Discussion:
The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973
(too old to reply)
Tim Boissaud-Cooke
2017-01-04 21:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A link to the beginnings of quadrophony & broadcasting from 1973.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/archive/pdffiles/engineering/bbc_engineering_94.pdf

There are many other related articles if you search the site.

All the best for 2017

Tim BC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170104/6ca31b3e/attachment.html>
Rev Tony Newnham
2017-01-05 08:35:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi

This looks interesting. I remember listening to a couple of trial
broadcasts in the early/mid 1970's. As an imporverished student, I only
managed mono for the rears and a borrowed stereo receiver for the front
channels. Interesting though.

Every Blessing

Tony


On 04/01/2017 21:49, Tim Boissaud-Cooke wrote:
> A link to the beginnings of quadrophony & broadcasting from 1973.
>
> http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/archive/pdffiles/engineering/bbc_engineering_94.pdf
>
>
Andrew
2017-01-05 10:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I still have some off-air recordings of the BBC's Matrix H system. Never tried to decode them but they have a pleasing surround sensation when listened to on headphones. Must have been the mic. placements 😉
All the bestAndrew Birt


Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Tim Boissaud-Cooke <***@btopenworld.com>
Date: 04/01/2017 21:49 (GMT+00:00)
To: ***@music.vt.edu
Subject: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

A link to the beginnings of quadrophony & broadcasting from 1973.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/archive/pdffiles/engineering/bbc_engineering_94.pdf

There are many other related articles if you search the site.

All the best for 2017

Tim BC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170104/6ca31b3e/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/20170105/d44ed73f/attachment.html>
Alan Varty
2017-01-05 11:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I too have experienced BBC Matrix H broadcasts.

I built the BBC H decoder which was based around the Sansui QS variable
matrix chipset.

It was absolutely amazing for a matrix system, sounding much better than the
discrete CD-4 system I also had at the time.

One broadcast I recall was a play based upon Alice in Wonderland entitled
"Alice's Adventures In Wonderland".

I can remember listening to this play on BBC Radio 3/4 several times, great
stuff.

All the very best,
Alan




-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 10:32 AM
To: Tim Boissaud-Cooke ; Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973



I still have some off-air recordings of the BBC's Matrix H system. Never
tried to decode them but they have a pleasing surround sensation when
listened to on headphones. Must have been the mic. placements 😉
All the bestAndrew Birt


Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Tim Boissaud-Cooke <***@btopenworld.com>
Date: 04/01/2017 21:49 (GMT+00:00)
To: ***@music.vt.edu
Subject: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

A link to the beginnings of quadrophony & broadcasting from 1973.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/archive/pdffiles/engineering/bbc_engineering_94.pdf

There are many other related articles if you search the site.

All the best for 2017

Tim BC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170104/6ca31b3e/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/20170105/d44ed73f/attachment.html>
Frans van den Berge
2017-01-05 11:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I still have a 5.1 mixing console. Would love to create new content. But
.... there is hardly any market for it :-(


Frans van den Berge


Op 5-1-2017 om 12:19 schreef Alan Varty:
> I too have experienced BBC Matrix H broadcasts.
>
> I built the BBC H decoder which was based around the Sansui QS variable
> matrix chipset.
>
> It was absolutely amazing for a matrix system, sounding much better
> than the
> discrete CD-4 system I also had at the time.
>
> One broadcast I recall was a play based upon Alice in Wonderland
> entitled "Alice's Adventures In Wonderland".
>
> I can remember listening to this play on BBC Radio 3/4 several times,
> great stuff.
>
> All the very best,
> Alan
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Andrew
> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 10:32 AM
> To: Tim Boissaud-Cooke ; Surround Sound discussion group
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973
>
>
>
> I still have some off-air recordings of the BBC's Matrix H system. Never
> tried to decode them but they have a pleasing surround sensation when
> listened to on headphones. Must have been the mic. placements 😉
> All the bestAndrew Birt
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung device
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Tim Boissaud-Cooke <***@btopenworld.com>
> Date: 04/01/2017 21:49 (GMT+00:00)
> To: ***@music.vt.edu
> Subject: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973
>
> A link to the beginnings of quadrophony & broadcasting from 1973.
>
> http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/archive/pdffiles/engineering/bbc_engineering_94.pdf
>
>
> There are many other related articles if you search the site.
>
> All the best for 2017
>
> Tim BC
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170104/6ca31b3e/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/20170105/d44ed73f/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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
g***@btinternet.com
2017-01-09 16:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Most likely this broadcast Alan; I wonder if Transcription Services still have the tape!?
Note the reference to the 'Quadraphon' :-)

From the Radio Times archives -
***************************************************
The Monday Play: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
By LEWIS CARROLL
BBC Radio 4 FM, 12 December 1977 19.20
(A quadraphonic broadcast using Matrix H, compatible for both stereo and mono receivers)

Synopsis:-
The world premiere of a new musical adapted for radio with additional lyrics by JOHN WELLS and music composed and conducted by CARL DAVIS with Polly James as Alice
No "Eat Me!" "Drink Me!" Golden Key,
No Mushroom Left or Right,
Turn on, my Dears, and you will be
In Wonderland tonight!
With glittering Scales the Quadraphon
Spreads wide its wond'rous Wings:
Melodious Creatures cry "Come on",
And dance, as Alice sings.
(JOHN WELLS)
Associate conductor MICHAEL REEVES
A Transcription Services Recording by ADRIAN REVILL.
Directed bv IAN COTTERELL
(Richard Goolden is appearing, in 'Dirty Linen' at the Arts Theatre Club, London)
Contributors
Written By: Lewis Carroll
Adapted By: John Wells
Music Conducted By: Carl Davis
Recording by: Adrian Revill.
Director: Ian Cotterell
********************************************************

Cheers,
Andrew Birt


----Original message----
From : ***@talktalk.net
The Monday Play: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
Date : 05/01/17 - 11:19 (GMTST)
To : ***@music.vt.edu
Subject : Re: [Sursound] The BBC &amp; Quadrophony in 1973

I too have experienced BBC Matrix H broadcasts.

One broadcast I recall was a play based upon Alice in Wonderland entitled
"Alice's Adventures In Wonderland".

I can remember listening to this play on BBC Radio 3/4 several times, great
stuff.

All the very best,
Alan
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-09 19:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Is it perhaps available here ?

http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/5e0b9b76e3b840c884a1a84f50d50436

On 9 January 2017 at 16:33, ***@btinternet.com <***@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Most likely this broadcast Alan; I wonder if Transcription Services still
> have the tape!?
> Note the reference to the 'Quadraphon' :-)
>
> From the Radio Times archives -
> ***************************************************
> The Monday Play: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
> By LEWIS CARROLL
> BBC Radio 4 FM, 12 December 1977 19.20
> (A quadraphonic broadcast using Matrix H, compatible for both stereo and
> mono receivers)
>
> Synopsis:-
> The world premiere of a new musical adapted for radio with additional
> lyrics by JOHN WELLS and music composed and conducted by CARL DAVIS with
> Polly James as Alice
> No "Eat Me!" "Drink Me!" Golden Key,
> No Mushroom Left or Right,
> Turn on, my Dears, and you will be
> In Wonderland tonight!
> With glittering Scales the Quadraphon
> Spreads wide its wond'rous Wings:
> Melodious Creatures cry "Come on",
> And dance, as Alice sings.
> (JOHN WELLS)
> Associate conductor MICHAEL REEVES
> A Transcription Services Recording by ADRIAN REVILL.
> Directed bv IAN COTTERELL
> (Richard Goolden is appearing, in 'Dirty Linen' at the Arts Theatre Club,
> London)
> Contributors
> Written By: Lewis Carroll
> Adapted By: John Wells
> Music Conducted By: Carl Davis
> Recording by: Adrian Revill.
> Director: Ian Cotterell
> ********************************************************
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew Birt
>
>
> ----Original message----
> From : ***@talktalk.net
> The Monday Play: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
> Date : 05/01/17 - 11:19 (GMTST)
> To : ***@music.vt.edu
> Subject : Re: [Sursound] The BBC &amp; Quadrophony in 1973
>
> I too have experienced BBC Matrix H broadcasts.
>
> One broadcast I recall was a play based upon Alice in Wonderland entitled
> "Alice's Adventures In Wonderland".
>
> I can remember listening to this play on BBC Radio 3/4 several times, great
> stuff.
>
> All the very best,
> Alan
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170109/5e8da818/attachment.html>
Paul Hodges
2017-01-09 20:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
--On 09 January 2017 19:45 +0000 Augustine Leudar
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it perhaps available here ?

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p032khvk/products>

Paul

--
Paul Hodges
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-09 21:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
oooo - will this have the quad audio ? It makes me wonder if Delia
Derbyshire or any of the Radiophonic workshop did any quad stuff - now that
I would love to hear !

On 9 January 2017 at 20:38, Paul Hodges <pwh-***@cassland.org> wrote:

> --On 09 January 2017 19:45 +0000 Augustine Leudar
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is it perhaps available here ?
>
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p032khvk/products>
>
> Paul
>
> --
> Paul Hodges
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170109/9ee75249/attachment.html>
Groups
2017-01-09 21:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I doubt it. That links to a 1966 video by Jonathan Miller which will
only have mono sound!

Bill Taylor


On 09/01/2017 21:21, Augustine Leudar wrote:
> oooo - will this have the quad audio ? It makes me wonder if Delia
> Derbyshire or any of the Radiophonic workshop did any quad stuff - now that
> I would love to hear !
>
> On 9 January 2017 at 20:38, Paul Hodges <pwh-***@cassland.org> wrote:
>
>> --On 09 January 2017 19:45 +0000 Augustine Leudar
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is it perhaps available here ?
>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p032khvk/products>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>> Paul Hodges
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
>
Alan Varty
2017-01-09 20:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hello there Andrew,

Yes, that sounds about right.

It was repeated several times over a period of about 12 months or so
and advertised as being either QUAD or MATRIX-H and eventually HJ
in Radio Times.

I also believe some of the BBC TV "Sight and Sound In Concert"
televised rock concerts may have been transmitted in Matrix-H
as well via BBC Radio 1, the idea being you turned your TV sound
down to zero and listened on your stereo/Matrix-H equipped Hi-Fi
whilst watching the performance.

73
Alan
G6CQC





-----Original Message-----
From: ***@btinternet.com
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 4:33 PM
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

Most likely this broadcast Alan; I wonder if Transcription Services still
have the tape!?
Note the reference to the 'Quadraphon' :-)

From the Radio Times archives -
***************************************************
The Monday Play: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
By LEWIS CARROLL
BBC Radio 4 FM, 12 December 1977 19.20
(A quadraphonic broadcast using Matrix H, compatible for both stereo and
mono receivers)

Synopsis:-
The world premiere of a new musical adapted for radio with additional lyrics
by JOHN WELLS and music composed and conducted by CARL DAVIS with Polly
James as Alice
No "Eat Me!" "Drink Me!" Golden Key,
No Mushroom Left or Right,
Turn on, my Dears, and you will be
In Wonderland tonight!
With glittering Scales the Quadraphon
Spreads wide its wond'rous Wings:
Melodious Creatures cry "Come on",
And dance, as Alice sings.
(JOHN WELLS)
Associate conductor MICHAEL REEVES
A Transcription Services Recording by ADRIAN REVILL.
Directed bv IAN COTTERELL
(Richard Goolden is appearing, in 'Dirty Linen' at the Arts Theatre Club,
London)
Contributors
Written By: Lewis Carroll
Adapted By: John Wells
Music Conducted By: Carl Davis
Recording by: Adrian Revill.
Director: Ian Cotterell
********************************************************

Cheers,
Andrew Birt


----Original message----
From : ***@talktalk.net
The Monday Play: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
Date : 05/01/17 - 11:19 (GMTST)
To : ***@music.vt.edu
Subject : Re: [Sursound] The BBC &amp; Quadrophony in 1973

I too have experienced BBC Matrix H broadcasts.

One broadcast I recall was a play based upon Alice in Wonderland entitled
"Alice's Adventures In Wonderland".

I can remember listening to this play on BBC Radio 3/4 several times, great
stuff.

All the very best,
Alan
Sampo Syreeni
2017-01-10 02:58:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-01-09, Alan Varty wrote:

> It was repeated several times over a period of about 12 months or so
> and advertised as being either QUAD or MATRIX-H and eventually HJ in
> Radio Times.

Tell me/us, is any of this H-stuff available anywhere? Has anybody tried
decoding it via the usual UHJ machinery?

Because as far as I remember, the encoding locus of H and UHJ are
compatible; in fact I seem to remember that UHJ was designed to be
compatible with Matrix H. So that an UHJ decode of H ought to work like
a charm, by definition. With UHJ decoders being much more easily
available than anything purely worked for H... ;)
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Alan Varty
2017-01-10 08:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I think I am correct in saying the BBC (H) and NRDC (45j) decided to
co-operate rather than have yet another two competing systems on
the 4-channel scene which at the time already had CD-4, UD-4, SQ and
QS in the arena. BBC/NRDC each modified their encoding "towards"
each other and called it HJ.

Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: Sampo Syreeni
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:58 AM
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

On 2017-01-09, Alan Varty wrote:

> It was repeated several times over a period of about 12 months or so and
> advertised as being either QUAD or MATRIX-H and eventually HJ in Radio
> Times.

Tell me/us, is any of this H-stuff available anywhere? Has anybody tried
decoding it via the usual UHJ machinery?

Because as far as I remember, the encoding locus of H and UHJ are
compatible; in fact I seem to remember that UHJ was designed to be
compatible with Matrix H. So that an UHJ decode of H ought to work like
a charm, by definition. With UHJ decoders being much more easily
available than anything purely worked for H... ;)
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Andrew
2017-01-05 12:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Was that the design published in 'Wireless World' Alan?
Best regards
Andrew


Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Alan Varty <***@talktalk.net>
Date: 05/01/2017 11:19 (GMT+00:00)
To: Surround Sound discussion group <***@music.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

I too have experienced BBC Matrix H broadcasts.

I built the BBC H decoder which was based around the Sansui QS variable
matrix chipset.

It was absolutely amazing for a matrix system, sounding much better than the
discrete CD-4 system I also had at the time.

One broadcast I recall was a play based upon Alice in Wonderland entitled
"Alice's Adventures In Wonderland".

I can remember listening to this play on BBC Radio 3/4 several times, great
stuff.

All the very best,
Alan




-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 10:32 AM
To: Tim Boissaud-Cooke ; Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973



I still have some off-air recordings of the BBC's Matrix H system. Never
tried to decode them but they have a pleasing surround sensation when
listened to on headphones. Must have been the mic. placements 😉
All the bestAndrew Birt


Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Tim Boissaud-Cooke <***@btopenworld.com>
Date: 04/01/2017  21:49  (GMT+00:00)
To: ***@music.vt.edu
Subject: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

A link to the beginnings of quadrophony & broadcasting from 1973.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/archive/pdffiles/engineering/bbc_engineering_94.pdf

There are many other related articles if you search the site.

All the best for 2017

Tim BC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170104/6ca31b3e/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/20170105/d44ed73f/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.

_______________________________________________
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/20170105/3db71589/attachment.html>
Alan Varty
2017-01-05 12:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hello Andrew,

Yes it was.

I seem to recall the BBC had to get permission from Sansui
to allow the use their Variomatrix chipset for H.

At the time I thought nothing could beat a discrete system
like JVC's CD-4 but H was far superior owing no doubt to
the fact that the BBC incorporated a little psychoacoustic
compensation, which of course was lacking in the discrete
approach of CD-4.

Regards,
Alan
G6CQC


Sent from my Geordie "Wey-Aye Pad"


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 12:19 PM
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973



Was that the design published in 'Wireless World' Alan?
Best regards
Andrew


Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Alan Varty <***@talktalk.net>
Date: 05/01/2017 11:19 (GMT+00:00)
To: Surround Sound discussion group <***@music.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

I too have experienced BBC Matrix H broadcasts.

I built the BBC H decoder which was based around the Sansui QS variable
matrix chipset.

It was absolutely amazing for a matrix system, sounding much better than the
discrete CD-4 system I also had at the time.

One broadcast I recall was a play based upon Alice in Wonderland entitled
"Alice's Adventures In Wonderland".

I can remember listening to this play on BBC Radio 3/4 several times, great
stuff.

All the very best,
Alan




-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 10:32 AM
To: Tim Boissaud-Cooke ; Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973



I still have some off-air recordings of the BBC's Matrix H system. Never
tried to decode them but they have a pleasing surround sensation when
listened to on headphones. Must have been the mic. placements 😉
All the bestAndrew Birt


Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Tim Boissaud-Cooke <***@btopenworld.com>
Date: 04/01/2017 21:49 (GMT+00:00)
To: ***@music.vt.edu
Subject: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

A link to the beginnings of quadrophony & broadcasting from 1973.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/archive/pdffiles/engineering/bbc_engineering_94.pdf

There are many other related articles if you search the site.

All the best for 2017

Tim BC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170104/6ca31b3e/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/20170105/d44ed73f/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.

_______________________________________________
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/20170105/3db71589/attachment.html>
Eero Aro
2017-01-05 12:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi

In the Motherlode:
http://tinyurl.com/gl67hy3

Should be in the BBC history site as well.

Eero
ex OH2BLC :-)


5.1.2017, 14:51, Alan Varty kirjoitti:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> Yes it was.
>
> I seem to recall the BBC had to get permission from Sansui
> to allow the use their Variomatrix chipset for H.
>
> At the time I thought nothing could beat a discrete system
> like JVC's CD-4 but H was far superior owing no doubt to
> the fact that the BBC incorporated a little psychoacoustic
> compensation, which of course was lacking in the discrete
> approach of CD-4.
>
> Regards,
> Alan
> G6CQC
Alan Varty
2017-01-05 13:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Many thanks indeed Eero.

73
Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: Eero Aro
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 12:56 PM
To: ***@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

Hi

In the Motherlode:
http://tinyurl.com/gl67hy3

Should be in the BBC history site as well.

Eero
ex OH2BLC :-)


5.1.2017, 14:51, Alan Varty kirjoitti:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> Yes it was.
>
> I seem to recall the BBC had to get permission from Sansui
> to allow the use their Variomatrix chipset for H.
>
> At the time I thought nothing could beat a discrete system
> like JVC's CD-4 but H was far superior owing no doubt to
> the fact that the BBC incorporated a little psychoacoustic
> compensation, which of course was lacking in the discrete
> approach of CD-4.
>
> Regards,
> Alan
> G6CQC
Eero Aro
2017-01-05 13:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> Many thanks indeed Eero.

You are welcome.

Actually, is the WW article with the practical schematics this one mentioned
in the refrences:

Heller, D: Surround Sound Decoders Pts 3 and 4. QS Variomatrix Wireless
World 82
(1488-9) pp. 57-59 August, and pp. 53-56, September 1976 ?

I have never seen that particular article? Anyone with a copy?

Or, was there ever a practical schematic released?

The basic H-Matrix decoder schematics were earlier released in a
Wireless World
article. That was actually a multi-format decoder.

Eero
Alan Varty
2017-01-05 15:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hello Eero.

I cannot remember which issues contained the schematics for the Matrix-H
only variomatrix decoder, sorry.

Later, there were some simple mods to change from H to HJ.

Then, along came the Integrex linear decoder with shelf filters and
multi-system selection buttons, which I also built.

Later still, the IBA carried out some experimental 2.5/3 channel surround
sound broadcasts which were compatible with
existing FM stereo receivers. In relation to this there is a proposed new
type of demultiplexer for improved FM stereo or 3-channel
broadcasts by J. Halliday. This can be found in IBA Technical Review No. 17
of March 1982.

Alan




-----Original Message-----
From: Eero Aro
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 1:57 PM
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

> Many thanks indeed Eero.

You are welcome.

Actually, is the WW article with the practical schematics this one mentioned
in the refrences:

Heller, D: Surround Sound Decoders Pts 3 and 4. QS Variomatrix Wireless
World 82
(1488-9) pp. 57-59 August, and pp. 53-56, September 1976 ?

I have never seen that particular article? Anyone with a copy?

Or, was there ever a practical schematic released?

The basic H-Matrix decoder schematics were earlier released in a
Wireless World
article. That was actually a multi-format decoder.

Eero
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-05 16:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Varty wrote:

> Hello Eero.
>
> I cannot remember which issues contained the schematics for the
> Matrix-H only variomatrix decoder, sorry.
>
> Later, there were some simple mods to change from H to HJ.
>
> Then, along came the Integrex linear decoder with shelf filters and
> multi-system selection buttons, which I also built.
>
> Later still, the IBA carried out some experimental 2.5/3 channel
> surround sound broadcasts which were compatible with
> existing FM stereo receivers. In relation to this there is a proposed
> new type of demultiplexer for improved FM stereo or 3-channel
> broadcasts by J. Halliday. This can be found in IBA Technical Review
> No. 17 of March 1982.


(mysterious) I < believe > that this unknown "experimental 2.5/3
channel Halliday format" was sometimes also called <U>HJ.

This information is classified...
(doc. "IBA Technical Review No. < 17 >" of March 1982 can be consulted
at Her Majesty's GCHQ. You will need some special permission to do so
... O:-) )

Best,

Stefan

>
>
>> Many thanks indeed Eero.
>
>
> You are welcome.
>
> Actually, is the WW article with the practical schematics this one
> mentioned
> in the refrences:
>
> Heller, D: Surround Sound Decoders Pts 3 and 4. QS Variomatrix Wireless
> World 82
> (1488-9) pp. 57-59 August, and pp. 53-56, September 1976 ?
>
> I have never seen that particular article? Anyone with a copy?
>
> Or, was there ever a practical schematic released?
>
> The basic H-Matrix decoder schematics were earlier released in a
> Wireless World
> article. That was actually a multi-format decoder.
>
> Eero
g***@btinternet.com
2017-01-05 16:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Also IBA technical reviews can be accessed here

http://www.ntlpa.org.uk/memorabilia

Courtesy of the NTL Pension Association !

Regards

Andrew
----Original message----
From : ***@mail.telepac.pt
Date : 05/01/17 - 16:27 (GMTST)
To : ***@music.vt.edu
Subject : Re: [Sursound] The BBC &amp; Quadrophony in 1973

Alan Varty wrote:

> Hello Eero.
>
> I cannot remember which issues contained the schematics for the
> Matrix-H only variomatrix decoder, sorry.
>
> Later, there were some simple mods to change from H to HJ.
>
> Then, along came the Integrex linear decoder with shelf filters and
> multi-system selection buttons, which I also built.
>
> Later still, the IBA carried out some experimental 2.5/3 channel
> surround sound broadcasts which were compatible with
> existing FM stereo receivers. In relation to this there is a proposed
> new type of demultiplexer for improved FM stereo or 3-channel
> broadcasts by J. Halliday. This can be found in IBA Technical Review
> No. 17 of March 1982.


(mysterious) I < believe > that this unknown "experimental 2.5/3
channel Halliday format" was sometimes also called <U>HJ.

This information is classified...
(doc. "IBA Technical Review No. < 17 >" of March 1982 can be consulted
at Her Majesty's GCHQ. You will need some special permission to do so
... O:-) )

Best,

Stefan

>
>
>> Many thanks indeed Eero.
>
>
> You are welcome.
>
> Actually, is the WW article with the practical schematics this one
> mentioned
> in the refrences:
>
> Heller, D: Surround Sound Decoders Pts 3 and 4. QS Variomatrix Wireless
> World 82
> (1488-9) pp. 57-59 August, and pp. 53-56, September 1976 ?
>
> I have never seen that particular article? Anyone with a copy?
>
> Or, was there ever a practical schematic released?
>
> The basic H-Matrix decoder schematics were earlier released in a
> Wireless World
> article. That was actually a multi-format decoder.
>
> Eero
Alan Varty
2017-01-05 19:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hello Stefan.

See attachment.

Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Schreiber
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 4:27 PM
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

Alan Varty wrote:

> Hello Eero.
>
> I cannot remember which issues contained the schematics for the Matrix-H
> only variomatrix decoder, sorry.
>
> Later, there were some simple mods to change from H to HJ.
>
> Then, along came the Integrex linear decoder with shelf filters and
> multi-system selection buttons, which I also built.
>
> Later still, the IBA carried out some experimental 2.5/3 channel surround
> sound broadcasts which were compatible with
> existing FM stereo receivers. In relation to this there is a proposed new
> type of demultiplexer for improved FM stereo or 3-channel
> broadcasts by J. Halliday. This can be found in IBA Technical Review No.
> 17 of March 1982.


(mysterious) I < believe > that this unknown "experimental 2.5/3
channel Halliday format" was sometimes also called <U>HJ.

This information is classified...
(doc. "IBA Technical Review No. < 17 >" of March 1982 can be consulted
at Her Majesty's GCHQ. You will need some special permission to do so
... O:-) )

Best,

Stefan

>
>
>> Many thanks indeed Eero.
>
>
> You are welcome.
>
> Actually, is the WW article with the practical schematics this one
> mentioned
> in the refrences:
>
> Heller, D: Surround Sound Decoders Pts 3 and 4. QS Variomatrix Wireless
> World 82
> (1488-9) pp. 57-59 August, and pp. 53-56, September 1976 ?
>
> I have never seen that particular article? Anyone with a copy?
>
> Or, was there ever a practical schematic released?
>
> The basic H-Matrix decoder schematics were earlier released in a
> Wireless World
> article. That was actually a multi-format decoder.
>
> Eero


_______________________________________________
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 3-channel surround sound FM broadcasts.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 211129 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170105/0eeee7e6/attachment.pdf>
Alan Varty
2017-01-05 19:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hello Stefan.

The attachment I sent you in my last email got scrubbed so here
is the link:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=5198095

Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Schreiber
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 4:27 PM
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

Alan Varty wrote:

> Hello Eero.
>
> I cannot remember which issues contained the schematics for the Matrix-H
> only variomatrix decoder, sorry.
>
> Later, there were some simple mods to change from H to HJ.
>
> Then, along came the Integrex linear decoder with shelf filters and
> multi-system selection buttons, which I also built.
>
> Later still, the IBA carried out some experimental 2.5/3 channel surround
> sound broadcasts which were compatible with
> existing FM stereo receivers. In relation to this there is a proposed new
> type of demultiplexer for improved FM stereo or 3-channel
> broadcasts by J. Halliday. This can be found in IBA Technical Review No.
> 17 of March 1982.


(mysterious) I < believe > that this unknown "experimental 2.5/3
channel Halliday format" was sometimes also called <U>HJ.

This information is classified...
(doc. "IBA Technical Review No. < 17 >" of March 1982 can be consulted
at Her Majesty's GCHQ. You will need some special permission to do so
... O:-) )

Best,

Stefan

>
>
>> Many thanks indeed Eero.
>
>
> You are welcome.
>
> Actually, is the WW article with the practical schematics this one
> mentioned
> in the refrences:
>
> Heller, D: Surround Sound Decoders Pts 3 and 4. QS Variomatrix Wireless
> World 82
> (1488-9) pp. 57-59 August, and pp. 53-56, September 1976 ?
>
> I have never seen that particular article? Anyone with a copy?
>
> Or, was there ever a practical schematic released?
>
> The basic H-Matrix decoder schematics were earlier released in a
> Wireless World
> article. That was actually a multi-format decoder.
>
> Eero
Eero Aro
2017-01-06 11:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi

The Audio Magazine was one of my 70's favourites.

Their April issue very had an article by the Lirpa Laboratories.

The 1972 April issue had a small article about a new quadraphonic matrix
designed by Professor I Lirpa.

The article is on page 12.

http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Audio/70s/Audio-1972-04.pdf

:-D

Eero
Andrew
2017-01-05 15:40:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Eero,
It can be downloaded here:-http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Wireless_World_Magazine.htm
Andrew
G3NR


Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Eero Aro <***@dlc.fi>
Date: 05/01/2017 13:57 (GMT+00:00)
To: Surround Sound discussion group <***@music.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

> Many thanks indeed Eero.

You are welcome.

Actually, is the WW article with the practical schematics this one mentioned
in the refrences:

Heller, D: Surround Sound Decoders Pts 3 and 4. QS Variomatrix Wireless
World 82
(1488-9) pp. 57-59 August, and pp. 53-56, September 1976 ?

I have never seen that particular article? Anyone with a copy?

Or, was there ever a practical schematic released?

The basic H-Matrix decoder schematics were earlier released in a
Wireless World
article. That was actually a multi-format decoder.

Eero
_______________________________________________
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/20170105/012565e5/attachment.html>
Sampo Syreeni
2017-01-05 16:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-01-05, Andrew wrote:

> It can be downloaded here:-http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Wireless_World_Magazine.htm

Nice! Are we aware of other WW articles germaine to ambisonic and/or
closely related quadraphonic systems? I think I should save any
additional ones as well, to be included in the Motherlode.
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Eero Aro
2017-01-05 16:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> It can be downloaded here:-
> http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Wireless_World_Magazine.htm
>
> Andrew

What a great resource! Thanks for the link.

The schematic would be in the 1976 September issue:

> Heller, D: Surround Sound Decoders Pts 3 and 4. QS Variomatrix Wireless
> World 82
> (1488-9) pp. 57-59 August, and pp. 53-56, September 1976 ?

But Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

Page 54, that should have the schematic diagram, is blank white!

Eero
Sampo Syreeni
2017-01-05 16:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-01-05, Eero Aro wrote:

> But Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
>
> Page 54, that should have the schematic diagram, is blank white!

Actually it only shows white on my Firefox's internal PDF viewer. Viewed
in a current version of Acrobat Reader DC, it works just fine. :)
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Eero Aro
2017-01-05 16:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thanks Sampo

Yes, it is a Firefox issue. There are several other pages in the same file
that show blank.

Works ok with Opera. Didn't check others.

The downloaded file is also ok and shows fine with Acrobat Reader.

Eero
g***@btinternet.com
2017-01-05 16:48:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Strange Eero, plays ok on my machine. Attached the page for you as pdf....

Andrew


----Original message----
From : ***@dlc.fi
Date : 05/01/17 - 16:37 (GMTST)
To : ***@music.vt.edu
Subject : Re: [Sursound] The BBC &amp; Quadrophony in 1973

> It can be downloaded here:-
> http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Wireless_World_Magazine.htm
>
> Andrew

What a great resource! Thanks for the link.

The schematic would be in the 1976 September issue:

> Heller, D: Surround Sound Decoders Pts 3 and 4. QS Variomatrix Wireless
> World 82
> (1488-9) pp. 57-59 August, and pp. 53-56, September 1976 ?

But Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

Page 54, that should have the schematic diagram, is blank white!

Eero
_______________________________________________
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ww.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 63352 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170105/75a43cb2/attachment.pdf>
Martin Leese
2017-01-05 20:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Alan Varty" wrote:
> Hello Eero.
>
> I cannot remember which issues contained the schematics for the Matrix-H
> only variomatrix decoder, sorry.

This looks like the following Wireless World
two-page article:

Surround sound decoders - 5
Variomatrix adaptor for System 45J and
Matrix H
Phase shift circuit allows Variomatrix to
decode Matrix H and System 45J
by Michael A. Gerzon, M.A., Mathematical
Institute, Oxford

Unfortunately the date on my photocopy is
messed up. It is definitely May, and probably
1977

> Later, there were some simple mods to change from H to HJ.

I remember this article, but cannot find it in my
heap of stuff.

Regards,
Martin
--
Martin J Leese
E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
Martin Leese
2017-01-05 23:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/5/17, Martin Leese wrote:

> "Alan Varty" wrote:
>> Hello Eero.
>>
>> I cannot remember which issues contained the schematics for the Matrix-H
>> only variomatrix decoder, sorry.
>
> This looks like the following Wireless World
> two-page article:
>
> Surround sound decoders - 5
> Variomatrix adaptor for System 45J and
> Matrix H
> Phase shift circuit allows Variomatrix to
> decode Matrix H and System 45J
> by Michael A. Gerzon, M.A., Mathematical
> Institute, Oxford
>
> Unfortunately the date on my photocopy is
> messed up. It is definitely May, and probably
> 1977

May 1977, pages 50 and 51.

(The archive of Wireless World issues is
awesome.)
http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Wireless_World_Magazine.htm

Regards,
Martin
--
Martin J Leese
E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
Sampo Syreeni
2017-01-05 23:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-01-05, Martin Leese wrote:

>> This looks like the following Wireless World two-page article:
>>
>> Surround sound decoders - 5
>> Variomatrix adaptor for System 45J and Matrix H
>> Phase shift circuit allows Variomatrix to decode Matrix H and System 45J
>> by Michael A. Gerzon, M.A., Mathematical Institute, Oxford
>>
>> Unfortunately the date on my photocopy is messed up. It is definitely
>> May, and probably 1977
>
> May 1977, pages 50 and 51.

Heed taken. If I ever need help with excising articles such as this one
from broader work, for inclusion in the Motherlode, I hope I can count
on list partakers? My direct email inbox can take rather a heavy load in
attachments, even if the list software scrubs them; at least hundreds of
megabytes at a time, if not even a few gigabytes.

> (The archive of Wireless World issues is awesome.)

Is it ever! I'm seriously thinking of archiving the whole bonanza! 8)
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Eero Aro
2017-01-06 08:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Martin Leese wrote:
> (The archive of Wireless World issues is
> awesome.)

Actually, the WW part is only a fraction.
I was flabbercasted when I hit the "Home" link on that page.

http://www.americanradiohistory.com/index.htm

There's hundreds of other magazines as well, and more...

Now, this is gonna take a coupe of years to go through....

Eero
Andrew
2017-01-06 11:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Looks good. I'm off to the forest now to find some phase coherent twigs and zero group-delay wicker.Wish me luck ;-) :-)
Andrew


Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Eero Aro <***@dlc.fi>
Date: 06/01/2017 11:28 (GMT+00:00)
To: ***@music.vt.edu
Subject: [Sursound] Professor I Lirpa Quad Matrix

Hi

The Audio Magazine was one of my 70's favourites.

Their April issue very had an article by the Lirpa Laboratories.

The 1972 April issue had a small article about a new quadraphonic matrix
designed by Professor I Lirpa.

The article is on page 12.

http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Audio/70s/Audio-1972-04.pdf

:-D

Eero
_______________________________________________
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/20170106/a5fed559/attachment.html>
Dave Malham
2017-01-06 12:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
:-) :-) :-)


On 6 January 2017 at 11:50, Andrew <***@btinternet.com> wrote:

>
>
> Looks good. I'm off to the forest now to find some phase coherent twigs
> and zero group-delay wicker.Wish me luck ;-) :-)
> Andrew
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung device
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Eero Aro <***@dlc.fi>
> Date: 06/01/2017 11:28 (GMT+00:00)
> To: ***@music.vt.edu
> Subject: [Sursound] Professor I Lirpa Quad Matrix
>
> Hi
>
> The Audio Magazine was one of my 70's favourites.
>
> Their April issue very had an article by the Lirpa Laboratories.
>
> The 1972 April issue had a small article about a new quadraphonic matrix
> designed by Professor I Lirpa.
>
> The article is on page 12.
>
> http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Audio/70s/Audio-1972-04.pdf
>
> :-D
>
> Eero
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170106/a5fed559/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/20170106/fad3bf91/attachment.html>
Eero Aro
2017-01-06 13:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Oh, zero group-delay wickers are rare as hen's teeth these days...

But I am certain that professor Lirpa's VDRS, Vehicular Disc Reproduction
System, that solved almost all vinyl disc player problems, would have
improved matrixed surround sound on vinyl discs as well, if it would not
have been forgotten when digital audio started to take over:

http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Audio/70s/Audio-1978-04.pdf

Page 71 ->

Eero

6.1.2017, 14:22, Dave Malham wrote:
> :-) :-) :-)

>> Looks good. I'm off to the forest now to find some phase coherent twigs
>> and zero group-delay wicker.Wish me luck ;-) :-)
>> Andrew
Michael Dunn
2017-01-06 13:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The amazing thing being that such a product was developed not long afterwards… I believe it’s the famous binaural Mist that has an “extra” segment – a binaural recording of the vehicular reproducer zipping around an LP :-)


-----Original Message-----
Date: Friday, January 6, 2017 at 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Professor I Lirpa Quad Matrix

But I am certain that professor Lirpa's VDRS, Vehicular Disc Reproduction
System, that solved almost all vinyl disc player problems, would have
improved matrixed surround sound on vinyl discs as well, if it would not
have been forgotten when digital audio started to take over:

http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Audio/70s/Audio-1978-04.pdf

Page 71 ->

Eero
umashankar manthravadi
2017-01-06 13:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
My favourite one is Lirpa 5KG, especially the oscilloscope screen photos. There was also a turntable that played both sides of the record at once, but I digress.

umashankar

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Eero Aro<mailto:***@dlc.fi>
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 7:06 PM
To: ***@music.vt.edu<mailto:***@music.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Professor I Lirpa Quad Matrix

Oh, zero group-delay wickers are rare as hen's teeth these days...

But I am certain that professor Lirpa's VDRS, Vehicular Disc Reproduction
System, that solved almost all vinyl disc player problems, would have
improved matrixed surround sound on vinyl discs as well, if it would not
have been forgotten when digital audio started to take over:

http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Audio/70s/Audio-1978-04.pdf

Page 71 ->

Eero

6.1.2017, 14:22, Dave Malham wrote:
> :-) :-) :-)

>> Looks good. I'm off to the forest now to find some phase coherent twigs
>> and zero group-delay wicker.Wish me luck ;-) :-)
>> Andrew
_______________________________________________
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/20170106/ae65bb59/attachment.html>
Richard Lee
2017-01-07 16:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If anyone has recordings of any of this Matrix H, HJ, UHJ stuff, please
post a copy on

http://ambisonia.com/

with a good description of what it is and the circumstances.

I don't think UHJ is dead yet as the biggest present market for music is 2
channel stuff for headphones and UHJ gives excellent results for this and
other playback methods too.

> I still have some off-air recordings of the BBC's Matrix H system. Never
tried to decode them but they have a pleasing surround sensation when
listened to on headphones. Must have been the mic. placements ??

> One broadcast I recall was a play based upon Alice in Wonderland entitled

"Alice's Adventures In Wonderland".

> I can remember listening to this play on BBC Radio 3/4 several times,
great
stuff.
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-07 18:55:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Richard Lee wrote:

>If anyone has recordings of any of this Matrix H, HJ, UHJ stuff, please
>post a copy on
>
>http://ambisonia.com/
>
>with a good description of what it is and the circumstances.
>
>I don't think UHJ is dead yet as the biggest present market for music is 2
>channel stuff for headphones and UHJ gives excellent results for this and
>other playback methods too.
>
>
Even if I basically agree with this view, I would like to add just a
few comments:

- If the listener doesn't use some decoder, UHJ is listened to as <
stereo >. (You are delivering surround sound, but the listener actually
doesn't notice.)

- If you already use some binaural decoder, you could apply some
3/4-channel Ambisonics to binaural decoder anyway.

- Backward-compatible (to stereo) forms of Ambisonics are very probably
possible. I have proposed this idea some time ago. (At 1st order the
proposal is based on 3/4 channel UHJ, so on some LR-TQ channel "stereo
core + extension" scheme. This concept could probably be extended to
HOA, as well.)

Isn't it a bit late for 2-channel UHJ decoders anyway? Some radio
broadcaster already could try to apply some < multiformat > surround to
binaural decoders on the "customer" side. 5.1 and Ambisonics
should/could be both supported, and maybe more formats. (If format wars
are not necessary from a modern perspective, we should not try to
continue some partially imagined conflict. Ambisonics has some clear
advantages in the areas of AR/VR and 360º video. So some natural
application cases finally exist.)

Even HTML5 surround decoders are possible by now:

http://hyperradio.radiofrance.fr/son-3d/

(NouvOson, 5.1)


Marc Lavallée presented one online player/decoder for XYW recordings.

Now somebody would "just" have to do some integration.

Audio objects:

http://lab.irt.de/demos/taar/360/

https://github.com/IRT-Open-Source/bogJS


https://orpheus-audio.eu/project-summary/

> funding from the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 programme

(

> ORPHEUS will deliver a sustainable solution, ensuring that workflows
> and components for object-based audio scale up to enable
> cost-effective commercial production, storage, re-purposing, play-out
> and distribution.

"sustainable cost-effective commercial" bla bla bla bla bla bla.)
----------

Of course they could (or should?) start to implement 5.1 and Ambisonics
decoders firstly. But < who > would fund < this > stuff?! (Too
obvious, too little research or say development effort needed. )

"Wait until 2020. All will be good by then." (It is also some
classical Ircam strategy to point to the benefits of the < next
generation >. We never will be < there > , but never mind! :-D )


So: We don't have to be < too > conservative. (We also don't have to
wait 'til "2020" to start with something.)

Best regards,

Stefan

P.S.: And quadraphonic formats are maybe interesting - but quite
obviously surround history. Some recordings still exist, but there won't
be anything recent or new "stuff" around.



"Alice's Adventures In (3D Audio?) Wonderland".

>I can remember listening to this play on BBC Radio 3/4 several times,
>
>
great
stuff.

There is also some even more jurassic book around... :-X

---------------------------------------


>
>
>>I still have some off-air recordings of the BBC's Matrix H system. Never
>>
>>
>tried to decode them but they have a pleasing surround sensation when
>listened to on headphones. Must have been the mic. placements ??
>
>
>
>>One broadcast I recall was a play based upon Alice in Wonderland entitled
>>
>>
>
>"Alice's Adventures In Wonderland".
>
>
>
>>I can remember listening to this play on BBC Radio 3/4 several times,
>>
>>
>great
>stuff.
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.
>
>
>
Paul Hodges
2017-01-07 20:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
--On 07 January 2017 18:55 +0000 Stefan Schreiber
<***@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:

> - If the listener doesn't use some decoder, UHJ is listened to as
> *stereo*. (You are delivering surround sound, but the listener
> actually doesn't notice.)

I have used it for a commercial job for precisely that purpose. I had
to record a group of musicians performing in the round (school children
in fact), and rather than putting mics all round the inside of the
circle and trying to fabricate a balance, I put the TetraMic in the
centre of the room and encoded to UHJ to get a decent stereo result.
The more distant perspective didn't matter as it was a good acoustic
(Walthamstow Town Hall).

Paul


--
Paul Hodges
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-08 02:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Paul Hodges wrote:

>--On 07 January 2017 18:55 +0000 Stefan Schreiber
><***@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
>
>
>
>>- If the listener doesn't use some decoder, UHJ is listened to as
>>*stereo*. (You are delivering surround sound, but the listener
>>actually doesn't notice.)
>>
>>
>
>I have used it for a commercial job for precisely that purpose. I had
>to record a group of musicians performing in the round (school children
>in fact), and rather than putting mics all round the inside of the
>circle and trying to fabricate a balance, I put the TetraMic in the
>centre of the room and encoded to UHJ to get a decent stereo result.
>The more distant perspective didn't matter as it was a good acoustic
>(Walthamstow Town Hall).
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
I see that your method (kind of) works, i.e. it gives some result.

But any UHJ 2 stereo downmix will have to focus on some 60º to 90º part
of the circle.
(Means "plain stereo" is actually not apt to reproduce the original
situation at all.)

Just for clarification, not meant as some form of critic...


Best,

Stefan

P.S.: A binaural recording could be another recording strategy, in the
described scenario. Can also be reproduced via 2 speakers. (Maybe
applying X-talk cancellation.)
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-08 02:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Stefan Schreiber wrote:

> Paul Hodges wrote:
>
>> --On 07 January 2017 18:55 +0000 Stefan Schreiber
>> <***@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> - If the listener doesn't use some decoder, UHJ is listened to as
>>> *stereo*. (You are delivering surround sound, but the listener
>>> actually doesn't notice.)
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have used it for a commercial job for precisely that purpose. I had
>> to record a group of musicians performing in the round (school children
>> in fact), and rather than putting mics all round the inside of the
>> circle and trying to fabricate a balance, I put the TetraMic in the
>> centre of the room and encoded to UHJ to get a decent stereo result.
>> The more distant perspective didn't matter as it was a good acoustic
>> (Walthamstow Town Hall).
>>
>> Paul
>>
>
>
> P.S.: A binaural recording could be another recording strategy, in
> the described scenario. Can also be reproduced via 2 speakers. (Maybe
> applying X-talk cancellation.)
>
http://www.binaural.com/binfaq.html

> So does that mean binaural recordings are totally useless for ordinary
> listening on loudspeakers?
>
> Not at all! All modern binaural recordings can be heard via standard
> speakers with excellent results -- very similar to good purist-miked
> stereo recordings


What are "modern binaural recordings"?

I leave the answer to the lurking binaural experts on our list....

Stefan
Bob Burton
2017-01-08 04:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield) collaborating
with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title track on
Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090). Surprisingly, the
track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester Cathedral on
the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike playing
guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite awesome.
Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in BBC Matrix
H Quad which was also stereo compatible."

https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170107/65d28b1e/attachment.html>
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-08 11:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
modern binaural recordings I've heard on speakers did not give excellent
results they gave terrible results, aside from the fact the transfer
functions are messed up by room reflections and cross talk it doesn't even
work perfectly on headphones due to differences in individual hrtfs.
Transaural is supposed to be the the two speaker equivelant of binaural for
speakers I know spat were due to release a new version that worked - anyone
heard it ? Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix capability ?

On Sunday, 8 January 2017, Bob Burton <***@audiorents.com> wrote:

> 1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield) collaborating
> with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title track on
> Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090). Surprisingly, the
> track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester Cathedral on
> the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
> breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike playing
> guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite awesome.
> Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in BBC Matrix
> H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>
> https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> attachments/20170107/65d28b1e/attachment.html>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu <javascript:;>
> 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/20170108/3f64c043/attachment.html>
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-09 01:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Augustine Leudar wrote:

> <> modern binaural recordings I've heard on speakers did not give
> excellent
> results they gave terrible results, aside from the fact the transfer
> functions are messed up by room reflections and cross talk

Fair enough. But it seems that opinions about this seem to be vastly
different. (The quality of binaural recordings represented via
loudspeakers is judged to be about between "terrible" and "excellent",
depending on listener....)

>it doesn't even
>work perfectly on headphones due to differences in individual hrtfs.
>
>
No, quite obviously not "perfectly". Listening results will depend a
lot on the hrtf mismatch between dummy head and (individual) listener.
And the perspective is fixed - you can't rotate some dummy head recording!

>Transaural is supposed to be the the two speaker equivelant of binaural for
>speakers I know spat were due to release a new version that worked - anyone
>heard it ?
>
Ambiophonics could also be used - as some already established form of
X-talk cancellation.

>Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix capability ?
>
>
1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
complexity?

You didn't specify any application details. (So I assume you referred
to music recordings or VR.)

Best regards,

Stefan


>On Sunday, 8 January 2017, Bob Burton <***@audiorents.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield) collaborating
>>with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title track on
>>Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090). Surprisingly, the
>>track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester Cathedral on
>>the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
>>breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike playing
>>guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite awesome.
>>Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in BBC Matrix
>>H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>>
>>https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
>>-------------- next part --------------
>>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
>>attachments/20170107/65d28b1e/attachment.html>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-09 01:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Spatial audio is as doused snakeoil as the hifi world. Sound localisation
is not a purely subjective affair - have there been any listening tests
which demosntrate binaural rendering is capable of creating anything like
headphone spatialisation over two stereo loudspeakers ? I highly doubt
it.Anyway -- perhaps one of these "modern" inaural recording are available
online and we can judge for ourselves.
I have neve rnotices any problems rendering ambisonics or vbap with dozens
of channels - or even WFS . What do you mean by "you cant record audio
objects" ?

On 9 January 2017 at 01:05, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:

> Augustine Leudar wrote:
>
> <> modern binaural recordings I've heard on speakers did not give excellent
>> results they gave terrible results, aside from the fact the transfer
>> functions are messed up by room reflections and cross talk
>>
>
> Fair enough. But it seems that opinions about this seem to be vastly
> different. (The quality of binaural recordings represented via loudspeakers
> is judged to be about between "terrible" and "excellent", depending on
> listener....)
>
> it doesn't even
>> work perfectly on headphones due to differences in individual hrtfs.
>>
>>
> No, quite obviously not "perfectly". Listening results will depend a lot
> on the hrtf mismatch between dummy head and (individual) listener. And the
> perspective is fixed - you can't rotate some dummy head recording!
>
> Transaural is supposed to be the the two speaker equivelant of binaural for
>> speakers I know spat were due to release a new version that worked -
>> anyone
>> heard it ?
>>
> Ambiophonics could also be used - as some already established form of
> X-talk cancellation.
>
> Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>> ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>> capability ?
>>
>>
> 1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
> complexity?
>
> You didn't specify any application details. (So I assume you referred to
> music recordings or VR.)
> Best regards,
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 8 January 2017, Bob Burton <***@audiorents.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> 1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield)
>>> collaborating
>>> with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title track on
>>> Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090). Surprisingly, the
>>> track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester Cathedral on
>>> the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
>>> breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike playing
>>> guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite
>>> awesome.
>>> Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in BBC
>>> Matrix
>>> H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
>>> attachments/20170107/65d28b1e/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/20170109/d471d95b/attachment.html>
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-09 03:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Augustine Leudar wrote:

>Spatial audio is as doused snakeoil as the hifi world.
>
I find this view a bit one-sided. At least this should not be related to
our discussion...

>Sound localisation
>is not a purely subjective affair -
>
I didn't claim this.

> have there been any listening tests
>which demosntrate binaural rendering is capable of creating anything like
>headphone spatialisation over two stereo loudspeakers ?
>
I am pretty sure that the kunstkopf proponents did some scientific
listening tests.


>Anyway -- perhaps one of these "modern" inaural recording are available
>online and we can judge for ourselves.
>
>
There are plenty of CDs around, so you will find some content on YT,
Spotify etc.

>I have neve rnotices any problems rendering ambisonics or vbap with dozens
>of channels - or even WFS . What do you mean by "you cant record audio
>objects" ?
>
>
What means "rendering vbap" at all? Vbap is "just" (3D) stereophonic
panning.

You could pan some spot mikes or audio objects into some loudspeaker
layout. But you have to pan "something".

http://legacy.spa.aalto.fi/research/cat/vbap/


>What do you mean by "you cant record audio
>objects" ?
>
I was referring to music and scene/ambiance recording.
Of course you can record some audio objects. This is not a complete
recording yet... I admit that the citing above doesn't make a lot of
sense, but in its context there was one:

>Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>
>
>>ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>capability ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>complexity?
>

I must again ask: What does "vbap" actually means in your question.
Because it is not clear what should be "compared" at all. For me, VBAP
(= panning technique) is always used in some specific context. Is this
context 7.1 or Dolby Atmos or DTS:X or...? You see what I mean, hopefully.

Good night

Stefan






>On 9 January 2017 at 01:05, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>
>><> modern binaural recordings I've heard on speakers did not give excellent
>>
>>
>>>results they gave terrible results, aside from the fact the transfer
>>>functions are messed up by room reflections and cross talk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Fair enough. But it seems that opinions about this seem to be vastly
>>different. (The quality of binaural recordings represented via loudspeakers
>>is judged to be about between "terrible" and "excellent", depending on
>>listener....)
>>
>>it doesn't even
>>
>>
>>>work perfectly on headphones due to differences in individual hrtfs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>No, quite obviously not "perfectly". Listening results will depend a lot
>>on the hrtf mismatch between dummy head and (individual) listener. And the
>>perspective is fixed - you can't rotate some dummy head recording!
>>
>>Transaural is supposed to be the the two speaker equivelant of binaural for
>>
>>
>>>speakers I know spat were due to release a new version that worked -
>>>anyone
>>>heard it ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Ambiophonics could also be used - as some already established form of
>>X-talk cancellation.
>>
>>Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>
>>
>>>ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>>capability ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>complexity?
>>
>>You didn't specify any application details. (So I assume you referred to
>>music recordings or VR.)
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Stefan
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sunday, 8 January 2017, Bob Burton <***@audiorents.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield)
>>>>collaborating
>>>>with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title track on
>>>>Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090). Surprisingly, the
>>>>track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester Cathedral on
>>>>the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
>>>>breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike playing
>>>>guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite
>>>>awesome.
>>>>Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in BBC
>>>>Matrix
>>>>H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>>>>
>>>>https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
>>>>-------------- next part --------------
>>>>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>>URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
>>>>attachments/20170107/65d28b1e/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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-09 03:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sorry, correction:

> "I must again ask: What does "vbap" actually mean in your question?" etc.


Best,

St.
Sampo Syreeni
2017-01-09 04:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-01-09, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

> Sorry, correction:
>
>> "I must again ask: What does "vbap" actually mean in your question?" etc.

It refers to Ville Pulkki's dissertation at Aalto University (then
Helsinki University of Technology, fi: Teknillinen korkeakoulu).
http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2001/isbn9512255324/isbn9512255324.pdf

Basically VBAP (vector base amplitude panning) is a form of equal power
weighted amplitude panning. Just as your normal stereo panning law would
be, only it's in 3D, over widely varying speaker geometry.

Even if the idea is rather simple, nobody for some reason did it before
Ville, really. Definitely didn't take up the task of psychoacoustic
evaluation of the idea.

By Ville's work, it seems to work out better than expected. I wouldn't
be surprised if the likes of Dolby Atmos actually used precisely the
VBAP panning law in order to place their discrete sources.

The critique I'd have for such panning laws is that they don't really
respect the ambisonic/Gerzon theory, especially at the low frequencies.
In essence, they work, and necessarily would *have* to work in the high
frequency, (ambisonically speaking) high order,sparse array limit. Which
is why they mostly work for common music and speech signals.

However, they fail to work general speaker arrays fully. Especially at
the lower frequencies. Ambisonically speaking, where we'd go with a
holistic, whole array, directionally averaged velocity decode.
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-09 05:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sampo Syreeni wrote:

> On 2017-01-09, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
>
>> Sorry, correction:
>>
>>> "I must again ask: What does "vbap" actually mean in your question?"
>>> etc.
>>
>
> It refers to Ville Pulkki's dissertation at Aalto University (then
> Helsinki University of Technology, fi: Teknillinen korkeakoulu).
> http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2001/isbn9512255324/isbn9512255324.pdf
>
> Basically VBAP (vector base amplitude panning) is a form of equal
> power weighted amplitude panning. Just as your normal stereo panning
> law would be, only it's in 3D, over widely varying speaker geometry.

Yes, I basically wrote the same, even linking to some Helsinki source
below dissertation level... :-)

>
> Even if the idea is rather simple, nobody for some reason did it
> before Ville, really. Definitely didn't take up the task of
> psychoacoustic evaluation of the idea.

Yep.

>
> By Ville's work, it seems to work out better than expected. I wouldn't
> be surprised if the likes of Dolby Atmos actually used precisely the
> VBAP panning law in order to place their discrete sources.


Probably! Mpeg-H 3DA certainly makes heavy use of VBAP.

>
> The critique I'd have for such panning laws is that they don't really
> respect the ambisonic/Gerzon theory, especially at the low frequencies.

Stereophonic panning laws are based on Blumlein's stereo theory, which
in Wittek's opinion is pretty close to sound fields anyway.

> In essence, they work, and necessarily would *have* to work in the
> high frequency, (ambisonically speaking) high order,sparse array
> limit. Which is why they mostly work for common music and speech signals.

Disagreed! ILD panning leads to ITD differences at LF. (According to
Blumlein, not me.)

http://www.hauptmikrofon.de/HW/Wittek_thesis_201207.pdf

> In contrast, Blumlein (1933) aimed at a proportional reproduction of
> the directional image of
> the recorded scene by recreating the original physical auditory cues.
> He found that in a
> stereophonic setup, the intensity5 differences between the
> loudspeakers are converted into
> phase differences at the listener’s ears below a certain limit
> frequency. Above this frequency,
> intensity differences between the loudspeakers would translate to
> similar differences between
> the ears. Thus both important cues for source localisation would be
> synthesised correctly: the
> low frequency phase differences and the high frequency intensity
> differences.
> Blumlein’s ideas are the basis of the summing localisation theory, see
> section 3.6.1. They lead
> to a computable stereophonic reproduction between the loudspeakers. He
> proposed a coincident
> microphone setup for capturing intensity differences, consisting of
> two bidirectional
> microphones at an angle of 90°, which nowadays is known as the
> ‘Blumlein pair’.



Best,

Stefan

>
> However, they fail to work general speaker arrays fully. Especially at
> the lower frequencies. Ambisonically speaking, where we'd go with a
> holistic, whole array, directionally averaged velocity decode.
Bo-Erik Sandholm
2017-01-09 06:50:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I have head from guys at swedish radio that the Finland radio corporation
have done a lot of Ambisonic recordings and still continued to do so.

http://labs.plan8.se/ambisonics-webplayer/
Here is a FOA binaural Web based player that you can use in chrome on most
platforms.
If a number of things falls into placering I hope it will support
Headtracking with a bluetooth connected sensor with this year.

Bo-Erik


Den 9 jan. 2017 12:09 em skrev "Stefan Schreiber" <***@mail.telepac.pt>:

> Sampo Syreeni wrote:
>
> On 2017-01-09, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, correction:
>>>
>>> "I must again ask: What does "vbap" actually mean in your question?" etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It refers to Ville Pulkki's dissertation at Aalto University (then
>> Helsinki University of Technology, fi: Teknillinen korkeakoulu).
>> http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2001/isbn9512255324/isbn9512255324.pdf
>>
>> Basically VBAP (vector base amplitude panning) is a form of equal power
>> weighted amplitude panning. Just as your normal stereo panning law would
>> be, only it's in 3D, over widely varying speaker geometry.
>>
>
> Yes, I basically wrote the same, even linking to some Helsinki source
> below dissertation level... :-)
>
>
>> Even if the idea is rather simple, nobody for some reason did it before
>> Ville, really. Definitely didn't take up the task of psychoacoustic
>> evaluation of the idea.
>>
>
> Yep.
>
>
>> By Ville's work, it seems to work out better than expected. I wouldn't be
>> surprised if the likes of Dolby Atmos actually used precisely the VBAP
>> panning law in order to place their discrete sources.
>>
>
>
> Probably! Mpeg-H 3DA certainly makes heavy use of VBAP.
>
>
>> The critique I'd have for such panning laws is that they don't really
>> respect the ambisonic/Gerzon theory, especially at the low frequencies.
>>
>
> Stereophonic panning laws are based on Blumlein's stereo theory, which in
> Wittek's opinion is pretty close to sound fields anyway.
>
> In essence, they work, and necessarily would *have* to work in the high
>> frequency, (ambisonically speaking) high order,sparse array limit. Which is
>> why they mostly work for common music and speech signals.
>>
>
> Disagreed! ILD panning leads to ITD differences at LF. (According to
> Blumlein, not me.)
>
> http://www.hauptmikrofon.de/HW/Wittek_thesis_201207.pdf
>
> In contrast, Blumlein (1933) aimed at a proportional reproduction of the
>> directional image of
>> the recorded scene by recreating the original physical auditory cues. He
>> found that in a
>> stereophonic setup, the intensity5 differences between the loudspeakers
>> are converted into
>> phase differences at the listener’s ears below a certain limit frequency.
>> Above this frequency,
>> intensity differences between the loudspeakers would translate to similar
>> differences between
>> the ears. Thus both important cues for source localisation would be
>> synthesised correctly: the
>> low frequency phase differences and the high frequency intensity
>> differences.
>> Blumlein’s ideas are the basis of the summing localisation theory, see
>> section 3.6.1. They lead
>> to a computable stereophonic reproduction between the loudspeakers. He
>> proposed a coincident
>> microphone setup for capturing intensity differences, consisting of two
>> bidirectional
>> microphones at an angle of 90°, which nowadays is known as the ‘Blumlein
>> pair’.
>>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Stefan
>
>
>> However, they fail to work general speaker arrays fully. Especially at
>> the lower frequencies. Ambisonically speaking, where we'd go with a
>> holistic, whole array, directionally averaged velocity decode.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170109/5d154283/attachment.html>
Eero Aro
2017-01-09 07:43:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:
> I have head from guys at swedish radio that the Finland radio corporation
> have done a lot of Ambisonic recordings

Yes. I did. Some of my colleagues were a little interested, but as the
chicken
and egg situation only continued, the interest slowly dropped. No decoders,
no listeners, no sensible and straightforward production tools for
broadcasting
studios.

> and still continued to do so.

As far as I know, they don't. I'm outta there.

However, B-Format and the Soundfield technology are largely used in
TV Sports sound at the Finnish Broadcasting Company. The output is
discrete 5.1 in HD TV channels.

Eero
Sampo Syreeni
2017-01-10 00:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-01-09, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

>> The critique I'd have for such panning laws is that they don't really
>> respect the ambisonic/Gerzon theory, especially at the low
>> frequencies.
>
> Stereophonic panning laws are based on Blumlein's stereo theory, which
> in Wittek's opinion is pretty close to sound fields anyway.

Correct, but only in the high order, dense limit. In the low order,
sparse array case, which especially four speaker POA deals with, you can
do better. That's why POA decoders don't go in-phase but max energy even
at HF, and especially why we have shelf filters which cut the decode
down to velocity coherence at the low end.

Obviously all of those decoding principles converge to holophony in the
high order, dense array limit, so that Wittek is correct in that case.
However I'd argue that the whole point of POA is to optimally deal with
the low order, sparse array case, where each of the decoding principles
are pretty far from convergence, and in very different ways -- intensity
panning pretty much corresponding to an in-phase decode, which we
already know is *not* always optimal.
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-10 02:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sampo Syreeni wrote:

> On 2017-01-09, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
>
>>> The critique I'd have for such panning laws is that they don't
>>> really respect the ambisonic/Gerzon theory, especially at the low
>>> frequencies.
>>
>>
>> Stereophonic panning laws are based on Blumlein's stereo theory,
>> which in Wittek's opinion is pretty close to sound fields anyway.
>
>
> Correct, but only in the high order, dense limit. In the low order,
> sparse array case, which especially four speaker POA deals with, you
> can do better. That's why POA decoders don't go in-phase but max
> energy even at HF, and especially why we have shelf filters which cut
> the decode down to velocity coherence at the low end.

But Blumlein developped his "physical cue" stereo just for 2 speakers. ;-)
Forget about any "high order" re-interpretations. It's all about ITD,
ILD and say summing location.

It is pretty obvious that Ambisonics theory is influenced by Blumlein
stereo...

Now, 3-channel stereo (+ extensions) seems to be some early version of
WFS...

http://www.hauptmikrofon.de/HW/Wittek_thesis_201207.pdf

p. 28:

> In America Steinberg, Snow and Fletcher (Steinberg and Snow, 1934)
> from Bell Laboratories
> explored the 'acoustic curtain', see Figure 3-3.

> Snow described their ideas in
> this way: "The myriad loudspeakers of the screen, acting as point
> sources of sound identical
> with the sound heard by the microphones, would project a true copy of
> the original sound into
> the listening area. The observer would then employ ordinary binaural
> listening, and his ears
> would be stimulated by sounds identical to those he would have heard
> coming from the original
> sound source." (Snow, 1953)

(= WFS!)

> These scientists quickly noticed that, due to technical constraints,
> it would not be feasible to
> put their ideas into practice. As a compromise, they limited the
> practical system to three channels,
> accepting that the original aim of recreating the real sound field
> would no longer be ful

> filled. The three-channel stereophony produced in this way was
> therefore not created as a
> result of a mathematical analysis of the sound field, but rather as an
> engineering compromise.
> Its directional effect is based on perceptual phenomena such as the
> precedence effect and
> level and time difference stereophony.
> In contrast, Blumlein (1933) aimed at a proportional reproduction of
> the directional image of
> the recorded scene by recreating the original physical auditory cues.

> Snow (1953) pointed out, regarding the basic difference between the
> n-channel acoustic curtain
> and 3-channel stereophony: "This arrangement [3-channel stereophony,
> see Figure 3-3]
> does indeed give good auditory perspective, but what has not been
> generally appreciated is
> that conditions are now so different from the impractical <infinite
> screen> setup that a different
> hearing mechanism is used by the brain."
> Researchers who observe contradictions in the generally accepted
> summing localisation theory
> quote this statement by Snow.


Let's say the creators of stereo (including binaural stereo, developped
even earlier in the 19th century) thought all in terms of physical
acoustics and psychoacoustics...

>
> Obviously all of those decoding principles converge to holophony in
> the high order, dense array limit, so that Wittek is correct in that case.

Well, look to the title of Wittek's dissertation...

Switching guru mode on:
< Every reasonable stereophonic system will become some copy of
real-world acoustics >, as long as you can use infinite ressources to
prove your point! (Do you agree?!)

Example:
HOA DirAC... :-)

> However I'd argue that the whole point of POA is to optimally deal
> with the low order, sparse array case, where each of the decoding
> principles are pretty far from convergence, and in very different ways
> -- intensity panning pretty much corresponding to an in-phase decode,
> which we already know is *not* always optimal.

1st order Ambisonics is "just" the 2nd most simple implementation of a
sound field. Should we not start interpretation in this way, not with
some "sparse array" we should use somehow??
The "sparse" decoder array is an implementation issue. (Order 0 was
already obsolete when Ambisonics was developped. But quadraphonic
systems already existed. "Some believe that Ambisonics is a kind of
improved quadraphonic system"... 8-) )

Anyway: I can't quite follow! You do an in-phase decode if you want to
enlarge some (usable) listening area. It is not some optimal decoding
strategy for POA, but so what?

You could also say that your argument is some "proof" that intensity
panning/VBAP has some bigger sweet spot than POA. (Maybe true, but this
is not really the motivation behind some in-phase area decoder.)

I would not treat stereophonic systems as some "deformed" implementation
of Ambisonics. They are not...

Secondly, "theoretically perfect" systems are mostly "not really"
perfect in reality:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/record-play-map.htm

> The array has equal sensitivity front and back but low pickup from the
> sides. I doubt that the Blumlein array is optimal for mapping an
> auditory scene for stereo loudspeaker playback.

So, does the Blumlein microphone pick up too much reverberation or not?
And do we have some side problems?

This might all depend on the situation.


Best,

Stefan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170110/ff6c263a/attachment.html>
Politis Archontis
2017-01-09 12:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Sampo,

> On 09 Jan 2017, at 06:27, Sampo Syreeni <***@iki.fi> wrote:
>
> The critique I'd have for such panning laws is that they don't really respect the ambisonic/Gerzon theory, especially at the low frequencies. In essence, they work, and necessarily would *have* to work in the high frequency, (ambisonically speaking) high order,sparse array limit. Which is why they mostly work for common music and speech signals.

I am a bit baffled by the idea that VBAP is not compatible with Ambisonics theory (?) Thinking in terms of velocity and energy vectors, as far as I understand, VBAP with the (classic) amplitude panning formulation has zero angular error for the (Makita) velocity vectors for all directions. If you take the energy formulation of VBAP for high frequencies (solving for energies instead of amplitudes) then it results in the maximum (Gerzon) energy vectors that the setup can achieve with zero directional error again. Of course at low frequencies you cannot achieve the “perfect” pressure reconstruction that a mode-matching decoder can achieve, but then you see what are the gains that such a decoder imposes on not ideal regular setups to realize that perfect reconstruction should be compromised anyway with some more practical solution.


> However, they fail to work general speaker arrays fully. Especially at the lower frequencies. Ambisonically speaking, where we'd go with a holistic, whole array, directionally averaged velocity decode.

Again I think it depends how you mean it - VBAP will just work for any speaker array with a performance limited by the setup in a quite intuitive understandable way (large spread for large triangle apertures, full concentration at a speaker direction, nothing for regions outside a partial setup etc..). Ambisonic decoding for any array is not designed as easily as computing VBAP gains, and it seems for irregular setups, one of the most straightforward and practical ways to do it is to combine the properties of VBAP and Ambisonic decoding (as the work of Zotter, Batke, and Epain have shown). Considering panning specifically, I think it depends on the application what works best, for VR or interactive-audio stuff for example, where normally sound objects would be rendered with maximum sharpness VBAP would work better. If however some and more even directional spreading is preferred, then ambisonic panning should be better, or some VBAP variant with spreading as has been presented by Ville and others.

So I find Augustine's comments reasonable on panning sounds, but not in general: VBAP vs Ambisonics.

> On 09 Jan 2017, at 12:33, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes i just mean - when making a 3D sound installation you can use various
> types of panning round a sphere (or whatever of speaker array). You seemed
> to be saying ambisonics had a clear advantage over other types of panning
> for 3D audio - I was just wondering what you saw as ambisonics' advantages
> over VBAP. I've actually found Ambisonics to be worse compared to VBAP in
> many situations and better in others - but generally I use Vbap or Dbap .
> The only real advantage I can see of ambisonics is having one file that can
> be up or down mixed - but you can do that to a degree with Vbap files as
> well.

(What is a VBAP file?)

That’s if you have actually access to the sound objects with their parametric information, in which case sure you can pan them however you like, you can even switch between different panners on the fly and pick the one you prefer. However, the generality of Ambisonics becomes clear if you have real sound-scene recordings, or you don’t have access to the objects due to bandwidth limitations, and it makes sense to downmix them to a format that preserves their directional properties as good as possible. This last case becomes especially important if decoding of some HOA channels (or even FOA with parametric decoding) becomes perceptually indistinguishable with respect to spatializing many of sound objects separately..

Regards,
Archontis
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-09 12:32:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Archontis - I mean when I make a multichannel sound installation and use
Vbap to pan it - lets say an eight channel octophonic horizonatal array -
when I export an 8 channel interleaved rendering of this installation later
and play it back on say, Iplayer, it automatically renders it to stereo and
and panning is suprising well represented in stereo.

On 9 January 2017 at 12:19, Politis Archontis <***@aalto.fi>
wrote:

> Hi Sampo,
>
> > On 09 Jan 2017, at 06:27, Sampo Syreeni <***@iki.fi> wrote:
> >
> > The critique I'd have for such panning laws is that they don't really
> respect the ambisonic/Gerzon theory, especially at the low frequencies. In
> essence, they work, and necessarily would *have* to work in the high
> frequency, (ambisonically speaking) high order,sparse array limit. Which is
> why they mostly work for common music and speech signals.
>
> I am a bit baffled by the idea that VBAP is not compatible with Ambisonics
> theory (?) Thinking in terms of velocity and energy vectors, as far as I
> understand, VBAP with the (classic) amplitude panning formulation has zero
> angular error for the (Makita) velocity vectors for all directions. If you
> take the energy formulation of VBAP for high frequencies (solving for
> energies instead of amplitudes) then it results in the maximum (Gerzon)
> energy vectors that the setup can achieve with zero directional error
> again. Of course at low frequencies you cannot achieve the “perfect”
> pressure reconstruction that a mode-matching decoder can achieve, but then
> you see what are the gains that such a decoder imposes on not ideal regular
> setups to realize that perfect reconstruction should be compromised anyway
> with some more practical solution.
>
>
> > However, they fail to work general speaker arrays fully. Especially at
> the lower frequencies. Ambisonically speaking, where we'd go with a
> holistic, whole array, directionally averaged velocity decode.
>
> Again I think it depends how you mean it - VBAP will just work for any
> speaker array with a performance limited by the setup in a quite intuitive
> understandable way (large spread for large triangle apertures, full
> concentration at a speaker direction, nothing for regions outside a partial
> setup etc..). Ambisonic decoding for any array is not designed as easily as
> computing VBAP gains, and it seems for irregular setups, one of the most
> straightforward and practical ways to do it is to combine the properties of
> VBAP and Ambisonic decoding (as the work of Zotter, Batke, and Epain have
> shown). Considering panning specifically, I think it depends on the
> application what works best, for VR or interactive-audio stuff for example,
> where normally sound objects would be rendered with maximum sharpness VBAP
> would work better. If however some and more even directional spreading is
> preferred, then ambisonic panning should be better, or some VBAP variant
> with spreading as has been presented by Ville and others.
>
> So I find Augustine's comments reasonable on panning sounds, but not in
> general: VBAP vs Ambisonics.
>
> > On 09 Jan 2017, at 12:33, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes i just mean - when making a 3D sound installation you can use various
> > types of panning round a sphere (or whatever of speaker array). You
> seemed
> > to be saying ambisonics had a clear advantage over other types of panning
> > for 3D audio - I was just wondering what you saw as ambisonics'
> advantages
> > over VBAP. I've actually found Ambisonics to be worse compared to VBAP in
> > many situations and better in others - but generally I use Vbap or Dbap .
> > The only real advantage I can see of ambisonics is having one file that
> can
> > be up or down mixed - but you can do that to a degree with Vbap files as
> > well.
>
> (What is a VBAP file?)
>
> That’s if you have actually access to the sound objects with their
> parametric information, in which case sure you can pan them however you
> like, you can even switch between different panners on the fly and pick the
> one you prefer. However, the generality of Ambisonics becomes clear if you
> have real sound-scene recordings, or you don’t have access to the objects
> due to bandwidth limitations, and it makes sense to downmix them to a
> format that preserves their directional properties as good as possible.
> This last case becomes especially important if decoding of some HOA
> channels (or even FOA with parametric decoding) becomes perceptually
> indistinguishable with respect to spatializing many of sound objects
> separately..
>
> Regards,
> Archontis
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170109/61ca3ba6/attachment.html>
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-09 12:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
and of course I mean amplitude panning rather than vbap in that instance -
but I have had reasonable results doing the same for full 3D installations
as well, at least as resoble as can be expected representing a 3D audio
scene in stereo (which is never very good in any format)

On 9 January 2017 at 12:32, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Archontis - I mean when I make a multichannel sound installation and use
> Vbap to pan it - lets say an eight channel octophonic horizonatal array -
> when I export an 8 channel interleaved rendering of this installation later
> and play it back on say, Iplayer, it automatically renders it to stereo and
> and panning is suprising well represented in stereo.
>
> On 9 January 2017 at 12:19, Politis Archontis <***@aalto.fi>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sampo,
>>
>> > On 09 Jan 2017, at 06:27, Sampo Syreeni <***@iki.fi> wrote:
>> >
>> > The critique I'd have for such panning laws is that they don't really
>> respect the ambisonic/Gerzon theory, especially at the low frequencies. In
>> essence, they work, and necessarily would *have* to work in the high
>> frequency, (ambisonically speaking) high order,sparse array limit. Which is
>> why they mostly work for common music and speech signals.
>>
>> I am a bit baffled by the idea that VBAP is not compatible with
>> Ambisonics theory (?) Thinking in terms of velocity and energy vectors, as
>> far as I understand, VBAP with the (classic) amplitude panning formulation
>> has zero angular error for the (Makita) velocity vectors for all
>> directions. If you take the energy formulation of VBAP for high frequencies
>> (solving for energies instead of amplitudes) then it results in the maximum
>> (Gerzon) energy vectors that the setup can achieve with zero directional
>> error again. Of course at low frequencies you cannot achieve the “perfect”
>> pressure reconstruction that a mode-matching decoder can achieve, but then
>> you see what are the gains that such a decoder imposes on not ideal regular
>> setups to realize that perfect reconstruction should be compromised anyway
>> with some more practical solution.
>>
>>
>> > However, they fail to work general speaker arrays fully. Especially at
>> the lower frequencies. Ambisonically speaking, where we'd go with a
>> holistic, whole array, directionally averaged velocity decode.
>>
>> Again I think it depends how you mean it - VBAP will just work for any
>> speaker array with a performance limited by the setup in a quite intuitive
>> understandable way (large spread for large triangle apertures, full
>> concentration at a speaker direction, nothing for regions outside a partial
>> setup etc..). Ambisonic decoding for any array is not designed as easily as
>> computing VBAP gains, and it seems for irregular setups, one of the most
>> straightforward and practical ways to do it is to combine the properties of
>> VBAP and Ambisonic decoding (as the work of Zotter, Batke, and Epain have
>> shown). Considering panning specifically, I think it depends on the
>> application what works best, for VR or interactive-audio stuff for example,
>> where normally sound objects would be rendered with maximum sharpness VBAP
>> would work better. If however some and more even directional spreading is
>> preferred, then ambisonic panning should be better, or some VBAP variant
>> with spreading as has been presented by Ville and others.
>>
>> So I find Augustine's comments reasonable on panning sounds, but not in
>> general: VBAP vs Ambisonics.
>>
>> > On 09 Jan 2017, at 12:33, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes i just mean - when making a 3D sound installation you can use
>> various
>> > types of panning round a sphere (or whatever of speaker array). You
>> seemed
>> > to be saying ambisonics had a clear advantage over other types of
>> panning
>> > for 3D audio - I was just wondering what you saw as ambisonics'
>> advantages
>> > over VBAP. I've actually found Ambisonics to be worse compared to VBAP
>> in
>> > many situations and better in others - but generally I use Vbap or Dbap
>> .
>> > The only real advantage I can see of ambisonics is having one file that
>> can
>> > be up or down mixed - but you can do that to a degree with Vbap files as
>> > well.
>>
>> (What is a VBAP file?)
>>
>> That’s if you have actually access to the sound objects with their
>> parametric information, in which case sure you can pan them however you
>> like, you can even switch between different panners on the fly and pick the
>> one you prefer. However, the generality of Ambisonics becomes clear if you
>> have real sound-scene recordings, or you don’t have access to the objects
>> due to bandwidth limitations, and it makes sense to downmix them to a
>> format that preserves their directional properties as good as possible.
>> This last case becomes especially important if decoding of some HOA
>> channels (or even FOA with parametric decoding) becomes perceptually
>> indistinguishable with respect to spatializing many of sound objects
>> separately..
>>
>> Regards,
>> Archontis
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


--
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/20170109/e84c42cb/attachment.html>
Sampo Syreeni
2017-01-10 02:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-01-09, Augustine Leudar wrote:

> and of course I mean amplitude panning rather than vbap in that
> instance - but I have had reasonable results doing the same for full
> 3D installations as well, at least as resoble as can be expected
> representing a 3D audio scene in stereo (which is never very good in
> any format)

Not to be a prude, but... ;)

VBAP is short for vector base amplitude panning. So it's really just
amplitude panning. It's absolutely no different from your typical
left-right panpot, except that it's been generalized from the 1D line
going from left to right, to the 2D sphere surface which is the space of
directions. Technically, that surface's triangulations: where you had
left and right on your panpot before, now you have triangles over the
sphere of directions.

But it's still just basic equal energy panning; sinusoidal interpolation
between points; now just among three while there were two before. Simple
as that. :)
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-10 09:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yes Im well aware of that thanks.

On 10 January 2017 at 02:35, Sampo Syreeni <***@iki.fi> wrote:

> On 2017-01-09, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>
> and of course I mean amplitude panning rather than vbap in that instance -
>> but I have had reasonable results doing the same for full 3D installations
>> as well, at least as resoble as can be expected representing a 3D audio
>> scene in stereo (which is never very good in any format)
>>
>
> Not to be a prude, but... ;)
>
> VBAP is short for vector base amplitude panning. So it's really just
> amplitude panning. It's absolutely no different from your typical
> left-right panpot, except that it's been generalized from the 1D line going
> from left to right, to the 2D sphere surface which is the space of
> directions. Technically, that surface's triangulations: where you had left
> and right on your panpot before, now you have triangles over the sphere of
> directions.
>
> But it's still just basic equal energy panning; sinusoidal interpolation
> between points; now just among three while there were two before. Simple as
> that. :)
> --
> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
> +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170110/04e2e79d/attachment.html>
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-10 09:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
but not to be crude but ;) some people get really anal about these things
- so in pre defense of such anality - stereo amplitude panning allows you
to pan between two speakers - theoretically you could have a kind of
amplitude panning that allows you to pan between the nearest two speakers
on the surface of a sphere - but amplitude panning allows you to pan
between the nearest three - so you can have sound son three speakers at a
time (if I remember correctly) or ou could have a kind of amplitude panning
that allows you to pan on more than 3 or Dbap - but yes its all just
amplitude panning - nice simple and works .

On 10 January 2017 at 09:51, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yes Im well aware of that thanks.
>
> On 10 January 2017 at 02:35, Sampo Syreeni <***@iki.fi> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-01-09, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>
>> and of course I mean amplitude panning rather than vbap in that instance
>>> - but I have had reasonable results doing the same for full 3D
>>> installations as well, at least as resoble as can be expected representing
>>> a 3D audio scene in stereo (which is never very good in any format)
>>>
>>
>> Not to be a prude, but... ;)
>>
>> VBAP is short for vector base amplitude panning. So it's really just
>> amplitude panning. It's absolutely no different from your typical
>> left-right panpot, except that it's been generalized from the 1D line going
>> from left to right, to the 2D sphere surface which is the space of
>> directions. Technically, that surface's triangulations: where you had left
>> and right on your panpot before, now you have triangles over the sphere of
>> directions.
>>
>> But it's still just basic equal energy panning; sinusoidal interpolation
>> between points; now just among three while there were two before. Simple as
>> that. :)
>> --
>> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
>> +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


--
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/20170110/4bec5c2f/attachment.html>
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-10 09:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
should have said "VBAP allows you to pan between the nearest three"

On 10 January 2017 at 09:56, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> but not to be crude but ;) some people get really anal about these things
> - so in pre defense of such anality - stereo amplitude panning allows you
> to pan between two speakers - theoretically you could have a kind of
> amplitude panning that allows you to pan between the nearest two speakers
> on the surface of a sphere - but amplitude panning allows you to pan
> between the nearest three - so you can have sound son three speakers at a
> time (if I remember correctly) or ou could have a kind of amplitude panning
> that allows you to pan on more than 3 or Dbap - but yes its all just
> amplitude panning - nice simple and works .
>
> On 10 January 2017 at 09:51, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes Im well aware of that thanks.
>>
>> On 10 January 2017 at 02:35, Sampo Syreeni <***@iki.fi> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-01-09, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>
>>> and of course I mean amplitude panning rather than vbap in that instance
>>>> - but I have had reasonable results doing the same for full 3D
>>>> installations as well, at least as resoble as can be expected representing
>>>> a 3D audio scene in stereo (which is never very good in any format)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not to be a prude, but... ;)
>>>
>>> VBAP is short for vector base amplitude panning. So it's really just
>>> amplitude panning. It's absolutely no different from your typical
>>> left-right panpot, except that it's been generalized from the 1D line going
>>> from left to right, to the 2D sphere surface which is the space of
>>> directions. Technically, that surface's triangulations: where you had left
>>> and right on your panpot before, now you have triangles over the sphere of
>>> directions.
>>>
>>> But it's still just basic equal energy panning; sinusoidal interpolation
>>> between points; now just among three while there were two before. Simple as
>>> that. :)
>>> --
>>> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
>>> +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Augustine Leudar
> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> Company Number : NI635217
> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> Belfast BT88LL
>
>


--
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/20170110/2a2af006/attachment.html>
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-10 09:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
so yes - there is a slight difference - Vbap has to based on triangles -
other forms of amplitude panning don't

On 10 January 2017 at 09:57, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> should have said "VBAP allows you to pan between the nearest three"
>
> On 10 January 2017 at 09:56, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> but not to be crude but ;) some people get really anal about these
>> things - so in pre defense of such anality - stereo amplitude panning
>> allows you to pan between two speakers - theoretically you could have a
>> kind of amplitude panning that allows you to pan between the nearest two
>> speakers on the surface of a sphere - but amplitude panning allows you to
>> pan between the nearest three - so you can have sound son three speakers at
>> a time (if I remember correctly) or ou could have a kind of amplitude
>> panning that allows you to pan on more than 3 or Dbap - but yes its all
>> just amplitude panning - nice simple and works .
>>
>> On 10 January 2017 at 09:51, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes Im well aware of that thanks.
>>>
>>> On 10 January 2017 at 02:35, Sampo Syreeni <***@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-01-09, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> and of course I mean amplitude panning rather than vbap in that
>>>>> instance - but I have had reasonable results doing the same for full 3D
>>>>> installations as well, at least as resoble as can be expected representing
>>>>> a 3D audio scene in stereo (which is never very good in any format)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not to be a prude, but... ;)
>>>>
>>>> VBAP is short for vector base amplitude panning. So it's really just
>>>> amplitude panning. It's absolutely no different from your typical
>>>> left-right panpot, except that it's been generalized from the 1D line going
>>>> from left to right, to the 2D sphere surface which is the space of
>>>> directions. Technically, that surface's triangulations: where you had left
>>>> and right on your panpot before, now you have triangles over the sphere of
>>>> directions.
>>>>
>>>> But it's still just basic equal energy panning; sinusoidal
>>>> interpolation between points; now just among three while there were two
>>>> before. Simple as that. :)
>>>> --
>>>> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
>>>> +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Augustine Leudar
>> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
>> Company Number : NI635217
>> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
>> Belfast BT88LL
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Augustine Leudar
> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> Company Number : NI635217
> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> Belfast BT88LL
>
>


--
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/20170110/ade841de/attachment.html>
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-10 21:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Augustine Leudar wrote:

>so yes - there is a slight difference - Vbap has to based on triangles -
>other forms of amplitude panning don't
>
>

If you use amplitude panning between more than 2 (2D) or 3 (3D/VBAP)
speakers, you could run into some trouble. Including pX-talk between
more than 2 speakers in the horizont. plain... (same phantom source9

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.

Just to present some crude and rude ideas about "different panning
strategies"... :-D


Best,

Stefan


>On 10 January 2017 at 09:57, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>should have said "VBAP allows you to pan between the nearest three"
>>
>>On 10 January 2017 at 09:56, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>but not to be crude but ;) some people get really anal about these
>>>things - so in pre defense of such anality - stereo amplitude panning
>>>allows you to pan between two speakers - theoretically you could have a
>>>kind of amplitude panning that allows you to pan between the nearest two
>>>speakers on the surface of a sphere - but amplitude panning allows you to
>>>pan between the nearest three - so you can have sound son three speakers at
>>>a time (if I remember correctly) or ou could have a kind of amplitude
>>>panning that allows you to pan on more than 3 or Dbap - but yes its all
>>>just amplitude panning - nice simple and works .
>>>
>>>On 10 January 2017 at 09:51, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes Im well aware of that thanks.
>>>>
>>>>On 10 January 2017 at 02:35, Sampo Syreeni <***@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 2017-01-09, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>and of course I mean amplitude panning rather than vbap in that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>instance - but I have had reasonable results doing the same for full 3D
>>>>>>installations as well, at least as resoble as can be expected representing
>>>>>>a 3D audio scene in stereo (which is never very good in any format)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Not to be a prude, but... ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>VBAP is short for vector base amplitude panning. So it's really just
>>>>>amplitude panning. It's absolutely no different from your typical
>>>>>left-right panpot, except that it's been generalized from the 1D line going
>>>>>from left to right, to the 2D sphere surface which is the space of
>>>>>directions. Technically, that surface's triangulations: where you had left
>>>>>and right on your panpot before, now you have triangles over the sphere of
>>>>>directions.
>>>>>
>>>>>But it's still just basic equal energy panning; sinusoidal
>>>>>interpolation between points; now just among three while there were two
>>>>>before. Simple as that. :)
>>>>>--
>>>>>Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
>>>>>+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
Fons Adriaensen
2017-01-10 21:32:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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 pX-talk between
> more than 2 speakers in the horizont. plain... (same phantom source9
>
> 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.

It's really similar to what happens if you interpolate between
samples using only the two nearest ones.

Ciao,

--
FA

A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-10 22:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
ICST max objects have this thing called "ambisonics equivalent panning" I'm
not quite sure what it is - but it seems to work just fine. The really nice
thing in the patch (it works in max) is you can adjust the directivity to
play on as many or as little speakers you want around a certain point - its
really nice for adjusting to different situations, speaker arrays and
acoustics. You program a map of your speakers and then pan around them - in
that way its a bit like dbap.

On 10 January 2017 at 21:32, Fons Adriaensen <***@linuxaudio.org> 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 pX-talk between
> > more than 2 speakers in the horizont. plain... (same phantom source9
> >
> > 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.
>
> It's really similar to what happens if you interpolate between
> samples using only the two nearest ones.
>
> Ciao,
>
> --
> FA
>
> A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
> It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
> and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170110/65fd26fc/attachment.html>
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-10 22:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://decoy.iki.fi/dsound/ambisonic/motherlode/source/ICMC08_AEP_paper.pdf

On 10 January 2017 at 22:51, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> ICST max objects have this thing called "ambisonics equivalent panning"
> I'm not quite sure what it is - but it seems to work just fine. The really
> nice thing in the patch (it works in max) is you can adjust the directivity
> to play on as many or as little speakers you want around a certain point -
> its really nice for adjusting to different situations, speaker arrays and
> acoustics. You program a map of your speakers and then pan around them - in
> that way its a bit like dbap.
>
> On 10 January 2017 at 21:32, Fons Adriaensen <***@linuxaudio.org> 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 pX-talk between
>> > more than 2 speakers in the horizont. plain... (same phantom source9
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> It's really similar to what happens if you interpolate between
>> samples using only the two nearest ones.
>>
>> Ciao,
>>
>> --
>> FA
>>
>> A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
>> It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
>> and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


--
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/20170110/a43042b8/attachment.html>
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-10 23:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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...
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-10 23:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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.

On 10 January 2017 at 23:19, Stefan Schreiber <***@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
> ***@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/20170110/abeabc05/attachment.html>
Sampo Syreeni
2017-01-10 02:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-01-09, Politis Archontis wrote:

> I am a bit baffled by the idea that VBAP is not compatible with
> Ambisonics theory (?)

I actually didn't mean to say quite as much. :)

> Thinking in terms of velocity and energy vectors, as far as I
> understand, VBAP with the (classic) amplitude panning formulation has
> zero angular error for the (Makita) velocity vectors for all
> directions.

Yes. In my mind the trouble with VBAP isn't that it's somehow incorrect,
because obviously it isn't. It eminently does work. But reflected
against ambisonic theory, it also has its shortcomings.

The closest thing in POA (plain old ambisonic) theory to VBAP is, I
believe, in-phase decoding. It's not an exact fit, true, but it comes
close enough to make a comparison: in-phase basically means that
whatever you put into the soundfield comes from a certain direction,
with no anti-phase, oscillating (in the sound intensity theory sense)
contribution from around the rig. It tries to keep all of the energy as
travelling, not oscillating, or in other words it tries to keep close to
what the more involved NFC-HOA analysis calls an "inbound solution". So,
pretty much what pure amplitude panning like VBAP does in practice as
well.

With that in mind, you can immediately see how the idea fails the
ambisonic ideal. Perhaps not by too much, and we know that all of the
solutions tend toward the same holophonic limit given enough resources.
But still in the low order sparse rig case there's a difference. Which
is why we don't do in-phase decodes, but max rE at HF and max rV at LF.

Namely, two things. First, the ambisonic formulation tries as hard as it
can to be isotropic. That's the basic reason why you need at least four
speakers for even three channel, pantophonic POA: you just can't make
the system so that it doesn't pull sound into speakers with just three.
VBAP doesn't respect that basic theorem, and so it does pull into
speakers; it doesn't sound the same when you pan into a speaker
position, as it does when you pan between. POA does (or at least tries
very hard to do so).

And secondly, VBAP doesn't utilize the whole (limited, cheap, basic)
speaker rig as efficiently as POA does. The classical ambisonic theory a
la Gerzon starts with the Makita theory of localisation, and optimizes
against it. VBAP doesn't take heed of that or any other theory, but is
in the perceptual sense an ad hoc machinery. Thus, it doesn't really
optimize for hearing, or the use of limited speaker resources; it
doesn't do what POA does, which is to utilize anti-phase signals in
order to give higher location accuracy at LF. (Remember, those go away
at the dense HOA limit even within the ambisonic framework; but we're
not talking about that in usual home configurations; the cheap, basic
setup every homeowner has is the thing, and the thing where VBAP
performs worst as compared to POA.)

In essence, if you want to put VBAP within the ambisonic framework, I'd
characterize it as being "an infinite order single band decoder
optimized for in-phase propagation, without the isotropy constraints
which characterize low order ambisonic". There's nothing inherently
wrong with such a decoding solution, and even the ambisonic theoretical
machinery tells you that such a solution is sometimes ideal. It's just
that if you work with your average 4-5 speakers, and within POA's single
listener, central, isotropic assumption, the classical POA framework
does even better.

> Of course at low frequencies you cannot achieve the “perfect” pressure
> reconstruction that a mode-matching decoder can achieve, but then you
> see what are the gains that such a decoder imposes on not ideal
> regular setups to realize that perfect reconstruction should be
> compromised anyway with some more practical solution.

If I understand you correctly, we sort of agree. But you see, my
argument is very much about the *imperfect* case, and I think the
classical Gerzon/POA theory is about that too. If we had a million
speakers, too much processing power to speak of, and so on, all of this
discussion would be moot. It's just that we don't have that. We
typically have just four speakers (if even as many), and we have to make
the best of what little we have.

That then leads to Gerzon's theory (of POA); something which is almost
singlemindedly psychoacoustical (within the constraint of an LTI signal
chain). Nowadays we could theoretize about tons of speakers and the high
holophonic limit, but in his day Gerzon worked with pretty much just a
quadraphonic setup. If you want to have something like that deliver
passable pantophony, you can't go with idealisations. You work with what
you got, and what you got was part psychoacoustics.

Which is why we have shelf filters, which cut from rE to rV, and which
is why in POA's presumable use case, it does (as much as the underlying
Makita theory of localization can help you) far better than VBAP. With
the limited resources we have at our disposal.

> Again I think it depends how you mean it - VBAP will just work for any
> speaker array with a performance limited by the setup in a quite
> intuitive understandable way (large spread for large triangle
> apertures, full concentration at a speaker direction, nothing for
> regions outside a partial setup etc..).

Indeed VBAP works for anything. That's its strength, above ambisonic,
with its rather limited decoder theory.

But when you can derive a decoding solution, it doesn't just work. It
works the array fully, and in a fashion that is psychoacoustically
optimized (for a passive LTI decoder). VBAP doesn't do that, because it
hasn't been optimized like POA has. It leaves much of the potential of
the rig unused.

> Ambisonic decoding for any array is not designed as easily as
> computing VBAP gains, and it seems for irregular setups, one of the
> most straightforward and practical ways to do it is to combine the
> properties of VBAP and Ambisonic decoding (as the work of Zotter,
> Batke, and Epain have shown).

Agreed. The way I conceptualize ambisonic nowadays is that it's a
framework and a way of thinking about directional audio. Not so much any
precise system. If you think about it a bit, ambisonic in its full
generality is about looking at acoustic fields from the viewpoint of a
spherical surface harmonic decomposition; it's capable of describing any
and all acoustic fields; it's just a viewpoint into acoustics, general.
Because of that, VBAP and any other conceivable acoustic thingy can be
folded into the framework. By definition. That's why I for instance
speak about VBAP as an "infinite order decoder" of particular sort; I
try to bring even that particular panning law within the general fold
that is ambisonic.

It's then just that the framework is a bit more as well. It's also a
theory of how to do more with less resources. While something like the
NFC-HOA work (rather successfully) tries to perfect the periphonic,
holophonic, infinite order limit of the theory (even with parallax, not
with just direction), the POA/Gerzon theory also tells you what to do
with the very minimum of resources. It takes from what it has, like the
idealized Makita theory of human directional hearing, and then it runs
with it. Quite without resorting to idealizations like "yeah, I work for
IRCAM, and I have next to a thousand speakers at my disposal". ;)

> Considering panning specifically, I think it depends on the
> application what works best, for VR or interactive-audio stuff for
> example, where normally sound objects would be rendered with maximum
> sharpness VBAP would work better.

Are you sure? Wouldn't you think, as Gerzon did and I do, that isotropy
is important? That it would be nastily distracting from your experience
if the soundfield "pulled into a speaker". I.e. if sounds coming from
different directions were somehow different, because of your speaker
setup?

If you do think that would be distracting, and counter to a nice spatial
audio experience, suddenly you can't go with VBAP. Because it does pull
to speakers. The only system and theory which does not really is
ambisonic. ;)

Otherwise we of course agree. VBAP really does produce sharp images of
the propagating kind. And it is easy as fuck to apply to irregular
geometry. So, it has its merits. It's just that... ;)

> If however some and more even directional spreading is preferred, then
> ambisonic panning should be better, or some VBAP variant with
> spreading as has been presented by Ville and others.

I believe that work is of a different vein. It's about plausible
presentation of sound objects, which necessitates a certain amount of
spreading, reverb, whatnot. But that doesn't really pertain to the basic
theory of ambisonic, or any other "pure"/"theoretical" transfer or
representation or playback format. I believe that's more about
synthesis, and less about how to faithfully represent the result of said
synthesis -- as I believe ambisonic above all tries to do.
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Fons Adriaensen
2017-01-09 19:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 06:27:15AM +0200, Sampo Syreeni wrote:

> Basically VBAP (vector base amplitude panning) is a form of equal
> power weighted amplitude panning. Just as your normal stereo panning
> law would be, only it's in 3D, over widely varying speaker geometry.

VBAP is the 3D form of pairwise panning, and has the same problems.

> The critique I'd have for such panning laws is that they don't
> really respect the ambisonic/Gerzon theory, especially at the low
> frequencies. In essence, they work, and necessarily would *have* to
> work in the high frequency, (ambisonically speaking) high
> order,sparse array limit. Which is why they mostly work for common
> music and speech signals.

Pairwise panning or VBAP vs. Ambisonics is just like linear
interpolation vs. constant-bandwidht (sinc) interpolation.

As the number of speakers / AMB order increases, the difference
between VBAP and in-phase or max rE decoding becomes smaller.
But not for LF where you'd use systematic decoding when using AMB.

Ciao,

--
FA

A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-09 10:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yes i just mean - when making a 3D sound installation you can use various
types of panning round a sphere (or whatever of speaker array). You seemed
to be saying ambisonics had a clear advantage over other types of panning
for 3D audio - I was just wondering what you saw as ambisonics' advantages
over VBAP. I've actually found Ambisonics to be worse compared to VBAP in
many situations and better in others - but generally I use Vbap or Dbap .
The only real advantage I can see of ambisonics is having one file that can
be up or down mixed - but you can do that to a degree with Vbap files as
well.
In terms of one of these "modern" binaural recordings - I dont really know
what this means . I have recorded my own Binaural album using binaural
microphones - it doesnt work at all on speakers - and thats with my own
HRTF . Seeing as the claim has been made between "modern" binaural
recordings work on two speakers (not by you incidently) - lets hear one - I
can guarantee you you will not hear a barber shaving the back of your head
on to loud speakers.

On 9 January 2017 at 03:49, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:

> Augustine Leudar wrote:
>
> Spatial audio is as doused snakeoil as the hifi world.
>>
> I find this view a bit one-sided. At least this should not be related to
> our discussion...
>
> Sound localisation
>> is not a purely subjective affair -
>>
>> I didn't claim this.
>
> have there been any listening tests
>> which demosntrate binaural rendering is capable of creating anything like
>> headphone spatialisation over two stereo loudspeakers ?
>>
> I am pretty sure that the kunstkopf proponents did some scientific
> listening tests.
>
>
> Anyway -- perhaps one of these "modern" inaural recording are available
>> online and we can judge for ourselves.
>>
>>
> There are plenty of CDs around, so you will find some content on YT,
> Spotify etc.
>
> I have neve rnotices any problems rendering ambisonics or vbap with dozens
>> of channels - or even WFS . What do you mean by "you cant record audio
>> objects" ?
>>
>>
> What means "rendering vbap" at all? Vbap is "just" (3D) stereophonic
> panning.
>
> You could pan some spot mikes or audio objects into some loudspeaker
> layout. But you have to pan "something".
>
> http://legacy.spa.aalto.fi/research/cat/vbap/
>
>
> What do you mean by "you cant record audio
>> objects" ?
>>
>> I was referring to music and scene/ambiance recording.
> Of course you can record some audio objects. This is not a complete
> recording yet... I admit that the citing above doesn't make a lot of sense,
> but in its context there was one:
>
> Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>
>>
>>> ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>> capability ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>> complexity?
>>
>>
> I must again ask: What does "vbap" actually means in your question.
> Because it is not clear what should be "compared" at all. For me, VBAP (=
> panning technique) is always used in some specific context. Is this
> context 7.1 or Dolby Atmos or DTS:X or...? You see what I mean, hopefully.
>
> Good night
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9 January 2017 at 01:05, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>
>>> <> modern binaural recordings I've heard on speakers did not give
>>> excellent
>>>
>>>
>>>> results they gave terrible results, aside from the fact the transfer
>>>> functions are messed up by room reflections and cross talk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Fair enough. But it seems that opinions about this seem to be vastly
>>> different. (The quality of binaural recordings represented via
>>> loudspeakers
>>> is judged to be about between "terrible" and "excellent", depending on
>>> listener....)
>>>
>>> it doesn't even
>>>
>>>
>>>> work perfectly on headphones due to differences in individual hrtfs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, quite obviously not "perfectly". Listening results will depend a lot
>>> on the hrtf mismatch between dummy head and (individual) listener. And
>>> the
>>> perspective is fixed - you can't rotate some dummy head recording!
>>>
>>> Transaural is supposed to be the the two speaker equivelant of binaural
>>> for
>>>
>>>
>>>> speakers I know spat were due to release a new version that worked -
>>>> anyone
>>>> heard it ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ambiophonics could also be used - as some already established form of
>>> X-talk cancellation.
>>>
>>> Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>>
>>>
>>>> ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>>> capability ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>> complexity?
>>>
>>> You didn't specify any application details. (So I assume you referred to
>>> music recordings or VR.)
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, 8 January 2017, Bob Burton <***@audiorents.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield)
>>>>> collaborating
>>>>> with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title track
>>>>> on
>>>>> Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090). Surprisingly,
>>>>> the
>>>>> track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester Cathedral
>>>>> on
>>>>> the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
>>>>> breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike
>>>>> playing
>>>>> guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite
>>>>> awesome.
>>>>> Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in BBC
>>>>> Matrix
>>>>> H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
>>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>>> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
>>>>> attachments/20170107/65d28b1e/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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170109/fd20a13d/attachment.html>
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-09 16:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Augustine Leudar wrote:

>Yes i just mean - when making a 3D sound installation you can use various
>types of panning round a sphere (or whatever of speaker array). You seemed
>to be saying ambisonics had a clear advantage over other types of panning
>for 3D audio - I was just wondering what you saw as ambisonics' advantages
>over VBAP.
>
I am really quite format-neutral... Did I claim such advantages?

The only thing I wrote into this direction was that sound fields fit by
its very nature very well to 360º video and AR/VR. (Isotropy, 3D
capability even at just 4 channels, SF rotation is quite easy.)


Otherwise, we came from the discussion of quadrophony (now recording
history) - and then binaural recordings.

>I have recorded my own Binaural album using binaural
>microphones - it doesnt work at all on speakers - and thats with my own
>HRTF . Seeing as the claim has been made between "modern" binaural
>recordings work on two speakers (not by you incidently) - lets hear one - I
>can guarantee you you will not hear a barber shaving the back of your head
>on to loud speakers.
>
I believe you would need certain filtering (problem: you would damage
headphone representation - where binaural recordings are supposed to
shine!), or X-talk cancellation.

The kunstkopf concept uses some (statistically) averaged HRTF. That you
could do some good binaural recordings (just) with some simple in-ear
microphones and your/our heads is probably just a claim by your local
ear microphone producer... ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording

"For listening using conventional speaker-stereo, or mp3 players, a
pinna-less dummy head may be preferable for quasi-binaural recording,
such as the sphere microphone or Ambiophone. As a general rule, for true
binaural results, an audio recording and reproduction system chain, from
microphone to listener's brain, should contain one and only one set of
pinnae (preferably the listener's own) and one head-shadow."

> Binaural stayed in the background due to the expensive, specialized
> equipment required for quality recordings, and the requirement of
> headphones for proper reproduction.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_head_recording

"The dummy head is designed to replicate average sized human head and
depending on the manufacturer may have a nose and mouth too. "

Best,

Stefan

P.S.: No, I don't sell binaural recording equipment. O:-)


>I've actually found Ambisonics to be worse compared to VBAP in
>many situations and better in others - but generally I use Vbap or Dbap .
>The only real advantage I can see of ambisonics is having one file that can
>be up or down mixed - but you can do that to a degree with Vbap files as
>well.
>In terms of one of these "modern" binaural recordings - I dont really know
>what this means . ...
>

>
>On 9 January 2017 at 03:49, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>
>>Spatial audio is as doused snakeoil as the hifi world.
>>
>>
>>I find this view a bit one-sided. At least this should not be related to
>>our discussion...
>>
>>Sound localisation
>>
>>
>>>is not a purely subjective affair -
>>>
>>>I didn't claim this.
>>>
>>>
>>have there been any listening tests
>>
>>
>>>which demosntrate binaural rendering is capable of creating anything like
>>>headphone spatialisation over two stereo loudspeakers ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I am pretty sure that the kunstkopf proponents did some scientific
>>listening tests.
>>
>>
>>Anyway -- perhaps one of these "modern" inaural recording are available
>>
>>
>>>online and we can judge for ourselves.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>There are plenty of CDs around, so you will find some content on YT,
>>Spotify etc.
>>
>>I have neve rnotices any problems rendering ambisonics or vbap with dozens
>>
>>
>>>of channels - or even WFS . What do you mean by "you cant record audio
>>>objects" ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>What means "rendering vbap" at all? Vbap is "just" (3D) stereophonic
>>panning.
>>
>>You could pan some spot mikes or audio objects into some loudspeaker
>>layout. But you have to pan "something".
>>
>>http://legacy.spa.aalto.fi/research/cat/vbap/
>>
>>
>>What do you mean by "you cant record audio
>>
>>
>>>objects" ?
>>>
>>>I was referring to music and scene/ambiance recording.
>>>
>>>
>>Of course you can record some audio objects. This is not a complete
>>recording yet... I admit that the citing above doesn't make a lot of sense,
>>but in its context there was one:
>>
>>Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>>>capability ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>>complexity?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I must again ask: What does "vbap" actually means in your question.
>>Because it is not clear what should be "compared" at all. For me, VBAP (=
>>panning technique) is always used in some specific context. Is this
>>context 7.1 or Dolby Atmos or DTS:X or...? You see what I mean, hopefully.
>>
>>Good night
>>
>>Stefan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 9 January 2017 at 01:05, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt>
>>
>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>>
>>>><> modern binaural recordings I've heard on speakers did not give
>>>>excellent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>results they gave terrible results, aside from the fact the transfer
>>>>>functions are messed up by room reflections and cross talk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Fair enough. But it seems that opinions about this seem to be vastly
>>>>different. (The quality of binaural recordings represented via
>>>>loudspeakers
>>>>is judged to be about between "terrible" and "excellent", depending on
>>>>listener....)
>>>>
>>>>it doesn't even
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>work perfectly on headphones due to differences in individual hrtfs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>No, quite obviously not "perfectly". Listening results will depend a lot
>>>>on the hrtf mismatch between dummy head and (individual) listener. And
>>>>the
>>>>perspective is fixed - you can't rotate some dummy head recording!
>>>>
>>>>Transaural is supposed to be the the two speaker equivelant of binaural
>>>>for
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>speakers I know spat were due to release a new version that worked -
>>>>>anyone
>>>>>heard it ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Ambiophonics could also be used - as some already established form of
>>>>X-talk cancellation.
>>>>
>>>>Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>>>>capability ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>>>complexity?
>>>>
>>>>You didn't specify any application details. (So I assume you referred to
>>>>music recordings or VR.)
>>>>Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>Stefan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Sunday, 8 January 2017, Bob Burton <***@audiorents.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield)
>>>>>>collaborating
>>>>>>with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title track
>>>>>>on
>>>>>>Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090). Surprisingly,
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester Cathedral
>>>>>>on
>>>>>>the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
>>>>>>breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike
>>>>>>playing
>>>>>>guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite
>>>>>>awesome.
>>>>>>Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in BBC
>>>>>>Matrix
>>>>>>H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
>>>>>>-------------- next part --------------
>>>>>>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>>>>URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
>>>>>>attachments/20170107/65d28b1e/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
2017-01-09 19:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Stefan - yes I have a set of soundman ones which Ive use don and off for
the last ten years - I have really weird shaped ears though so my
recordings dont work well on people with normal shaped heads ;)

On 9 January 2017 at 16:41, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:

> Augustine Leudar wrote:
>
> Yes i just mean - when making a 3D sound installation you can use various
>> types of panning round a sphere (or whatever of speaker array). You seemed
>> to be saying ambisonics had a clear advantage over other types of panning
>> for 3D audio - I was just wondering what you saw as ambisonics' advantages
>> over VBAP.
>>
> I am really quite format-neutral... Did I claim such advantages?
>
> The only thing I wrote into this direction was that sound fields fit by
> its very nature very well to 360º video and AR/VR. (Isotropy, 3D capability
> even at just 4 channels, SF rotation is quite easy.)
>
>
> Otherwise, we came from the discussion of quadrophony (now recording
> history) - and then binaural recordings.
>
> I have recorded my own Binaural album using binaural
>> microphones - it doesnt work at all on speakers - and thats with my own
>> HRTF . Seeing as the claim has been made between "modern" binaural
>> recordings work on two speakers (not by you incidently) - lets hear one -
>> I
>> can guarantee you you will not hear a barber shaving the back of your head
>> on to loud speakers.
>>
>> I believe you would need certain filtering (problem: you would damage
> headphone representation - where binaural recordings are supposed to
> shine!), or X-talk cancellation.
>
> The kunstkopf concept uses some (statistically) averaged HRTF. That you
> could do some good binaural recordings (just) with some simple in-ear
> microphones and your/our heads is probably just a claim by your local ear
> microphone producer... ;-)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording
>
> "For listening using conventional speaker-stereo, or mp3 players, a
> pinna-less dummy head may be preferable for quasi-binaural recording, such
> as the sphere microphone or Ambiophone. As a general rule, for true
> binaural results, an audio recording and reproduction system chain, from
> microphone to listener's brain, should contain one and only one set of
> pinnae (preferably the listener's own) and one head-shadow."
>
> Binaural stayed in the background due to the expensive, specialized
>> equipment required for quality recordings, and the requirement of
>> headphones for proper reproduction.
>>
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_head_recording
>
> "The dummy head is designed to replicate average sized human head and
> depending on the manufacturer may have a nose and mouth too. "
>
> Best,
>
> Stefan
>
> P.S.: No, I don't sell binaural recording equipment. O:-)
>
>
> I've actually found Ambisonics to be worse compared to VBAP in
>> many situations and better in others - but generally I use Vbap or Dbap .
>> The only real advantage I can see of ambisonics is having one file that
>> can
>> be up or down mixed - but you can do that to a degree with Vbap files as
>> well.
>> In terms of one of these "modern" binaural recordings - I dont really know
>> what this means . ...
>>
>>
>
>> On 9 January 2017 at 03:49, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>
>>> Spatial audio is as doused snakeoil as the hifi world.
>>>
>>> I find this view a bit one-sided. At least this should not be related to
>>> our discussion...
>>>
>>> Sound localisation
>>>
>>>
>>>> is not a purely subjective affair -
>>>>
>>>> I didn't claim this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> have there been any listening tests
>>>
>>>
>>>> which demosntrate binaural rendering is capable of creating anything
>>>> like
>>>> headphone spatialisation over two stereo loudspeakers ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I am pretty sure that the kunstkopf proponents did some scientific
>>> listening tests.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyway -- perhaps one of these "modern" inaural recording are available
>>>
>>>
>>>> online and we can judge for ourselves.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There are plenty of CDs around, so you will find some content on YT,
>>> Spotify etc.
>>>
>>> I have neve rnotices any problems rendering ambisonics or vbap with
>>> dozens
>>>
>>>
>>>> of channels - or even WFS . What do you mean by "you cant record audio
>>>> objects" ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What means "rendering vbap" at all? Vbap is "just" (3D) stereophonic
>>> panning.
>>>
>>> You could pan some spot mikes or audio objects into some loudspeaker
>>> layout. But you have to pan "something".
>>>
>>> http://legacy.spa.aalto.fi/research/cat/vbap/
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "you cant record audio
>>>
>>>
>>>> objects" ?
>>>>
>>>> I was referring to music and scene/ambiance recording.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Of course you can record some audio objects. This is not a complete
>>> recording yet... I admit that the citing above doesn't make a lot of
>>> sense,
>>> but in its context there was one:
>>>
>>> Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>>>> capability ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>>> complexity?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I must again ask: What does "vbap" actually means in your question.
>>> Because it is not clear what should be "compared" at all. For me, VBAP
>>> (=
>>> panning technique) is always used in some specific context. Is this
>>> context 7.1 or Dolby Atmos or DTS:X or...? You see what I mean,
>>> hopefully.
>>>
>>> Good night
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9 January 2017 at 01:05, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt>
>>>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <> modern binaural recordings I've heard on speakers did not give
>>>>> excellent
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> results they gave terrible results, aside from the fact the transfer
>>>>>> functions are messed up by room reflections and cross talk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough. But it seems that opinions about this seem to be vastly
>>>>> different. (The quality of binaural recordings represented via
>>>>> loudspeakers
>>>>> is judged to be about between "terrible" and "excellent", depending on
>>>>> listener....)
>>>>>
>>>>> it doesn't even
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> work perfectly on headphones due to differences in individual hrtfs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, quite obviously not "perfectly". Listening results will depend a
>>>>> lot
>>>>> on the hrtf mismatch between dummy head and (individual) listener. And
>>>>> the
>>>>> perspective is fixed - you can't rotate some dummy head recording!
>>>>>
>>>>> Transaural is supposed to be the the two speaker equivelant of binaural
>>>>> for
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> speakers I know spat were due to release a new version that worked -
>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>> heard it ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ambiophonics could also be used - as some already established form of
>>>>> X-talk cancellation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>>>>> capability ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> 1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>>>> complexity?
>>>>>
>>>>> You didn't specify any application details. (So I assume you referred
>>>>> to
>>>>> music recordings or VR.)
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Stefan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, 8 January 2017, Bob Burton <***@audiorents.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield)
>>>>>>> collaborating
>>>>>>> with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title track
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090). Surprisingly,
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester Cathedral
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
>>>>>>> breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike
>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>> guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite
>>>>>>> awesome.
>>>>>>> Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in BBC
>>>>>>> Matrix
>>>>>>> H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
>>>>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>>>>> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
>>>>>>> attachments/20170107/65d28b1e/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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170109/786a227d/attachment.html>
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-09 20:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Augustine Leudar wrote:

>Hi Stefan - yes I have a set of soundman ones which Ive use don and off for
>the last ten years - I have really weird shaped ears though so my
>recordings dont work well on people with normal shaped heads ;)
>
>
Do they use some form of filter to get the spectral balance for
loudspeaker playback right?

Neumann kunstkopf mikes do this since 1981 or so ("2nd generation"...)

Best,

Stefan

P.S.: This is not on Wikipedia. So who would sign my claim? O:-)



>On 9 January 2017 at 16:41, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>
>>Yes i just mean - when making a 3D sound installation you can use various
>>
>>
>>>types of panning round a sphere (or whatever of speaker array). You seemed
>>>to be saying ambisonics had a clear advantage over other types of panning
>>>for 3D audio - I was just wondering what you saw as ambisonics' advantages
>>>over VBAP.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I am really quite format-neutral... Did I claim such advantages?
>>
>>The only thing I wrote into this direction was that sound fields fit by
>>its very nature very well to 360º video and AR/VR. (Isotropy, 3D capability
>>even at just 4 channels, SF rotation is quite easy.)
>>
>>
>>Otherwise, we came from the discussion of quadrophony (now recording
>>history) - and then binaural recordings.
>>
>>I have recorded my own Binaural album using binaural
>>
>>
>>>microphones - it doesnt work at all on speakers - and thats with my own
>>>HRTF . Seeing as the claim has been made between "modern" binaural
>>>recordings work on two speakers (not by you incidently) - lets hear one -
>>>I
>>>can guarantee you you will not hear a barber shaving the back of your head
>>>on to loud speakers.
>>>
>>>I believe you would need certain filtering (problem: you would damage
>>>
>>>
>>headphone representation - where binaural recordings are supposed to
>>shine!), or X-talk cancellation.
>>
>>The kunstkopf concept uses some (statistically) averaged HRTF. That you
>>could do some good binaural recordings (just) with some simple in-ear
>>microphones and your/our heads is probably just a claim by your local ear
>>microphone producer... ;-)
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording
>>
>>"For listening using conventional speaker-stereo, or mp3 players, a
>>pinna-less dummy head may be preferable for quasi-binaural recording, such
>>as the sphere microphone or Ambiophone. As a general rule, for true
>>binaural results, an audio recording and reproduction system chain, from
>>microphone to listener's brain, should contain one and only one set of
>>pinnae (preferably the listener's own) and one head-shadow."
>>
>>Binaural stayed in the background due to the expensive, specialized
>>
>>
>>>equipment required for quality recordings, and the requirement of
>>>headphones for proper reproduction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_head_recording
>>
>>"The dummy head is designed to replicate average sized human head and
>>depending on the manufacturer may have a nose and mouth too. "
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>Stefan
>>
>>P.S.: No, I don't sell binaural recording equipment. O:-)
>>
>>
>>I've actually found Ambisonics to be worse compared to VBAP in
>>
>>
>>>many situations and better in others - but generally I use Vbap or Dbap .
>>>The only real advantage I can see of ambisonics is having one file that
>>>can
>>>be up or down mixed - but you can do that to a degree with Vbap files as
>>>well.
>>>In terms of one of these "modern" binaural recordings - I dont really know
>>>what this means . ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 9 January 2017 at 03:49, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Spatial audio is as doused snakeoil as the hifi world.
>>>>
>>>>I find this view a bit one-sided. At least this should not be related to
>>>>our discussion...
>>>>
>>>>Sound localisation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>is not a purely subjective affair -
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't claim this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>have there been any listening tests
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>which demosntrate binaural rendering is capable of creating anything
>>>>>like
>>>>>headphone spatialisation over two stereo loudspeakers ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I am pretty sure that the kunstkopf proponents did some scientific
>>>>listening tests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Anyway -- perhaps one of these "modern" inaural recording are available
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>online and we can judge for ourselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>There are plenty of CDs around, so you will find some content on YT,
>>>>Spotify etc.
>>>>
>>>>I have neve rnotices any problems rendering ambisonics or vbap with
>>>>dozens
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>of channels - or even WFS . What do you mean by "you cant record audio
>>>>>objects" ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>What means "rendering vbap" at all? Vbap is "just" (3D) stereophonic
>>>>panning.
>>>>
>>>>You could pan some spot mikes or audio objects into some loudspeaker
>>>>layout. But you have to pan "something".
>>>>
>>>>http://legacy.spa.aalto.fi/research/cat/vbap/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What do you mean by "you cant record audio
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>objects" ?
>>>>>
>>>>>I was referring to music and scene/ambiance recording.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Of course you can record some audio objects. This is not a complete
>>>>recording yet... I admit that the citing above doesn't make a lot of
>>>>sense,
>>>>but in its context there was one:
>>>>
>>>>Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>>>>>capability ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>>>>complexity?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I must again ask: What does "vbap" actually means in your question.
>>>>Because it is not clear what should be "compared" at all. For me, VBAP
>>>>(=
>>>>panning technique) is always used in some specific context. Is this
>>>>context 7.1 or Dolby Atmos or DTS:X or...? You see what I mean,
>>>>hopefully.
>>>>
>>>>Good night
>>>>
>>>>Stefan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 9 January 2017 at 01:05, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>><> modern binaural recordings I've heard on speakers did not give
>>>>>>excellent
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>results they gave terrible results, aside from the fact the transfer
>>>>>>>functions are messed up by room reflections and cross talk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Fair enough. But it seems that opinions about this seem to be vastly
>>>>>>different. (The quality of binaural recordings represented via
>>>>>>loudspeakers
>>>>>>is judged to be about between "terrible" and "excellent", depending on
>>>>>>listener....)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>it doesn't even
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>work perfectly on headphones due to differences in individual hrtfs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, quite obviously not "perfectly". Listening results will depend a
>>>>>>lot
>>>>>>on the hrtf mismatch between dummy head and (individual) listener. And
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>perspective is fixed - you can't rotate some dummy head recording!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Transaural is supposed to be the the two speaker equivelant of binaural
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>speakers I know spat were due to release a new version that worked -
>>>>>>>anyone
>>>>>>>heard it ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ambiophonics could also be used - as some already established form of
>>>>>>X-talk cancellation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>>>>>>capability ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>>>>>complexity?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You didn't specify any application details. (So I assume you referred
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>music recordings or VR.)
>>>>>>Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Stefan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sunday, 8 January 2017, Bob Burton <***@audiorents.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield)
>>>>>>>>collaborating
>>>>>>>>with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title track
>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090). Surprisingly,
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester Cathedral
>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
>>>>>>>>breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike
>>>>>>>>playing
>>>>>>>>guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite
>>>>>>>>awesome.
>>>>>>>>Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in BBC
>>>>>>>>Matrix
>>>>>>>>H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-09 21:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Not really simply because binaural is meant for headphones - transaural is
meant to be the binaural equivalent for loudspeakers. If you think about it
- our ears have their own transfer function - the filter would have to be
tailored to our own HRTFs to remove our HRTF filtering. I suppose you could
try some sort of phase cancellation stuff to stop cross talk - but I really
cant see it working . These guys claim binaural makes good stereo
recordings but you lose the binuaral spatialisation effect :

http://www.binaural.com/binfaq.html#anchor720852

For artistic purposes I have long sort to find something that would get
sounds to fly round the back of my head (or even 180 degrees) with just two
loudspeakers but alas I have found nothing yet just many audacious claims
and no results - I would love to be proved wrong ...

On 9 January 2017 at 20:15, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:

> Augustine Leudar wrote:
>
> Hi Stefan - yes I have a set of soundman ones which Ive use don and off for
>> the last ten years - I have really weird shaped ears though so my
>> recordings dont work well on people with normal shaped heads ;)
>>
>>
> Do they use some form of filter to get the spectral balance for
> loudspeaker playback right?
>
> Neumann kunstkopf mikes do this since 1981 or so ("2nd generation"...)
>
> Best,
>
> Stefan
>
> P.S.: This is not on Wikipedia. So who would sign my claim? O:-)
>
>
>
>
> On 9 January 2017 at 16:41, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes i just mean - when making a 3D sound installation you can use various
>>>
>>>
>>>> types of panning round a sphere (or whatever of speaker array). You
>>>> seemed
>>>> to be saying ambisonics had a clear advantage over other types of
>>>> panning
>>>> for 3D audio - I was just wondering what you saw as ambisonics'
>>>> advantages
>>>> over VBAP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I am really quite format-neutral... Did I claim such advantages?
>>>
>>> The only thing I wrote into this direction was that sound fields fit by
>>> its very nature very well to 360º video and AR/VR. (Isotropy, 3D
>>> capability
>>> even at just 4 channels, SF rotation is quite easy.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Otherwise, we came from the discussion of quadrophony (now recording
>>> history) - and then binaural recordings.
>>>
>>> I have recorded my own Binaural album using binaural
>>>
>>>
>>>> microphones - it doesnt work at all on speakers - and thats with my own
>>>> HRTF . Seeing as the claim has been made between "modern" binaural
>>>> recordings work on two speakers (not by you incidently) - lets hear one
>>>> -
>>>> I
>>>> can guarantee you you will not hear a barber shaving the back of your
>>>> head
>>>> on to loud speakers.
>>>>
>>>> I believe you would need certain filtering (problem: you would damage
>>>>
>>>>
>>> headphone representation - where binaural recordings are supposed to
>>> shine!), or X-talk cancellation.
>>>
>>> The kunstkopf concept uses some (statistically) averaged HRTF. That you
>>> could do some good binaural recordings (just) with some simple in-ear
>>> microphones and your/our heads is probably just a claim by your local ear
>>> microphone producer... ;-)
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording
>>>
>>> "For listening using conventional speaker-stereo, or mp3 players, a
>>> pinna-less dummy head may be preferable for quasi-binaural recording,
>>> such
>>> as the sphere microphone or Ambiophone. As a general rule, for true
>>> binaural results, an audio recording and reproduction system chain, from
>>> microphone to listener's brain, should contain one and only one set of
>>> pinnae (preferably the listener's own) and one head-shadow."
>>>
>>> Binaural stayed in the background due to the expensive, specialized
>>>
>>>
>>>> equipment required for quality recordings, and the requirement of
>>>> headphones for proper reproduction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_head_recording
>>>
>>> "The dummy head is designed to replicate average sized human head and
>>> depending on the manufacturer may have a nose and mouth too. "
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>> P.S.: No, I don't sell binaural recording equipment. O:-)
>>>
>>>
>>> I've actually found Ambisonics to be worse compared to VBAP in
>>>
>>>
>>>> many situations and better in others - but generally I use Vbap or Dbap
>>>> .
>>>> The only real advantage I can see of ambisonics is having one file that
>>>> can
>>>> be up or down mixed - but you can do that to a degree with Vbap files as
>>>> well.
>>>> In terms of one of these "modern" binaural recordings - I dont really
>>>> know
>>>> what this means . ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9 January 2017 at 03:49, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Spatial audio is as doused snakeoil as the hifi world.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find this view a bit one-sided. At least this should not be related
>>>>> to
>>>>> our discussion...
>>>>>
>>>>> Sound localisation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> is not a purely subjective affair -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't claim this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> have there been any listening tests
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> which demosntrate binaural rendering is capable of creating anything
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> headphone spatialisation over two stereo loudspeakers ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I am pretty sure that the kunstkopf proponents did some scientific
>>>>> listening tests.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway -- perhaps one of these "modern" inaural recording are available
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> online and we can judge for ourselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> There are plenty of CDs around, so you will find some content on YT,
>>>>> Spotify etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have neve rnotices any problems rendering ambisonics or vbap with
>>>>> dozens
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of channels - or even WFS . What do you mean by "you cant record
>>>>>> audio
>>>>>> objects" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> What means "rendering vbap" at all? Vbap is "just" (3D) stereophonic
>>>>> panning.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could pan some spot mikes or audio objects into some loudspeaker
>>>>> layout. But you have to pan "something".
>>>>>
>>>>> http://legacy.spa.aalto.fi/research/cat/vbap/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by "you cant record audio
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> objects" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was referring to music and scene/ambiance recording.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Of course you can record some audio objects. This is not a complete
>>>>> recording yet... I admit that the citing above doesn't make a lot of
>>>>> sense,
>>>>> but in its context there was one:
>>>>>
>>>>> Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>>>>>> capability ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>>>>> complexity?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I must again ask: What does "vbap" actually means in your question.
>>>>> Because it is not clear what should be "compared" at all. For me, VBAP
>>>>> (=
>>>>> panning technique) is always used in some specific context. Is this
>>>>> context 7.1 or Dolby Atmos or DTS:X or...? You see what I mean,
>>>>> hopefully.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good night
>>>>>
>>>>> Stefan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9 January 2017 at 01:05, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <> modern binaural recordings I've heard on speakers did not give
>>>>>>> excellent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> results they gave terrible results, aside from the fact the transfer
>>>>>>>> functions are messed up by room reflections and cross talk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fair enough. But it seems that opinions about this seem to be vastly
>>>>>>> different. (The quality of binaural recordings represented via
>>>>>>> loudspeakers
>>>>>>> is judged to be about between "terrible" and "excellent", depending
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> listener....)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it doesn't even
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> work perfectly on headphones due to differences in individual hrtfs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, quite obviously not "perfectly". Listening results will depend a
>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>> on the hrtf mismatch between dummy head and (individual) listener.
>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> perspective is fixed - you can't rotate some dummy head recording!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Transaural is supposed to be the the two speaker equivelant of
>>>>>>> binaural
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> speakers I know spat were due to release a new version that worked -
>>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>> heard it ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ambiophonics could also be used - as some already established form
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> X-talk cancellation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>>>>>>> capability ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>>>>>> complexity?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You didn't specify any application details. (So I assume you
>>>>>>> referred
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> music recordings or VR.)
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stefan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, 8 January 2017, Bob Burton <***@audiorents.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield)
>>>>>>>>> collaborating
>>>>>>>>> with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title
>>>>>>>>> track
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090).
>>>>>>>>> Surprisingly,
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester
>>>>>>>>> Cathedral
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
>>>>>>>>> breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike
>>>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>>>> guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite
>>>>>>>>> awesome.
>>>>>>>>> Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in
>>>>>>>>> BBC
>>>>>>>>> Matrix
>>>>>>>>> H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170109/c031c5c9/attachment.html>
Bo-Erik Sandholm
2017-01-10 02:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
For UHJ I have experienced about +20 degrees outside of the speakers.
But then my speakers are a bit unusual, they are phase linear, if I play
back square waves I get recognisable square waves if using a small diameter
Omni microphone :-)
Bo-Erik

On 9 Jan 2017 22:18, "Augustine Leudar" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Not really simply because binaural is meant for headphones - transaural is
meant to be the binaural equivalent for loudspeakers. If you think about it
- our ears have their own transfer function - the filter would have to be
tailored to our own HRTFs to remove our HRTF filtering. I suppose you could
try some sort of phase cancellation stuff to stop cross talk - but I really
cant see it working . These guys claim binaural makes good stereo
recordings but you lose the binuaral spatialisation effect :

http://www.binaural.com/binfaq.html#anchor720852

For artistic purposes I have long sort to find something that would get
sounds to fly round the back of my head (or even 180 degrees) with just two
loudspeakers but alas I have found nothing yet just many audacious claims
and no results - I would love to be proved wrong ...


>>>>>>>
>>>>>Å



--
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/20170109/c031c5c9/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/20170110/336ae683/attachment.html>
Sampo Syreeni
2017-01-10 03:47:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-01-10, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:

> For UHJ I have experienced about +20 degrees outside of the speakers.

I've only heard well-decoded UHJ or the "super-stereo" effect once
(thanks to Eero Aro). But even then I can confirm that even the
undecoded stereo goes well beyond the speaker positions.

Then the question becomes, why. I like to believe I'm reasonably
well-read in physical acoustics, psychoacoustics, and ambisonic theory.
But somehow I *still* don't understand what's *really* going on with the
super-stereo effect. It has to have something to do with how BHJ was
optimized to retain LF velocity cues, yes. But that you can reproduce
those outside of a frontal stereo setup baffles me as well.

> But then my speakers are a bit unusual, they are phase linear, if I
> play back square waves I get recognisable square waves if using a
> small diameter Omni microphone :-)

Oh. My. God. What speaker do you speak of? How much does it cost? I
mean, for my native techno-land, that sort of thing would be well ideal.
8)
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Bo-Erik Sandholm
2017-01-10 06:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
They are "Boutique Speaker" you have to listen at The designers place in
stockholm before ordering. Ingvar Öhman is The designer.
If you want to resurect your swedish IÖ speakers are discussions Here:
http://www.faktiskt.se/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=20&sid=fe0a25f7ffd1b73fb42e330e84150f30

A pair PI-60 Cost around 3000 euro/Usd.
The commercial version is The
http://www.the-ear.net/review-hardware/guru-qm60-floorstanding-loudspeaker

Bo-Erik

Den 10 jan. 2017 10:47 skrev "Sampo Syreeni" <***@iki.fi>:

> On 2017-01-10, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:
>
> For UHJ I have experienced about +20 degrees outside of the speakers.
>>
>
> I've only heard well-decoded UHJ or the "super-stereo" effect once (thanks
> to Eero Aro). But even then I can confirm that even the undecoded stereo
> goes well beyond the speaker positions.
>
> Then the question becomes, why. I like to believe I'm reasonably well-read
> in physical acoustics, psychoacoustics, and ambisonic theory. But somehow I
> *still* don't understand what's *really* going on with the super-stereo
> effect. It has to have something to do with how BHJ was optimized to retain
> LF velocity cues, yes. But that you can reproduce those outside of a
> frontal stereo setup baffles me as well.
>
> But then my speakers are a bit unusual, they are phase linear, if I play
>> back square waves I get recognisable square waves if using a small diameter
>> Omni microphone :-)
>>
>
> Oh. My. God. What speaker do you speak of? How much does it cost? I mean,
> for my native techno-land, that sort of thing would be well ideal. 8)
> --
> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
> +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170110/6b6bd385/attachment.html>
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-10 10:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Is there a good UHJ VST plugin you can put in a DAW ? I tried one the other
day hoping it would fill the room with warm spherical ambience and
magically create sounds well outsid ethe two speakers - but instead it just
removed most of the low frequencies....

On 10 January 2017 at 03:47, Sampo Syreeni <***@iki.fi> wrote:

> On 2017-01-10, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:
>
> For UHJ I have experienced about +20 degrees outside of the speakers.
>>
>
> I've only heard well-decoded UHJ or the "super-stereo" effect once (thanks
> to Eero Aro). But even then I can confirm that even the undecoded stereo
> goes well beyond the speaker positions.
>
> Then the question becomes, why. I like to believe I'm reasonably well-read
> in physical acoustics, psychoacoustics, and ambisonic theory. But somehow I
> *still* don't understand what's *really* going on with the super-stereo
> effect. It has to have something to do with how BHJ was optimized to retain
> LF velocity cues, yes. But that you can reproduce those outside of a
> frontal stereo setup baffles me as well.
>
> But then my speakers are a bit unusual, they are phase linear, if I play
>> back square waves I get recognisable square waves if using a small diameter
>> Omni microphone :-)
>>
>
> Oh. My. God. What speaker do you speak of? How much does it cost? I mean,
> for my native techno-land, that sort of thing would be well ideal. 8)
> --
> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
> +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170110/ad94f370/attachment.html>
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-10 10:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If you fancy drooling over speakers - Id say these would be very nice :

https://www.strictlystereo.com/shop-online/kii-three-active-speakers



On 10 January 2017 at 10:12, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Is there a good UHJ VST plugin you can put in a DAW ? I tried one the
> other day hoping it would fill the room with warm spherical ambience and
> magically create sounds well outsid ethe two speakers - but instead it just
> removed most of the low frequencies....
>
> On 10 January 2017 at 03:47, Sampo Syreeni <***@iki.fi> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-01-10, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:
>>
>> For UHJ I have experienced about +20 degrees outside of the speakers.
>>>
>>
>> I've only heard well-decoded UHJ or the "super-stereo" effect once
>> (thanks to Eero Aro). But even then I can confirm that even the undecoded
>> stereo goes well beyond the speaker positions.
>>
>> Then the question becomes, why. I like to believe I'm reasonably
>> well-read in physical acoustics, psychoacoustics, and ambisonic theory. But
>> somehow I *still* don't understand what's *really* going on with the
>> super-stereo effect. It has to have something to do with how BHJ was
>> optimized to retain LF velocity cues, yes. But that you can reproduce those
>> outside of a frontal stereo setup baffles me as well.
>>
>> But then my speakers are a bit unusual, they are phase linear, if I play
>>> back square waves I get recognisable square waves if using a small diameter
>>> Omni microphone :-)
>>>
>>
>> Oh. My. God. What speaker do you speak of? How much does it cost? I mean,
>> for my native techno-land, that sort of thing would be well ideal. 8)
>> --
>> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
>> +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


--
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/20170110/8bfa77ac/attachment.html>
Kees de Visser
2017-01-10 13:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Nice speakers indeed! We use them for stereo monitoring in the Luxembourg Philharmonie.
Unfortunately the control room is too small to accommodate 5 so we use small Neumanns for 5.1.
I hope to find time this year to do some Auro testing.

Kees de Visser

> On 10 Jan 2017, at 11:13, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you fancy drooling over speakers - Id say these would be very nice :
>
> https://www.strictlystereo.com/shop-online/kii-three-active-speakers
Augustine Leudar
2017-01-10 19:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I am extremely jealous !! But its good to hear some firsthand experience
with them ha snice things to say - I have my eye on them for a couple of
projects.

On 10 January 2017 at 13:20, Kees de Visser <***@galaxyclassics.com> wrote:

> Nice speakers indeed! We use them for stereo monitoring in the Luxembourg
> Philharmonie.
> Unfortunately the control room is too small to accommodate 5 so we use
> small Neumanns for 5.1.
> I hope to find time this year to do some Auro testing.
>
> Kees de Visser
>
> > On 10 Jan 2017, at 11:13, Augustine Leudar <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > If you fancy drooling over speakers - Id say these would be very nice :
> >
> > https://www.strictlystereo.com/shop-online/kii-three-active-speakers
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170110/f44d13a5/attachment.html>
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-10 03:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Augustine Leudar wrote:

>Not really simply because binaural is meant for headphones - transaural is
>meant to be the binaural equivalent for loudspeakers. If you think about it
>- our ears have their own transfer function - the filter would have to be
>tailored to our own HRTFs to remove our HRTF filtering.
>

Naive kunstkopf recordings sound coloured and "dump" if reproduced via
speakers. This is some tonal problem, which requires some equalisation
filter.

This (in German "entzerrungs"-) filter is about spectral problems. It is
not some "de-HRTF" filter. (Which would be 1stly nonsentical and is
2ndly impossible!)

http://www.neumann.com/download.php?download=docu0009.PDF

This is complicated stuff, certainly not trivial.

>the filter would have to be
>tailored to our own HRTFs to remove our HRTF filtering.
>
This also doesn't work! (You can derive your binaural response from some
sound field, but not vice versa. Even if you know the transfer functions
exactly.)

Best,

Stefan



> I suppose you could
>try some sort of phase cancellation stuff to stop cross talk -
>
Independent from above...


> but I really
>cant see it working . These guys claim binaural makes good stereo
>recordings but you lose the binuaral spatialisation effect :
>
>http://www.binaural.com/binfaq.html#anchor720852
>
>For artistic purposes I have long sort to find something that would get
>sounds to fly round the back of my head (or even 180 degrees) with just two
>loudspeakers but alas I have found nothing yet just many audacious claims
>and no results - I would love to be proved wrong ...
>
>On 9 January 2017 at 20:15, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>
>>Hi Stefan - yes I have a set of soundman ones which Ive use don and off for
>>
>>
>>>the last ten years - I have really weird shaped ears though so my
>>>recordings dont work well on people with normal shaped heads ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Do they use some form of filter to get the spectral balance for
>>loudspeaker playback right?
>>
>>Neumann kunstkopf mikes do this since 1981 or so ("2nd generation"...)
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>Stefan
>>
>>P.S.: This is not on Wikipedia. So who would sign my claim? O:-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 9 January 2017 at 16:41, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt>
>>
>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Yes i just mean - when making a 3D sound installation you can use various
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>types of panning round a sphere (or whatever of speaker array). You
>>>>>seemed
>>>>>to be saying ambisonics had a clear advantage over other types of
>>>>>panning
>>>>>for 3D audio - I was just wondering what you saw as ambisonics'
>>>>>advantages
>>>>>over VBAP.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I am really quite format-neutral... Did I claim such advantages?
>>>>
>>>>The only thing I wrote into this direction was that sound fields fit by
>>>>its very nature very well to 360º video and AR/VR. (Isotropy, 3D
>>>>capability
>>>>even at just 4 channels, SF rotation is quite easy.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Otherwise, we came from the discussion of quadrophony (now recording
>>>>history) - and then binaural recordings.
>>>>
>>>>I have recorded my own Binaural album using binaural
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>microphones - it doesnt work at all on speakers - and thats with my own
>>>>>HRTF . Seeing as the claim has been made between "modern" binaural
>>>>>recordings work on two speakers (not by you incidently) - lets hear one
>>>>>-
>>>>>I
>>>>>can guarantee you you will not hear a barber shaving the back of your
>>>>>head
>>>>>on to loud speakers.
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe you would need certain filtering (problem: you would damage
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>headphone representation - where binaural recordings are supposed to
>>>>shine!), or X-talk cancellation.
>>>>
>>>>The kunstkopf concept uses some (statistically) averaged HRTF. That you
>>>>could do some good binaural recordings (just) with some simple in-ear
>>>>microphones and your/our heads is probably just a claim by your local ear
>>>>microphone producer... ;-)
>>>>
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording
>>>>
>>>>"For listening using conventional speaker-stereo, or mp3 players, a
>>>>pinna-less dummy head may be preferable for quasi-binaural recording,
>>>>such
>>>>as the sphere microphone or Ambiophone. As a general rule, for true
>>>>binaural results, an audio recording and reproduction system chain, from
>>>>microphone to listener's brain, should contain one and only one set of
>>>>pinnae (preferably the listener's own) and one head-shadow."
>>>>
>>>>Binaural stayed in the background due to the expensive, specialized
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>equipment required for quality recordings, and the requirement of
>>>>>headphones for proper reproduction.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_head_recording
>>>>
>>>>"The dummy head is designed to replicate average sized human head and
>>>>depending on the manufacturer may have a nose and mouth too. "
>>>>
>>>>Best,
>>>>
>>>>Stefan
>>>>
>>>>P.S.: No, I don't sell binaural recording equipment. O:-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I've actually found Ambisonics to be worse compared to VBAP in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>many situations and better in others - but generally I use Vbap or Dbap
>>>>>.
>>>>>The only real advantage I can see of ambisonics is having one file that
>>>>>can
>>>>>be up or down mixed - but you can do that to a degree with Vbap files as
>>>>>well.
>>>>>In terms of one of these "modern" binaural recordings - I dont really
>>>>>know
>>>>>what this means . ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 9 January 2017 at 03:49, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Spatial audio is as doused snakeoil as the hifi world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I find this view a bit one-sided. At least this should not be related
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>our discussion...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sound localisation
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>is not a purely subjective affair -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I didn't claim this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>have there been any listening tests
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>which demosntrate binaural rendering is capable of creating anything
>>>>>>>like
>>>>>>>headphone spatialisation over two stereo loudspeakers ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am pretty sure that the kunstkopf proponents did some scientific
>>>>>>listening tests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Anyway -- perhaps one of these "modern" inaural recording are available
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>online and we can judge for ourselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>There are plenty of CDs around, so you will find some content on YT,
>>>>>>Spotify etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have neve rnotices any problems rendering ambisonics or vbap with
>>>>>>dozens
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>of channels - or even WFS . What do you mean by "you cant record
>>>>>>>audio
>>>>>>>objects" ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>What means "rendering vbap" at all? Vbap is "just" (3D) stereophonic
>>>>>>panning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You could pan some spot mikes or audio objects into some loudspeaker
>>>>>>layout. But you have to pan "something".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://legacy.spa.aalto.fi/research/cat/vbap/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What do you mean by "you cant record audio
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>objects" ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I was referring to music and scene/ambiance recording.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course you can record some audio objects. This is not a complete
>>>>>>recording yet... I admit that the citing above doesn't make a lot of
>>>>>>sense,
>>>>>>but in its context there was one:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>>>>>>>capability ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>>>>>>complexity?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I must again ask: What does "vbap" actually means in your question.
>>>>>>Because it is not clear what should be "compared" at all. For me, VBAP
>>>>>>(=
>>>>>>panning technique) is always used in some specific context. Is this
>>>>>>context 7.1 or Dolby Atmos or DTS:X or...? You see what I mean,
>>>>>>hopefully.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Good night
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Stefan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 9 January 2017 at 01:05, Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><> modern binaural recordings I've heard on speakers did not give
>>>>>>>>excellent
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>results they gave terrible results, aside from the fact the transfer
>>>>>>>>>functions are messed up by room reflections and cross talk
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Fair enough. But it seems that opinions about this seem to be vastly
>>>>>>>>different. (The quality of binaural recordings represented via
>>>>>>>>loudspeakers
>>>>>>>>is judged to be about between "terrible" and "excellent", depending
>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>listener....)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>it doesn't even
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>work perfectly on headphones due to differences in individual hrtfs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, quite obviously not "perfectly". Listening results will depend a
>>>>>>>>lot
>>>>>>>>on the hrtf mismatch between dummy head and (individual) listener.
>>>>>>>>And
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>perspective is fixed - you can't rotate some dummy head recording!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Transaural is supposed to be the the two speaker equivelant of
>>>>>>>>binaural
>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>speakers I know spat were due to release a new version that worked -
>>>>>>>>>anyone
>>>>>>>>>heard it ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ambiophonics could also be used - as some already established form
>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>X-talk cancellation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
>>>>>>>>>capability ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
>>>>>>>>complexity?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You didn't specify any application details. (So I assume you
>>>>>>>>referred
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>music recordings or VR.)
>>>>>>>>Best regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Stefan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sunday, 8 January 2017, Bob Burton <***@audiorents.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield)
>>>>>>>>>>collaborating
>>>>>>>>>>with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title
>>>>>>>>>>track
>>>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>>>Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090).
>>>>>>>>>>Surprisingly,
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester
>>>>>>>>>>Cathedral
>>>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>>>the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
>>>>>>>>>>breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike
>>>>>>>>>>playing
>>>>>>>>>>guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite
>>>>>>>>>>awesome.
>>>>>>>>>>Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in
>>>>>>>>>>BBC
>>>>>>>>>>Matrix
>>>>>>>>>>H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Sampo Syreeni
2017-01-10 02:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-01-09, Augustine Leudar wrote:

> Hi Stefan - yes I have a set of soundman ones which Ive use don and
> off for the last ten years - I have really weird shaped ears though so
> my recordings dont work well on people with normal shaped heads ;)

BTW, I have to second that. I have pretty normal shaped ears, but also
rather a funky hearing deficit. Probably a hereditary one. I basically
have a steep symmetric null in my hearing capacity, at about 2kHz, with
no LF or HF attenuation whatsoever. Perhaps even circa +15dB rollon at
HF (normalized for my age). That fucks up your usual Kemar set derived
HRTF like no tomorrow.

Goes to show, we're all different, so that it's pretty difficult to do
psychoacoustical optimization which fits all of us at the same time.
Pretty much the only thing which could work for us all is some type of
physical reconstruction of sound(fields), or a very generalized
psychoacoustical optimization -- which is perhaps why I like ambisonic
as much as I do :)
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-09 01:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Augustine Leudar wrote:

> modern binaural recordings I've heard on speakers did not give excellent
>results they gave terrible results, aside from the fact the transfer
>functions are messed up by room reflections and cross talk it doesn't even
>work perfectly on headphones due to differences in individual hrtfs.
>Transaural is supposed to be the the two speaker equivelant of binaural for
>speakers I know spat were due to release a new version that worked - anyone
>heard it ? Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
>ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix capability ?
>
>

2nd reply:

http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/bilocation-binaural-recording-51-surround

> The transaural technique has one serious disadvantage: the 3D imaging
> is only really effective in a tiny 'sweet spot', which can sometimes
> be only a few inches wide! What I realised (and it's pretty obvious)
> is that with a 5.1 system the 'sweet spot' can be made much bigger, by
> using two speakers on each side. If the front and rear speakers are
> fed the same signals on each side, the sweet spot can be several feet
> across.


Stefan

>On Sunday, 8 January 2017, Bob Burton <***@audiorents.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield) collaborating
>>with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title track on
>>Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090). Surprisingly, the
>>track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester Cathedral on
>>the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
>>breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike playing
>>guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite awesome.
>>Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in BBC Matrix
>>H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>>
>>https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
>>-------------- next part --------------
>>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
>>attachments/20170107/65d28b1e/attachment.html>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Sursound mailing list
>>***@music.vt.edu <javascript:;>
>>https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
>>edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Dave Malham
2017-01-08 12:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I was puzzled at first as to why (or even how!) BBC Matrix H would have
been used in 1997 but then I realised it was a typo for 1997 :-)

Dave

On 8 January 2017 at 04:35, Bob Burton <***@audiorents.com> wrote:

> 1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield) collaborating
> with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title track on
> Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090). Surprisingly, the
> track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester Cathedral on
> the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
> breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike playing
> guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite awesome.
> Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in BBC Matrix
> H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>
> https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> attachments/20170107/65d28b1e/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/20170108/98686614/attachment.html>
Dave Malham
2017-01-08 12:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Oh, good grief! I did it as well - a typo of a typo! The date should
nineteen seventy-seven. That's 1977 or MCMLXXVII or...

Dave


On 8 January 2017 at 12:04, Dave Malham <***@york.ac.uk> wrote:

> I was puzzled at first as to why (or even how!) BBC Matrix H would have
> been used in 1997 but then I realised it was a typo for 1997 :-)
>
> Dave
>
> On 8 January 2017 at 04:35, Bob Burton <***@audiorents.com> wrote:
>
>> 1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield) collaborating
>> with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title track on
>> Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090). Surprisingly, the
>> track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester Cathedral on
>> the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
>> breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike playing
>> guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite
>> awesome.
>> Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in BBC
>> Matrix
>> H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>>
>> https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachme
>> nts/20170107/65d28b1e/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'
>



--

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/20170108/687d7930/attachment.html>
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-09 01:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dave Malham wrote:

>Oh, good grief! I did it as well - a typo of a typo! The date should
>nineteen seventy-seven. That's 1977 or MCMLXXVII or...
>
> Dave
>
>

Why not compromising on MCMLXXXVII? One X more or less... :-)



>
>On 8 January 2017 at 12:04, Dave Malham <***@york.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I was puzzled at first as to why (or even how!) BBC Matrix H would have
>>been used in 1997 but then I realised it was a typo for 1997 :-)
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>On 8 January 2017 at 04:35, Bob Burton <***@audiorents.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield) collaborating
>>>with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title track on
>>>Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090). Surprisingly, the
>>>track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester Cathedral on
>>>the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
>>>breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike playing
>>>guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite
>>>awesome.
>>>Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in BBC
>>>Matrix
>>>H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
>>>
>>>https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
>>>-------------- next part --------------
>>>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachme
>>>nts/20170107/65d28b1e/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'
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Sampo Syreeni
2017-01-09 03:55:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-01-07, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

> - If the listener doesn't use some decoder, UHJ is listened to as <
> stereo >. (You are delivering surround sound, but the listener
> actually doesn't notice.)

Actually se does notice. That's because UHJ was rather well designed to
be a compatibility format. Sure, you don't get all out of it without a
decoder. But it's still designed to make somewhat of an impression even
without one.

I mean, there's a *reason* why the encoding locus is as slanted as it
is, why the phasing is like it is, why the backstage is attenuated, and
so forth. From the get go, BHJ's meant to work both with a decoder, and
without; it's meant to faithfully reproduce as much of the pantophonic
goodness over basic stereo as it possibly can.

What *I* find peculiar is how well it works binaurally. That wasn't the
original optimization frontier of UHJ at all. The compatibility frontier
was for frontal stereo...and yet it sounds pretty darn good even over
headphones. ;)

> - If you already use some binaural decoder, you could apply some
> 3/4-channel Ambisonics to binaural decoder anyway.

Like what? I haven't seen one easily downloadable, push-button ambisonic
thingy in my life at least.

On this list, among severe professionals and afficionados, it's easy to
think you can just "install a decoder". But in the wild, for the rest of
the world, the idea of a "decoder" is still a mystery, and a pain in the
ass. Something people -- even I -- won't put up with.

Not even on-list everybody has a perfectly set up sonic workflow, in
which you can just plug in your decoder of choice. In fact I suspect
most of the folks even here are like me: not capable or willing of
having even a basic four-way system. If I'm right, then for most people
*even here*, the idea of "just plugging in a decoder" is pure fancy.

> - Backward-compatible (to stereo) forms of Ambisonics are very
> probably possible.

They are not "probably possible". That's what the BHJ version of UHJ
*is*. It's as far psychoacoustically optimized for that role, at least
given it's underlying Makita theory, as any passive, linear matrix *can*
be.

> I have proposed this idea some time ago. (At 1st order the proposal is
> based on 3/4 channel UHJ, so on some LR-TQ channel "stereo core +
> extension" scheme. This concept could probably be extended to HOA, as
> well.)

Yes, it'd be interesting to see how the compatibility format idea might
be extended to more modern settings. I think I've talked about that for
a bit in the past, myself. But of course, I've just jotted out
something; it'd be nice to see it fleshed out for real. Especially in
the original Gerzon vein of building out a complete, mutually
compatible, extensible hierarchy of both channel encodings, and speaker
playback formats. :)

> Isn't it a bit late for 2-channel UHJ decoders anyway? Some radio broadcaster
> already could try to apply some < multiformat > surround to binaural decoders
> on the "customer" side.

Well, do they do anything as nice as BHJ right now? Do they even try? Do
they even have something like this on their future map? I don't think
so. As such, I for one -- as a newbie on-list, and perhaps even a pure
theoretical buff with nigh to none practical experience -- still think
the ambisonic way remains useful. Highly so, even if the basic framework
could and does benefit from newer innovation. (Say, my alltime favourite
decoder, DirAC, and its newer, higher order, and more principled
derivatives.)


> 5.1 and Ambisonics should/could be both supported, and maybe more
> formats.

That is an interesting line of thought for me as well. Undoubtedly for
many on-list. How do you really bridge common discrete formats such as
5.1 or 7.1 with the ambisonic framework? Also, in the high audiophile,
research mindset which engenders HOA and (as shown by Daniel and
Nichols to be in the limit equivalent, I seem to remember) WFS.

I think the proper formulation would start from idealized far field
(planewave) response, angularly evened out to whatever ambisonic order
we choose to work with. In fact I believe when I and Martin Leese did
our little thingy with OggPCM channel formats, we were working on that
precice if implicit assumption: that the directionality inherent to most
discrete formats could be modelled within the ambisonic framework as
distant, infinitely precise in direction, sources, to be folded down
into an ambisonic soundscape, and from there on to be (optimally)
decoded as usual.

Or maybe so that knowing some source is tagged as a point source, it
might be separately decoded via something like VBAP, while the rest of
the field is reproduced by ambisonic principles. Dunno.

Stil, be as it may, the idea of folding all of the current spatial audio
into one big theory isn't new. I certainly didn't invent it, nor did
anyone on this list. There's a lot of history behind the idea, perhaps
not starting even with *Gerzon* himself. We'd all like to see the theory
developed more fully, but I think we can all agree, it's not exactly a
new invention, or ours, even if we were to be the ones to bring it to
its fruition.

> (If format wars are not necessary from a modern perspective, we should
> not try to continue some partially imagined conflict.

(Software) format wars go away once there is simplistic, free, open
sourced software to "just do the thing any which way and convert". Cf.
Eric de Castro Lopo's libsndfile; it pretty much took away any problem
with differing sound file formats, once it reached its current maturity.

So, I'd say that the same would happen with ambisonic, if we had a free,
comprehensive library to deal with our favourite sound system. Well
documented, proven in practice, and made easy to integrate.

I believe we can all agree on what that sort of thing should look like.
What the interfaces should be, and so forth. But to date nobody's
actually implemented the thing. Parts of it, sure. Even multiple times
over, for fame and other individual reasons. But I think it still
remains the fact that we don't have "that one definitive,
all-encompassing, one, ambisonic library", which everybody *just*
*likes* *to* *use*, and then *does*.

I believe that's what'd settle the matter in the end. Not abstract
theoretisising, or even particular efforts to implement some forms of
the system, but a concerted effort to put all of the knowledge the
ambisonic community has, into one easily used, well-generalized, and
well-maintained, piece of code.

> Ambisonics has some clear advantages in the areas of AR/VR and 360º
> video. So some natural application cases finally exist.)

Yes. If you want in-the-wild examples there, take a look at Peter
Hajba's work (aka Skaven, of FutureCrew, in the demo circles). And of
course then Ville Pulkki and his research group's work at Aalto
University. Headtracked, simultaneous audio and "VR" is *awesome*! :D

> Even HTML5 surround decoders are possible by now:
>
> http://hyperradio.radiofrance.fr/son-3d/

Nice. Will look into that.

> Marc Lavallée presented one online player/decoder for XYW recordings.
>
> Now somebody would "just" have to do some integration.

Yes! Who would be that someone then? ;)

>> funding from the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 programme

Hmm. An interesting idea, at least for me... Would it be possible to get
that "one, definitive, free and opensource ambisonic library" I alluded
to above, done with public money? Some invention grant from the EU or
whatnot?

Because, I mean, such funding sources like demos. The ambisonic
community has some darn impressive demos already, to just give out. So,
such funding -- even if we all know where it once went with the NRDC --
might be rather readily available. If only somebody bothered to jot down
a well-thought out grant proposal.

This really oughtn't be rocket surgery...

>> ORPHEUS will deliver a sustainable solution, ensuring that workflows and
>> components for object-based audio scale up to enable cost-effective
>> commercial production, storage, re-purposing, play-out and distribution.

"Object based audio." Yes, well, it might be that nowadays with all of
the power of modern processors, you can actually do mixed and synthetic
audio at what amounts to "infinite order" in ambisonic terms. Pure point
sources, panned around.

But in at least two respects the ambisonic theory/framework still reigns
supreme.

First, you can't get past the first, most basic theorem of ambisonic
decoding: if you want to decode *anything*, including those point
sources of today, into a sparse speaker array, you'll have to
psychoacoustically optimize what you're doing. Then even the most basic
Makita theory Gerzon started out with tells you, you simply cannot do
things like VBAP without losing isotropy.

Fine, maybe you don't want that every time. Maybe you want to do stuff
which risks exposing speaker locations, as the price for more spatial
definition. That's certainly what Dolby does right now with Atmos. But
then we have point two:

Secondly, and most forcefully, there is absolutely no other way to
capture a live soundfield faithfully other than some version of
ambisonic. All with its unique soundfield mic designs. Even if you
somehow conventionally miced and mixed stuff just right, so as to mimic
a live soundfield, there *still* is no extant framework within which to
fully process directional sound, absent ambisonic. It's all you've got
-- and because of its underpinnings, all you'll ever have, with complete
mathematical certainty.

As such, if this shit was to be packaged in a neat, free, open library,
in its most general and generous form, I believe it'd easily become the
new norm. Because there just wouldn't be any alternative to the
comprehensive theory and practice which goes along with it.

I think the only question is "whodunnit". ;)

> Of course they could (or should?) start to implement 5.1 and
> Ambisonics decoders firstly. But < who > would fund < this > stuff?!

Then, does anybody actually need to fund this, even? All of the stuff we
need is already there. It just needs to be packaged right. Even the
hardest part, the nonlinear decoder optimizer code, already exists, at
least in Benjamin, Lee and Heller's Tabu search code (which is general
as fuck). And all of the movers and shakers pretty much are on this
list, or once removed.

I don't think it's even about funding. It's about simple organization.
Perhaps with a few egos soothed via visible credits, and such. But not
much more.

> "Wait until 2020. All will be good by then." (It is also some
> classical Ircam strategy to point to the benefits of the < next
> generation >. We never will be < there > , but never mind! :-D )

As dyed-in-the-wool individualist and one nasty libertarian, I'd say
*still* fuck IRCAM. Seriously. it's a piece of age-old French dirigisme,
before it ever was a place of learning and innovation. I feel sorry for
the (grantedly many) excellent, sonically and signal processing minded
individuals who had the unfortune to land in said hellhole. Had they
ever seen a community like that of MIT or Caltech, they'dd have shat on
IRCAM's very name, and after that done *much* more for themselves and
humanity than they now have.

Now the modern likes of Serre et al. are doomed to basically live in a
black hole. An insular island removed from the scientific and technical
mainstream. People kind of fall into IRCAM, because of its attractions.
Once they do, they fall beyond that particular, institutional, event
horizon. Nothing ever comes out from there, we don't know what the fuck
goes there beyond their (rather impressive) toys, and what little comes
out is...pardon me, garbled French.

> So: We don't have to be < too > conservative. (We also don't have to wait
> 'til "2020" to start with something.)

Well agreed.

> P.S.: And quadraphonic formats are maybe interesting - but quite
> obviously surround history. Some recordings still exist, but there
> won't be anything recent or new "stuff" around.

Yes. But history is still worth preserving. And I don't just mean on the
recording side. I also think the theory and the practice of quadraphonic
technology is worth preservation; if only because it serves as a
counter-example to the more developed theory which is ambisonic.

>> "Alice's Adventures In (3D Audio?) Wonderland".
>
> I can remember listening to this play on BBC Radio 3/4 several times,
> great stuff.

You're privileged in having (had?) access to this sort of stuff. Around
here, and in my age cohort, none of that experimental radio stuff has
*ever* been around. I grew up thinking stereo is all there could
possibly be.

>>> I still have some off-air recordings of the BBC's Matrix H system.
>>> Never tried to decode them but they have a pleasing surround
>>> sensation when listened to on headphones. Must have been the mic.
>>> placements ??

Richard, mind digitizing and sharing them? I'd be rather interested in
the stuff.
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-09 04:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sampo Syreeni wrote:

>
>
>> - Backward-compatible (to stereo) forms of Ambisonics are very
>> probably possible.
>
>
> They are not "probably possible". That's what the BHJ version of UHJ
> *is*.

Yes. But you still have to put L/R + 1 or 2 ext. channels into some <
stereo > MP3 or AAC file. Our aim would be to be backward compatibility
to common file and stream stereo formats. This is not completely
trivial, but can be done. (Extension channels "buried" in file or
container format. We don't want to break existing stereo decoders...)

> It's as far psychoacoustically optimized for that role, at least given
> it's underlying Makita theory, as any passive, linear matrix *can* be.

UHJ was always a hierarchy scheme. Even so you have to find some space
for T and Q channels. It is all just about some "practical space
problems", not Makita theory itself... Just IT and standard related
stuff, not math! ;-)

>
>> I have proposed this idea some time ago. (At 1st order the proposal
>> is based on 3/4 channel UHJ, so on some LR-TQ channel "stereo core +
>> extension" scheme. This concept could probably be extended to HOA, as
>> well.)
>
>
> Yes, it'd be interesting to see how the compatibility format idea
> might be extended to more modern settings. I think I've talked about
> that for a bit in the past, myself. But of course, I've just jotted
> out something; it'd be nice to see it fleshed out for real. Especially
> in the original Gerzon vein of building out a complete, mutually
> compatible, extensible hierarchy of both channel encodings, and
> speaker playback formats. :)

Agreed! (What?!) :-)

>
>> Isn't it a bit late for 2-channel UHJ decoders anyway? Some radio
>> broadcaster already could try to apply some < multiformat > surround
>> to binaural decoders on the "customer" side.
>
>
> Well, do they do anything as nice as BHJ right now? Do they even try?
> Do they even have something like this on their future map? I don't
> think so. As such, I for one -- as a newbie on-list, and perhaps even
> a pure theoretical buff with nigh to none practical experience --
> still think the ambisonic way remains useful. Highly so, even if the
> basic framework could and does benefit from newer innovation. (Say, my
> alltime favourite decoder, DirAC, and its newer, higher order, and
> more principled derivatives.)

DirAC has the problem that it currebtly can be used "just as research"
tool. (I won't discuss this here. But you know this as well as I do. )

>
>
>> 5.1 and Ambisonics should/could be both supported, and maybe more
>> formats.
>
>
> That is an interesting line of thought for me as well. Undoubtedly for
> many on-list. How do you really bridge common discrete formats such as
> 5.1 or 7.1 with the ambisonic framework? Also, in the high audiophile,
> research mindset which engenders HOA and (as shown by Daniel and
> Nichols to be in the limit equivalent, I seem to remember) WFS.
>
> I think the proper formulation would start from idealized far field
> (planewave) response, angularly evened out to whatever ambisonic order
> we choose to work with. In fact I believe when I and Martin Leese did
> our little thingy with OggPCM channel formats, we were working on that
> precice if implicit assumption: that the directionality inherent to
> most discrete formats could be modelled within the ambisonic framework
> as distant, infinitely precise in direction, sources, to be folded
> down into an ambisonic soundscape, and from there on to be (optimally)
> decoded as usual.
>
> Or maybe so that knowing some source is tagged as a point source, it
> might be separately decoded via something like VBAP, while the rest of
> the field is reproduced by ambisonic principles. Dunno.

Maybe. But before we "just" would need some good binaural decoder for
some standard surround formats; 5.1 and FOA surely included.

Until 2morrow, and many thanks for your thoughtful and constructive
posting! (I have to think about this quite a bit more....)

Stefan


-----------------------

>
> Stil, be as it may, the idea of folding all of the current spatial
> audio into one big theory isn't new. I certainly didn't invent it, nor
> did anyone on this list. There's a lot of history behind the idea,
> perhaps not starting even with *Gerzon* himself. We'd all like to see
> the theory developed more fully, but I think we can all agree, it's
> not exactly a new invention, or ours, even if we were to be the ones
> to bring it to its fruition.
>
>> (If format wars are not necessary from a modern perspective, we
>> should not try to continue some partially imagined conflict.
>
>
> (Software) format wars go away once there is simplistic, free, open
> sourced software to "just do the thing any which way and convert". Cf.
> Eric de Castro Lopo's libsndfile; it pretty much took away any problem
> with differing sound file formats, once it reached its current maturity.
>
> So, I'd say that the same would happen with ambisonic, if we had a
> free, comprehensive library to deal with our favourite sound system.
> Well documented, proven in practice, and made easy to integrate.
>
> I believe we can all agree on what that sort of thing should look
> like. What the interfaces should be, and so forth. But to date
> nobody's actually implemented the thing. Parts of it, sure. Even
> multiple times over, for fame and other individual reasons. But I
> think it still remains the fact that we don't have "that one
> definitive, all-encompassing, one, ambisonic library", which everybody
> *just* *likes* *to* *use*, and then *does*.
>
> I believe that's what'd settle the matter in the end. Not abstract
> theoretisising, or even particular efforts to implement some forms of
> the system, but a concerted effort to put all of the knowledge the
> ambisonic community has, into one easily used, well-generalized, and
> well-maintained, piece of code.
>
>> Ambisonics has some clear advantages in the areas of AR/VR and 360º
>> video. So some natural application cases finally exist.)
>
>
> Yes. If you want in-the-wild examples there, take a look at Peter
> Hajba's work (aka Skaven, of FutureCrew, in the demo circles). And of
> course then Ville Pulkki and his research group's work at Aalto
> University. Headtracked, simultaneous audio and "VR" is *awesome*! :D
>
>> Even HTML5 surround decoders are possible by now:
>>
>> http://hyperradio.radiofrance.fr/son-3d/
>
>
> Nice. Will look into that.
>
>> Marc Lavallée presented one online player/decoder for XYW recordings.
>>
>> Now somebody would "just" have to do some integration.
>
>
> Yes! Who would be that someone then? ;)
>
>>> funding from the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 programme
>>
>
> Hmm. An interesting idea, at least for me... Would it be possible to
> get that "one, definitive, free and opensource ambisonic library" I
> alluded to above, done with public money? Some invention grant from
> the EU or whatnot?
>
> Because, I mean, such funding sources like demos. The ambisonic
> community has some darn impressive demos already, to just give out.
> So, such funding -- even if we all know where it once went with the
> NRDC -- might be rather readily available. If only somebody bothered
> to jot down a well-thought out grant proposal.
>
> This really oughtn't be rocket surgery...
>
>>> ORPHEUS will deliver a sustainable solution, ensuring that workflows
>>> and components for object-based audio scale up to enable
>>> cost-effective commercial production, storage, re-purposing,
>>> play-out and distribution.
>>
>
> "Object based audio." Yes, well, it might be that nowadays with all of
> the power of modern processors, you can actually do mixed and
> synthetic audio at what amounts to "infinite order" in ambisonic
> terms. Pure point sources, panned around.
>
> But in at least two respects the ambisonic theory/framework still
> reigns supreme.
>
> First, you can't get past the first, most basic theorem of ambisonic
> decoding: if you want to decode *anything*, including those point
> sources of today, into a sparse speaker array, you'll have to
> psychoacoustically optimize what you're doing. Then even the most
> basic Makita theory Gerzon started out with tells you, you simply
> cannot do things like VBAP without losing isotropy.
>
> Fine, maybe you don't want that every time. Maybe you want to do stuff
> which risks exposing speaker locations, as the price for more spatial
> definition. That's certainly what Dolby does right now with Atmos. But
> then we have point two:
>
> Secondly, and most forcefully, there is absolutely no other way to
> capture a live soundfield faithfully other than some version of
> ambisonic. All with its unique soundfield mic designs. Even if you
> somehow conventionally miced and mixed stuff just right, so as to
> mimic a live soundfield, there *still* is no extant framework within
> which to fully process directional sound, absent ambisonic. It's all
> you've got -- and because of its underpinnings, all you'll ever have,
> with complete mathematical certainty.
>
> As such, if this shit was to be packaged in a neat, free, open
> library, in its most general and generous form, I believe it'd easily
> become the new norm. Because there just wouldn't be any alternative to
> the comprehensive theory and practice which goes along with it.
>
> I think the only question is "whodunnit". ;)
>
>> Of course they could (or should?) start to implement 5.1 and
>> Ambisonics decoders firstly. But < who > would fund < this > stuff?!
>
>
> Then, does anybody actually need to fund this, even? All of the stuff
> we need is already there. It just needs to be packaged right. Even the
> hardest part, the nonlinear decoder optimizer code, already exists, at
> least in Benjamin, Lee and Heller's Tabu search code (which is general
> as fuck). And all of the movers and shakers pretty much are on this
> list, or once removed.
>
> I don't think it's even about funding. It's about simple organization.
> Perhaps with a few egos soothed via visible credits, and such. But not
> much more.
>
>> "Wait until 2020. All will be good by then." (It is also some
>> classical Ircam strategy to point to the benefits of the < next
>> generation >. We never will be < there > , but never mind! :-D )
>
>
> As dyed-in-the-wool individualist and one nasty libertarian, I'd say
> *still* fuck IRCAM. Seriously. it's a piece of age-old French
> dirigisme, before it ever was a place of learning and innovation. I
> feel sorry for the (grantedly many) excellent, sonically and signal
> processing minded individuals who had the unfortune to land in said
> hellhole. Had they ever seen a community like that of MIT or Caltech,
> they'dd have shat on IRCAM's very name, and after that done *much*
> more for themselves and humanity than they now have.
>
> Now the modern likes of Serre et al. are doomed to basically live in a
> black hole. An insular island removed from the scientific and
> technical mainstream. People kind of fall into IRCAM, because of its
> attractions. Once they do, they fall beyond that particular,
> institutional, event horizon. Nothing ever comes out from there, we
> don't know what the fuck goes there beyond their (rather impressive)
> toys, and what little comes out is...pardon me, garbled French.
>
>> So: We don't have to be < too > conservative. (We also don't have to
>> wait 'til "2020" to start with something.)
>
>
> Well agreed.
>
>> P.S.: And quadraphonic formats are maybe interesting - but quite
>> obviously surround history. Some recordings still exist, but there
>> won't be anything recent or new "stuff" around.
>
>
> Yes. But history is still worth preserving. And I don't just mean on
> the recording side. I also think the theory and the practice of
> quadraphonic technology is worth preservation; if only because it
> serves as a counter-example to the more developed theory which is
> ambisonic.
>
>>> "Alice's Adventures In (3D Audio?) Wonderland".
>>
>>
>> I can remember listening to this play on BBC Radio 3/4 several times,
>> great stuff.
>
>
> You're privileged in having (had?) access to this sort of stuff.
> Around here, and in my age cohort, none of that experimental radio
> stuff has *ever* been around. I grew up thinking stereo is all there
> could possibly be.
>
>>>> I still have some off-air recordings of the BBC's Matrix H system.
>>>> Never tried to decode them but they have a pleasing surround
>>>> sensation when listened to on headphones. Must have been the mic.
>>>> placements ??
>>>
>
> Richard, mind digitizing and sharing them? I'd be rather interested in
> the stuff.
Sampo Syreeni
2017-01-10 03:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-01-09, Stefan Schreiber wrote:

>>> - Backward-compatible (to stereo) forms of Ambisonics are very
>>> probably possible.
>>
>> They are not "probably possible". That's what the BHJ version of UHJ
>> *is*.
>
> Yes. But you still have to put L/R + 1 or 2 ext. channels into some < stereo
>> MP3 or AAC file.

Yes. There's a lot of haziness around how to do that optimally, at
least. Cf. the discussions around Vorbis's multichannel capability.
There ambisonic theory is explicitly mentioned.

> Our aim would be to be backward compatibility to common file and
> stream stereo formats. This is not completely trivial, but can be
> done. (Extension channels "buried" in file or container format. We
> don't want to break existing stereo decoders...)

There's then historical ambisonic theory even for that. :D

In the UHJ hierachy we also have SHJ and THJ. Those were originally
meant as compatibility formats for augmented AM and FM stereo radio. SHJ
as a "two and a half channel" format exists because at the time sattling
a full-bandwidth third channel onto a typical radio broadcast was
technically impossible. Given the limitations of analogue electronics.
However, a half-band channel could be put on, and so SHJ was borne.

At the same time, what you'd really want in a compatibility format would
be just a third, full-bandwidth channel. That's what THJ then
represents, as the full-fledged third tier of the UHJ hierarchy. It
starts with BHJ, and then ads a suitably (complex) matrixed third
channel (T), so that the whole system inverts into pure pantophonic
B-format (a bit of a misnomer because cylindrical and spherical
harmonics can't really be so exchanged, but still close enough).

So, if you want to get complete compatibility, we have the signal format
already. The question is how to convey it within common audio formats.

That is then not much of a problem either, if you think about it. Pretty
much the only formats we have to think about are RIFF WAVE (.wav) and
MPEG2 layer 3 (.mp3). Just maybe MPEG2/4 AAC (ISO/IEC 13818-7:2006).

Wav, especially in its modern versions, supports hiding T. It also
supports a media tag to discern between just UHJ encoded stereo with a
hidden channel, from ordinary stereo with one hidden channel. We already
used it to encode B-format, in Richard Dobson's .AMB format, derived
from WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonic_data_exchange_formats).

AAC is pliable as well. Of MP3 I'm not too sure, but I think it might
be. (I'm too drunken and tired to delve into that now. If you want
certainty, remind me later. I do think I have the relevant ISO standards
laying around somewhere on my disks.)

> UHJ was always a hierarchy scheme. Even so you have to find some space
> for T and Q channels. It is all just about some "practical space
> problems", not Makita theory itself... Just IT and standard related
> stuff, not math! ;-)

Funnily, Gerzon also built up another hierachy of sorts, incompatible
with UHJ. That's the frontal stereo one for early HDTV work. I never
understood why he didn't bring it under the ambisonic compatibility
fold.

> DirAC has the problem that it currebtly can be used "just as research"
> tool. (I won't discuss this here. But you know this as well as I do. )

Yes. It might be patent encumbered as well. And I don't much like the
idea that the decoder's input is effectively a directed cardioid -- that
should be dealt with pretty much as the dual of an optimal decoder.

But yeah...

> Maybe. But before we "just" would need some good binaural decoder for
> some standard surround formats; 5.1 and FOA surely included.

If you "just want to do it", I can easily contribute the research, math
and inner loops. On the framework and integration side I'm not too good.

> Until 2morrow, and many thanks for your thoughtful and constructive
> posting! (I have to think about this quite a bit more....)

What the list is for, but also a bit sorry for my usual rant-length. :)
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - ***@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Stefan Schreiber
2017-01-10 03:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sampo Syreeni wrote:

> On 2017-01-09, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
>
>>>> - Backward-compatible (to stereo) forms of Ambisonics are very
>>>> probably possible.
>>>
>>>
>>> They are not "probably possible". That's what the BHJ version of UHJ
>>> *is*.
>>
>>
>> Yes. But you still have to put L/R + 1 or 2 ext. channels into some <
>> stereo
>>
>>> MP3 or AAC file.
>>
...

>
> That is then not much of a problem either, if you think about it.
> Pretty much the only formats we have to think about are RIFF WAVE
> (.wav) and MPEG2 layer 3 (.mp3). Just maybe MPEG2/4 AAC (ISO/IEC
> 13818-7:2006).
>
> Wav, especially in its modern versions, supports hiding T. It also
> supports a media tag to discern between just UHJ encoded stereo with a
> hidden channel, from ordinary stereo with one hidden channel. We
> already used it to encode B-format, in Richard Dobson's .AMB format,
> derived from WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonic_data_exchange_formats).
>
> AAC is pliable as well. Of MP3 I'm not too sure, but I think it might
> be. (I'm too drunken and tired to delve into that now. If you want
> certainty, remind me later. I do think I have the relevant ISO
> standards laying around somewhere on my disks.)

I came basically to the same conclusions. (AAC implementation possible,
some MP3 "hack" maybe...)
But to implement this, you or I or anybody would need the (detailled)
format specifications.

(Hidden) Extension channels are known and applied in other cases. (DTS,
True HD's 5.1 system over stereo "core", etc.)

Best,

Stefan

>
>> UHJ was always a hierarchy scheme. Even so you have to find some
>> space for T and Q channels. It is all just about some "practical
>> space problems", not Makita theory itself... Just IT and standard
>> related stuff, not math! ;-)
>
>
> Funnily, Gerzon also built up another hierachy of sorts, incompatible
> with UHJ. That's the frontal stereo one for early HDTV work. I never
> understood why he didn't bring it under the ambisonic compatibility fold.
>
>> DirAC has the problem that it currebtly can be used "just as
>> research" tool. (I won't discuss this here. But you know this as well
>> as I do. )
>
>
> Yes. It might be patent encumbered as well. And I don't much like the
> idea that the decoder's input is effectively a directed cardioid --
> that should be dealt with pretty much as the dual of an optimal decoder.
>
> But yeah...
>
>> Maybe. But before we "just" would need some good binaural decoder for
>> some standard surround formats; 5.1 and FOA surely included.
>
>
> If you "just want to do it", I can easily contribute the research,
> math and inner loops. On the framework and integration side I'm not
> too good.

I might come back to this later and accept your kind offer... :-)

>
>> Until 2morrow, and many thanks for your thoughtful and constructive
>> posting! (I have to think about this quite a bit more....)
>
>
> What the list is for, but also a bit sorry for my usual rant-length. :)
Dave Malham
2017-01-10 10:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10 January 2017 at 03:13, Sampo Syreeni <***@iki.fi> wrote:

>
> Funnily, Gerzon also built up another hierachy of sorts, incompatible with
> UHJ. That's the frontal stereo one for early HDTV work. I never understood
> why he didn't bring it under the ambisonic compatibility fold.
>

AFAIR, this was a "political" choice (or, at least, a marketing one) based
on the backwash of resistance to Ambisonics that was still coming from the
failure of Quad systems to grab market share in the seventies. Actually
tagging something with the label "Ambisonics" was tantamount to labelling
it "esoteric nonsense" to far too many engineers in those days. A few of us
hung in there and, eventually, got to the 21st century when things really
started happening, aided by the appearance of low-cost computing systems
that could produce and process B format soundfields in realtime.

Dave
--

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/20170110/4a41d9d8/attachment.html>
David Pickett
2017-01-10 18:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
At 17:18 07-01-17, Richard Lee wrote:

>> One broadcast I recall was a play based upon Alice in Wonderland entitled
>
>"Alice's Adventures In Wonderland".
>

I must be missing something subtle concerning the change in the title
(Is it the capital I?)...

David
Geoffrey Barton
2017-01-10 11:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:42:43 -0000
> From: "Alan Varty" <***@talktalk.net>
> To: "Surround Sound discussion group" <***@music.vt.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973
> Message-ID: <***@AlanPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=response
>
> I think I am correct in saying the BBC (H) and NRDC (45j) decided to
> co-operate rather than have yet another two competing systems on
> the 4-channel scene which at the time already had CD-4, UD-4, SQ and
> QS in the arena. BBC/NRDC each modified their encoding "towards"
> each other and called it HJ.

As I recall, the BBC were getting bad reviews of the stereo produced by matrix H and discussed this with MAG who proposed a compromise. UHJ was a variation within the 5 parameters which define an Ambisonic encoding, mainly a reduction in the centre front phase shift compared with 45J, based on many listening tests. It was known internally as 35JA’, so you can guess there was a whole family of small variations. BBC HJ was defined as a set of tolerance zones on the locus, mainly defined with reference to pairwise panning, I think it coincided with the UHJ locus at four points , so in that sense it was compatible; the exact parameters of both variations were defined by MAG. In subsequent tests the BBC made, primarily using SFMs, they also used our encoders, so I suspect drama productions such as Gilgamesh and Inferno Revisited are actually UHJ.

Geoffrey
Richard
2017-01-10 13:44:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Very interesting


> I think I am correct in saying the BBC (H) and NRDC (45j) decided to
> co-operate rather than have yet another two competing systems on
> the 4-channel scene which at the time already had CD-4, UD-4, SQ and
> QS in the arena. BBC/NRDC each modified their encoding "towards"
> each other and called it HJ.

As I recall, the BBC were getting bad reviews of the stereo produced by matrix H and discussed this with MAG who proposed a compromise. UHJ was a variation within the 5 parameters which define an Ambisonic encoding, mainly a reduction in the centre front phase shift compared with 45J, based on many listening tests. It was known internally as 35JA’, so you can guess there was a whole family of small variations. BBC HJ was defined as a set of tolerance zones on the locus, mainly defined with reference to pairwise panning, I think it coincided with the UHJ locus at four points , so in that sense it was compatible; the exact parameters of both variations were defined by MAG. In subsequent tests the BBC made, primarily using SFMs, they also used our encoders, so I suspect drama productions such as Gilgamesh and Inferno Revisited are actually UHJ.

Geoffrey


_______________________________________________
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/20170110/140180eb/attachment.html>
Alan Varty
2017-01-10 15:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Many thanks indeed Geoffrey for that clarification.

Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey Barton
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 11:45 AM
To: ***@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:42:43 -0000
> From: "Alan Varty" <***@talktalk.net>
> To: "Surround Sound discussion group" <***@music.vt.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973
> Message-ID: <***@AlanPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=response
>
> I think I am correct in saying the BBC (H) and NRDC (45j) decided to
> co-operate rather than have yet another two competing systems on
> the 4-channel scene which at the time already had CD-4, UD-4, SQ and
> QS in the arena. BBC/NRDC each modified their encoding "towards"
> each other and called it HJ.

As I recall, the BBC were getting bad reviews of the stereo produced by
matrix H and discussed this with MAG who proposed a compromise. UHJ was a
variation within the 5 parameters which define an Ambisonic encoding, mainly
a reduction in the centre front phase shift compared with 45J, based on many
listening tests. It was known internally as 35JA’, so you can guess there
was a whole family of small variations. BBC HJ was defined as a set of
tolerance zones on the locus, mainly defined with reference to pairwise
panning, I think it coincided with the UHJ locus at four points , so in that
sense it was compatible; the exact parameters of both variations were
defined by MAG. In subsequent tests the BBC made, primarily using SFMs, they
also used our encoders, so I suspect drama productions such as Gilgamesh and
Inferno Revisited are actually UHJ.

Geoffrey
Andrew
2017-01-10 19:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
According to Wiki the former name is a common shortened version of the latter.
Andrew


Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: David Pickett <***@fugato.com>
Date: 10/01/2017 18:49 (GMT+00:00)
To: ***@justnet.com.au, Surround Sound discussion group <***@music.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The BBC & Quadrophony in 1973

At 17:18 07-01-17, Richard Lee wrote:

>> One broadcast I recall was a play based upon Alice in Wonderland entitled
>
>"Alice's Adventures In Wonderland".
>

I must be missing something subtle concerning the change in the title
(Is it the capital I?)...

David

_______________________________________________
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/20170110/e28214bf/attachment.html>
Loading...