairs - mapped directly to individual faders - and I would guess
> > it's for this reason that the numbering is as such in the second numbered
> > sequence you posted; because an acousmatic composer who composes an
> > octophonc work for that set-up can more easily present it, or even
> diffuse
> > it, in a setting that uses multiple speaker pairs.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Augustine Leudar <
> > ***@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Not really Gerard - there's plenty of techniques on spatial audio that
> > dont
> > > use decoders and have nothing to do with ambisonics.
> > >
> > > On 18 November 2016 at 00:46, Gerard Lardner <***@iol.ie> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Surely it must depend on the convention used in your decoder
> software.
> > > For
> > > > example, Harpex-B uses
> > > >
> > > > 1 8
> > > > 2 7
> > > > 3 6
> > > > 4 5
> > > >
> > > > for an 8-speaker horizontal ring, or
> > > >
> > > > 1 6
> > > > 2 5
> > > > 3 4
> > > >
> > > > for a 6-speaker ring, but VVMic uses
> > > >
> > > > 1 2
> > > > 3 4
> > > > 5 6
> > > >
> > > > Gerard Lardner
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 16/11/2016 22:12, Augustine Leudar wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
> > > >> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array
> > > >> The first way seems to be circular :
> > > >>
> > > >> 1 2
> > > >> 8 3
> > > >> 7 4
> > > >> 6 5
> > > >>
> > > >> The other way is as follows :
> > > >>
> > > >> 1 2
> > > >> 3 4
> > > >> 5 6
> > > >> 7 8
> > > >>
> > > >> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was
> curious
> > as
> > > >> to
> > > >> how other sursounders number their speakers ?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachme
> > > > nts/20161118/32efde5d/attachment.html>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Sursound mailing list
> > > > ***@music.vt.edu
> > > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> > here,
> > > > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Augustine Leudar
> > > Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> > > Company Number : NI635217
> > > Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> > > Belfast BT88LL
> > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> > > attachments/20161118/7ad82a29/attachment.html>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Sursound mailing list
> > > ***@music.vt.edu
> > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> here,
> > > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> > >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> > attachments/20161118/a0831c5a/attachment.html>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sursound mailing list
> > ***@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.
>
> These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University
>
> Dave Malham
> Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
> The University of York
> York YO10 5DD
> UK
>
> 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> attachments/20161119/bb1742dc/attachment.html>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



--
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161119/d8a18ded/attachment.html>
Peter Lennox
2016-11-19 19:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
maybe, with the help of a compass, we could standardise on cardinal points of the compass (but do we use true north or magnetic north?)


Dr. Peter Lennox
Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy
Senior Lecturer in Perception
College of Arts
University of Derby

Tel: 01332 593155
________________________________
From: Sursound <sursound-***@music.vt.edu> on behalf of Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
Sent: 19 November 2016 09:03:27
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] [allowed] Speaker numbering

In theory it wouldnt be impossible to settle upon a standard regardless of
what speaker configuration or technique was used during composition. At the
end of the day the technician at the venue is not going to rewire the
speaker array for each composition that decided it was going to use this
that or the other numbering system. Its simply a matter of the technician
saying "I use this numbering system" and you labeling your .wav / .aif
files accordingly. So if you render 8 files - if your original speaker 5 is
the technicians speaker 1 you number accordingly. I dont see there should
be a problem in settling on a standard speaker array numbering sytem and it
may make everyone's life simpler in the long run. Except for awkward
bastards like myself using irregular speaker arrays of course - but who
cares about them anyway.

On 19 November 2016 at 08:55, Dave Malham <***@york.ac.uk> wrote:

> I don't think I would entirely agree that loudspeaker orchestras were all
> "originally intended for diffusing stereo works". Mostly, yes indeed they
> were, but particularly in the earlier days (1950's or before) the sources
> were mostly mono (Pierre Schaeffer) or crudely linked (like the multiple
> optical recorders used for Disney's Fantasia) multichannel. I think there
> is something in the "stereo" thing but it's simpler than appearance of
> loudspeaker orchestra diffusion or potentiometre d'espace based
> systems (Jacques
> Poullin) or whatever, it's just that by the 1960's stereo amplifiers were
> widely available and many of us used bunches of them rather than double
> the number of mono units (one Quad 303 in place of two Quad II valve amps,
> in my case at York). This leads almost automatically to going left-right,
> left-right, left-right, left-right from front to back.
>
> Dave
>
>
> On 18 November 2016 at 16:24, Phi Shu <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > and that's probably why there is no "standard," all the well known large
> > arrays use proprietary systems.
> >
> > In contrast, so called loudspeaker orchestras - originally intended for
> > diffusing stereo works - tend to apply the rationale of having multiple
> > stereo pairs - mapped directly to individual faders - and I would guess
> > it's for this reason that the numbering is as such in the second numbered
> > sequence you posted; because an acousmatic composer who composes an
> > octophonc work for that set-up can more easily present it, or even
> diffuse
> > it, in a setting that uses multiple speaker pairs.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Augustine Leudar <
> > ***@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Not really Gerard - there's plenty of techniques on spatial audio that
> > dont
> > > use decoders and have nothing to do with ambisonics.
> > >
> > > On 18 November 2016 at 00:46, Gerard Lardner <***@iol.ie> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Surely it must depend on the convention used in your decoder
> software.
> > > For
> > > > example, Harpex-B uses
> > > >
> > > > 1 8
> > > > 2 7
> > > > 3 6
> > > > 4 5
> > > >
> > > > for an 8-speaker horizontal ring, or
> > > >
> > > > 1 6
> > > > 2 5
> > > > 3 4
> > > >
> > > > for a 6-speaker ring, but VVMic uses
> > > >
> > > > 1 2
> > > > 3 4
> > > > 5 6
> > > >
> > > > Gerard Lardner
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 16/11/2016 22:12, Augustine Leudar wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
> > > >> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array
> > > >> The first way seems to be circular :
> > > >>
> > > >> 1 2
> > > >> 8 3
> > > >> 7 4
> > > >> 6 5
> > > >>
> > > >> The other way is as follows :
> > > >>
> > > >> 1 2
> > > >> 3 4
> > > >> 5 6
> > > >> 7 8
> > > >>
> > > >> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was
> curious
> > as
> > > >> to
> > > >> how other sursounders number their speakers ?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachme
> > > > nts/20161118/32efde5d/attachment.html>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Sursound mailing list
> > > > ***@music.vt.edu
> > > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> > here,
> > > > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Augustine Leudar
> > > Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> > > Company Number : NI635217
> > > Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> > > Belfast BT88LL
> > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> > > attachments/20161118/7ad82a29/attachment.html>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Sursound mailing list
> > > ***@music.vt.edu
> > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> here,
> > > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> > >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> > attachments/20161118/a0831c5a/attachment.html>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sursound mailing list
> > ***@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.
>
> These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University
>
> Dave Malham
> Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
> The University of York
> York YO10 5DD
> UK
>
> 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> attachments/20161119/bb1742dc/attachment.html>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



--
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161119/d8a18ded/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
***@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.


The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the right to monitor email traffic.
If you believe this was sent to you in error, please reply to the sender and let them know.

Key University contacts: http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161119/5e0ee9cb/attachment.html>
Augustine Leudar
2016-11-20 08:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I think the way of numbering speakers is a slightly separate issue from the
AED values. Even if you have set ideal AED values for speakers - you still
have to say "Speaker 1" has an AED value of .... "Speaker 2" has an AED
value of etc etc you could still have differing AED values but with the
same numbering system - if you know what I mean ?


On 19 November 2016 at 19:22, Peter Lennox <***@derby.ac.uk> wrote:

> maybe, with the help of a compass, we could standardise on cardinal points
> of the compass (but do we use true north or magnetic north?)
>
>
> Dr. Peter Lennox
> Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy
> Senior Lecturer in Perception
> College of Arts
> University of Derby
>
> Tel: 01332 593155
> ________________________________
> From: Sursound <sursound-***@music.vt.edu> on behalf of Augustine
> Leudar <***@gmail.com>
> Sent: 19 November 2016 09:03:27
> To: Surround Sound discussion group
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] [allowed] Speaker numbering
>
> In theory it wouldnt be impossible to settle upon a standard regardless of
> what speaker configuration or technique was used during composition. At the
> end of the day the technician at the venue is not going to rewire the
> speaker array for each composition that decided it was going to use this
> that or the other numbering system. Its simply a matter of the technician
> saying "I use this numbering system" and you labeling your .wav / .aif
> files accordingly. So if you render 8 files - if your original speaker 5 is
> the technicians speaker 1 you number accordingly. I dont see there should
> be a problem in settling on a standard speaker array numbering sytem and it
> may make everyone's life simpler in the long run. Except for awkward
> bastards like myself using irregular speaker arrays of course - but who
> cares about them anyway.
>
> On 19 November 2016 at 08:55, Dave Malham <***@york.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > I don't think I would entirely agree that loudspeaker orchestras were all
> > "originally intended for diffusing stereo works". Mostly, yes indeed they
> > were, but particularly in the earlier days (1950's or before) the sources
> > were mostly mono (Pierre Schaeffer) or crudely linked (like the multiple
> > optical recorders used for Disney's Fantasia) multichannel. I think there
> > is something in the "stereo" thing but it's simpler than appearance of
> > loudspeaker orchestra diffusion or potentiometre d'espace based
> > systems (Jacques
> > Poullin) or whatever, it's just that by the 1960's stereo amplifiers were
> > widely available and many of us used bunches of them rather than double
> > the number of mono units (one Quad 303 in place of two Quad II valve
> amps,
> > in my case at York). This leads almost automatically to going left-right,
> > left-right, left-right, left-right from front to back.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > On 18 November 2016 at 16:24, Phi Shu <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > and that's probably why there is no "standard," all the well known
> large
> > > arrays use proprietary systems.
> > >
> > > In contrast, so called loudspeaker orchestras - originally intended for
> > > diffusing stereo works - tend to apply the rationale of having multiple
> > > stereo pairs - mapped directly to individual faders - and I would guess
> > > it's for this reason that the numbering is as such in the second
> numbered
> > > sequence you posted; because an acousmatic composer who composes an
> > > octophonc work for that set-up can more easily present it, or even
> > diffuse
> > > it, in a setting that uses multiple speaker pairs.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Augustine Leudar <
> > > ***@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not really Gerard - there's plenty of techniques on spatial audio
> that
> > > dont
> > > > use decoders and have nothing to do with ambisonics.
> > > >
> > > > On 18 November 2016 at 00:46, Gerard Lardner <***@iol.ie>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Surely it must depend on the convention used in your decoder
> > software.
> > > > For
> > > > > example, Harpex-B uses
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 8
> > > > > 2 7
> > > > > 3 6
> > > > > 4 5
> > > > >
> > > > > for an 8-speaker horizontal ring, or
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 6
> > > > > 2 5
> > > > > 3 4
> > > > >
> > > > > for a 6-speaker ring, but VVMic uses
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 2
> > > > > 3 4
> > > > > 5 6
> > > > >
> > > > > Gerard Lardner
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 16/11/2016 22:12, Augustine Leudar wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've
> come
> > > > >> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array
> > > > >> The first way seems to be circular :
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1 2
> > > > >> 8 3
> > > > >> 7 4
> > > > >> 6 5
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The other way is as follows :
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1 2
> > > > >> 3 4
> > > > >> 5 6
> > > > >> 7 8
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was
> > curious
> > > as
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> how other sursounders number their speakers ?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > > > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachme
> > > > > nts/20161118/32efde5d/attachment.html>
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Sursound mailing list
> > > > > ***@music.vt.edu
> > > > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> > > here,
> > > > > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Augustine Leudar
> > > > Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> > > > Company Number : NI635217
> > > > Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> > > > Belfast BT88LL
> > > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> > > > attachments/20161118/7ad82a29/attachment.html>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Sursound mailing list
> > > > ***@music.vt.edu
> > > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> > here,
> > > > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> > > >
> > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> > > attachments/20161118/a0831c5a/attachment.html>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Sursound mailing list
> > > ***@music.vt.edu
> > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> here,
> > > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.
> >
> > These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University
> >
> > Dave Malham
> > Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
> > The University of York
> > York YO10 5DD
> > UK
> >
> > 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> > attachments/20161119/bb1742dc/attachment.html>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sursound mailing list
> > ***@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Augustine Leudar
> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> Company Number : NI635217
> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> Belfast BT88LL
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> attachments/20161119/d8a18ded/attachment.html>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>
>
> The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and
> reserves the right to monitor email traffic.
> If you believe this was sent to you in error, please reply to the sender
> and let them know.
>
> Key University contacts: http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> attachments/20161119/5e0ee9cb/attachment.html>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



--
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161120/27063e94/attachment.html>
Dave Malham
2016-11-20 09:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
That is true, right enough, unless you have an in situ measurement system
like the Trinnov one. Then, all you have to do is squirt a signal down each
of the channels to the rig in turn and see what the AED for that channel is
then hook the appropriate output of your system to that channel before
going on to the next. In that case, in theory there's never any need to
know or even have any channel identification. That's *in theory*, in
practise I always used to shout at any students (or even colleagues) who
didn't label things properly because things go wrong (especially when
there's time pressure) and the labelling can be vital in tracing faults -
after all, if the speaker channel ain't working (cleaners have been known
to forget to plug back in what they unplugged to plug their vacuum in) no
about of AED measurement gear is going to do any good :-)

Dave

On 20 November 2016 at 08:58, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think the way of numbering speakers is a slightly separate issue from the
> AED values. Even if you have set ideal AED values for speakers - you still
> have to say "Speaker 1" has an AED value of .... "Speaker 2" has an AED
> value of etc etc you could still have differing AED values but with the
> same numbering system - if you know what I mean ?
>
>
>
> --
> Augustine Leudar
> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> Company Number : NI635217
> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> Belfast BT88LL
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> attachments/20161120/27063e94/attachment.html>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>



--

As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.

These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University

Dave Malham
Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
The University of York
York YO10 5DD
UK

'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161120/29b35584/attachment.html>
Phi Shu
2016-11-20 16:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
@Dave Malham, I guess when talking about "loudspeaker orchestras" meant
Francois Bayle's version forward, but interesting point about the fact that
it may have been technical limitations that dictated the approach, rather
than it stemming from some aesthetic decision, but, wouldn't most composers
working with fixed media (tape music), from the mid-late 60s on, have been
working in studios that were producing for stereo reception? (ignoring the
few that had been experimenting with quad for a moment) So perhaps it had
more to do with widely available playback formats, rather than amp
configurations? I've heard a similar technology explanation used for
explaining why we ended up with octophony as kind of a standard format -
within the electroaocustic scene - which was further reinforced in the
early 90s by the emergence of the ADAT recorder, what's your take on this,
based on what you saw happen?


On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Dave Malham <***@york.ac.uk> wrote:

> I don't think I would entirely agree that loudspeaker orchestras were all
> "originally intended for diffusing stereo works". Mostly, yes indeed they
> were, but particularly in the earlier days (1950's or before) the sources
> were mostly mono (Pierre Schaeffer) or crudely linked (like the multiple
> optical recorders used for Disney's Fantasia) multichannel. I think there
> is something in the "stereo" thing but it's simpler than appearance of
> loudspeaker orchestra diffusion or potentiometre d'espace based
> systems (Jacques
> Poullin) or whatever, it's just that by the 1960's stereo amplifiers were
> widely available and many of us used bunches of them rather than double
> the number of mono units (one Quad 303 in place of two Quad II valve amps,
> in my case at York). This leads almost automatically to going left-right,
> left-right, left-right, left-right from front to back.
>
> Dave
>
>
> On 18 November 2016 at 16:24, Phi Shu <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > and that's probably why there is no "standard," all the well known large
> > arrays use proprietary systems.
> >
> > In contrast, so called loudspeaker orchestras - originally intended for
> > diffusing stereo works - tend to apply the rationale of having multiple
> > stereo pairs - mapped directly to individual faders - and I would guess
> > it's for this reason that the numbering is as such in the second numbered
> > sequence you posted; because an acousmatic composer who composes an
> > octophonc work for that set-up can more easily present it, or even
> diffuse
> > it, in a setting that uses multiple speaker pairs.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Augustine Leudar <
> > ***@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Not really Gerard - there's plenty of techniques on spatial audio that
> > dont
> > > use decoders and have nothing to do with ambisonics.
> > >
> > > On 18 November 2016 at 00:46, Gerard Lardner <***@iol.ie> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Surely it must depend on the convention used in your decoder
> software.
> > > For
> > > > example, Harpex-B uses
> > > >
> > > > 1 8
> > > > 2 7
> > > > 3 6
> > > > 4 5
> > > >
> > > > for an 8-speaker horizontal ring, or
> > > >
> > > > 1 6
> > > > 2 5
> > > > 3 4
> > > >
> > > > for a 6-speaker ring, but VVMic uses
> > > >
> > > > 1 2
> > > > 3 4
> > > > 5 6
> > > >
> > > > Gerard Lardner
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 16/11/2016 22:12, Augustine Leudar wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've come
> > > >> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array
> > > >> The first way seems to be circular :
> > > >>
> > > >> 1 2
> > > >> 8 3
> > > >> 7 4
> > > >> 6 5
> > > >>
> > > >> The other way is as follows :
> > > >>
> > > >> 1 2
> > > >> 3 4
> > > >> 5 6
> > > >> 7 8
> > > >>
> > > >> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was
> curious
> > as
> > > >> to
> > > >> how other sursounders number their speakers ?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachme
> > > > nts/20161118/32efde5d/attachment.html>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Sursound mailing list
> > > > ***@music.vt.edu
> > > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> > here,
> > > > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Augustine Leudar
> > > Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> > > Company Number : NI635217
> > > Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> > > Belfast BT88LL
> > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> > > attachments/20161118/7ad82a29/attachment.html>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Sursound mailing list
> > > ***@music.vt.edu
> > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
> here,
> > > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> > >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> > attachments/20161118/a0831c5a/attachment.html>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sursound mailing list
> > ***@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.
>
> These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University
>
> Dave Malham
> Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
> The University of York
> York YO10 5DD
> UK
>
> 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> attachments/20161119/bb1742dc/attachment.html>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161120/8ab4dc45/attachment.html>
Gerard Lardner
2016-11-18 23:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ah yes. I /was/ thinking only of ambisonics.

On 18/11/2016 03:54, Augustine Leudar wrote:
> Not really Gerard - there's plenty of techniques on spatial audio that
> dont use decoders and have nothing to do with ambisonics.
>
> On 18 November 2016 at 00:46, Gerard Lardner <***@iol.ie
> <mailto:***@iol.ie>> wrote:
>
> Surely it must depend on the convention used in your decoder
> software. For example, Harpex-B uses
>
> 1 8
> 2 7
> 3 6
> 4 5
>
> for an 8-speaker horizontal ring, or
>
> 1 6
> 2 5
> 3 4
>
> for a 6-speaker ring, but VVMic uses
>
> 1 2
> 3 4
> 5 6
>
> Gerard Lardner
>
>
>
> On 16/11/2016 22:12, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>
> How do you number you arrays - there seems to be two ways I've
> come
> across.. Using the example of an octophonic array
> The first way seems to be circular :
>
> 1 2
> 8 3
> 7 4
> 6 5
>
> The other way is as follows :
>
> 1 2
> 3 4
> 5 6
> 7 8
>
> There doesnt seem to be an standard way of doing this - I was
> curious as to
> how other sursounders number their speakers ?
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161118/32efde5d/attachment.html
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161118/32efde5d/attachment.html>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu <mailto:***@music.vt.edu>
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> -
> unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Augustine Leudar
> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> Company Number : NI635217
> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> Belfast BT88LL
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161118/2eb2c3a6/attachment.html>
Loading...