Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
On 20/07/2011 01:07, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Dave Malham wrote:
Surround is not just about Ambisonics and maybe WFS, yet again.
True - but they are ones that work and are well established.
Dave
Ambisonics and WFS are well-established?! Depends on your view on this...
In the sense that the technology is well developed and that there are an increasing number of
applications of both, though, I would agree, not in a mass market (yet)
It also sounds as if Ambisonics and WFS don't have some drawbacks, and of course both systems
have some.
Indeed they have drawbacks - engineering is like that, always about making compromises, good
engineering is about attempting to make optimal compromises. :-)
You "review" a system (SRS, CC3D) you even don't know enough, and obviously in a negative ("snake
oil") way. IMO they are trying to develop a system which covers some demand from outside.
"Cinema" is in the name of CC3D. Even if they are copying some elements from elsewhere, I think
this is still ok. There seem to be some new aspects. On a system level, you can't say SRS is
copying anything else, because there is no established parametric/object-based 3D audio system
elsewhere which they could copy.
Sorry, but their blurb reads like snake oil sales talk so I called it that. It wasn't a comment on
the system - since I haven't heard it and have no technical information to go on, I couldn't do so.
It would, of course, not be unknown for companies who want to keep IP secret to deliberately
obfuscate things
Hmm, reading through this, it seems that basically they've discovered MPEG4 Spatial Audio Object
Coding :-)
Was this about 3D audio? Doubt this... And anyway, outside from academic research nobody has
implemented this.
I'm not sure about that.
For my part, I will try to get more information about this. However, I could imagine why SRS won't
discuss their system on this list.
Look forward to hearing all about it...
Dave
--
These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
/*/
/* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */
/* Music Research Centre */
/* Department of Music"http://music.york.ac.uk/"; */
/* The University of York Phone 01904 432448*/
/* Heslington Fax 01904 432450*/
/* York YO10 5DD */
/* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */
/*"http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/"; */
/*/
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
Hi, The next thing that you heard with CC3D was another psychoacoustic phenomenon that we kind of discovered last year about what sounds do when they come closer versus moving farther away. And we found that we were able to simulate something that normally can?t be done with traditional surround sound, which is proximity. And again, that?s not just amplitude. So we?re taking advantage of what we learned there to create this feeling that things are being projected into space in the D axis, the depth axis. From: J?rn Nettingsmeier so this is 4d spacetime, right? x, y, z, and d :) now this funny drone noise, is that minkowski spinning in his grave? As Dave Malham has already pointed out, d can be expressed in terms of x,y,z, so is not an independent coordinate. This is like trying to combine two coordinate systems describing the same position (Cartesian and Polar), then saying we have six coordinates = 6D. Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:17:41 +0100 From: Dave Malham classical ambisonics doesn't really do that. on good recordings, you will get a very nice sense of distance, but that is due to distance cues which are more or less independent of ambisonics (any good recording method can do it). what you definitely won't get (with any order less than "ridiculously high") are sources closer than the ring of speakers. Whilst I agree that you can't generally get stationary audio objects closer than the radius of the speakers on low order systems (currently, only high order Ambisonic systems, WFS or crosstalk cancelled binaural systems can do that - oh, and the various ultrasound based speakers), you can get reasonably quickly moving objects to appear to pass close by, especially if the acoustic of the playback space is dead relative to the reproduced space, provided you give enough cues (particularly early reflection patterns and proximity effect) in the soundscape to override the conflicting playback space cues. Whilst this also occurs with any decent replay methodology, it is easier with Ambisonics because (I suspect) of the fact that there is always more than one speaker producing sound, so the local space cues conflict not just with the soundscape cues, but also each other, weakening the perceptual effects of the local cues. It is true that 1st order ambisonics doesn't consider distance, with all sources being reproduced at the distance of the speakers, although Gerzon did consider distance panning. A Soundfield mic recording contains distance information. If attempting spatial synthesis, the ambisonic encoding equations do not include distance, and this has to be added in various ways: amplitude variation (inverse square or other law), hf air absorption, early reflections and reverberation in a virtual space, source directivity, occluding objects etc.. Sources inside the speaker distance cannot be be correctly represented with 1st order ambisonics, as the x,y,z components all diminish to zero at the listeners position, and this can be compensated to some extent by increasing W to maintain a similar loudness. As far as I can see, higher order components also tend towards zero (apart from R, which tends towards a constant of -0.5). Modelling near sources in HOA seems to depend mostly on the 'proximity effect': an increase of gain at low frequencies in the directional components. I'm not sure that this is really 'gimmickry' as J?rn suggests. Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:27:26 +0200 From: J?rn Nettingsmeier distance cues are mostly gimmickry in my opinion. you can fake distance in a number of ways, but most are really dependent on the spectrum and envelope of the program material. most aspects of distance encoding are also orthogonal to most surround techniques, which means they can be added at will, today. they don't even necessitate a fancy new name. Modelling distance, and controlling it on a per source basis, is founded on sound physical principles and can be made 'convincing', even with low order ambisonics. Agreed that it is 'bolted on', though synthesis (being the converse of analysis) involves controlling a large number of parameters to simulate what occurs naturally. Even WFS, as described in the literature, suggests that sources be recorded individually as dry and close as possible, and the 'scene' then reconstructed on playback. So it too synthesises distance. Ciao, Dave Hunt ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
On 20/07/2011 09:53, Dave Malham wrote: ... Sorry, but their blurb reads like snake oil sales talk so I called it that. It wasn't a comment on the system - since I haven't heard it and have no technical information to go on, I couldn't do so. It would, of course, not be unknown for companies who want to keep IP secret to deliberately obfuscate things Hmm, reading through this, it seems that basically they've discovered MPEG4 Spatial Audio Object Coding :-) An interesting part of that feature was the discussion, such as it was, of the location of the music in a strongly spatialsed scene. Of course, with a vanilla cinema surround scene, where nothing actually sounds particularly realistic spatially (beyond crude panning), having some disembodied music track is a familiar thing relying on the same automatic suspension of disbelief which allows us to imagine there is no camera crew in the scene either, and accepts the sound of explosions in space. But in a genuinely spatialised scene, presumably with the goal of hyper-realism, the music, apparently, remains "... perfectly isolated and anchored above and well forward of the screen". So - noisy pterodactyls and dragons are mixing it with the brass section. How weird is that likely to sound? Especially if the music track itself has been recorded in surround the way so many people enthuse about here"? Richard Dobson ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
Hi all, I think that one of the problems with all these discussions is that we tend to think of the distance of an audio object as being the exactly the same sort of thing as the coordinates of the object w.r.t. the listener - but it's not because, unlike direction, we humans can't determine it absolutely, but only as implied via the object's (and our) interaction with the environment. For a unknown distant stationary source in an anechoic environment there are _no_ cues as to distance, unless the listener can move and gain something via parallax or loudness variation. For close sources (i.e. in the curved wavefront zone) there may be some cues from bass lift, but even these would be ambiguous for median plane sources if head turning is not allowed (Greene-Lee head brace, anyone?) Dave M. On Jul 20 2011, Dave Hunt wrote: Hi, Modelling distance, and controlling it on a per source basis, is founded on sound physical principles and can be made 'convincing', even with low order ambisonics. Agreed that it is 'bolted on', though synthesis (being the converse of analysis) involves controlling a large number of parameters to simulate what occurs naturally. Even WFS, as described in the literature, suggests that sources be recorded individually as dry and close as possible, and the 'scene' then reconstructed on playback. So it too synthesises distance. Ciao, Dave Hunt ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
Thanks for your (thoughtful) answer.
IMO it is not very efficient to (en)code 3D audio in maybe 32 audio
tracks (including some metadata, tracks maybe in 96Hz), or to
transmit/store even more "audio objects".
Therefore, they should consider or include Ambisonics (up to 3rd or 4th
order) into the standard.
Question: Could the F-M HOA system be extended to include (just) 4th
order? (We might talk about cinema applications here. Although 3rd order
would probably be "good enough", to include 4th order would be even better.)
Thanks,
Stefan
Dave Malham wrote:
On 20/07/2011 01:07, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Dave Malham wrote:
Surround is not just about Ambisonics and maybe WFS, yet again.
True - but they are ones that work and are well established.
Dave
Ambisonics and WFS are well-established?! Depends on your view on
this...
In the sense that the technology is well developed and that there are
an increasing number of applications of both, though, I would agree,
not in a mass market (yet)
It also sounds as if Ambisonics and WFS don't have some drawbacks,
and of course both systems have some.
Indeed they have drawbacks - engineering is like that, always about
making compromises, good engineering is about attempting to make
optimal compromises. :-)
You "review" a system (SRS, CC3D) you even don't know enough, and
obviously in a negative ("snake oil") way. IMO they are trying to
develop a system which covers some demand from outside. "Cinema" is
in the name of CC3D. Even if they are copying some elements from
elsewhere, I think this is still ok. There seem to be some new
aspects. On a system level, you can't say SRS is copying anything
else, because there is no established parametric/object-based 3D
audio system elsewhere which they could copy.
Sorry, but their blurb reads like snake oil sales talk so I called it
that. It wasn't a comment on the system - since I haven't heard it and
have no technical information to go on, I couldn't do so. It would, of
course, not be unknown for companies who want to keep IP secret to
deliberately obfuscate things
Hmm, reading through this, it seems that basically they've
discovered MPEG4 Spatial Audio Object Coding :-)
Was this about 3D audio? Doubt this... And anyway, outside from
academic research nobody has implemented this.
I'm not sure about that.
For my part, I will try to get more information about this. However,
I could imagine why SRS won't discuss their system on this list.
Look forward to hearing all about it...
Dave
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
Dave Hunt wrote: It is true that 1st order ambisonics doesn't consider distance, with all sources being reproduced at the distance of the speakers, although Gerzon did consider distance panning. A Soundfield mic recording contains distance information. If attempting spatial synthesis, the ambisonic encoding equations do not include distance, and this has to be added in various ways: amplitude variation (inverse square or other law), hf air absorption, early reflections and reverberation in a virtual space, source directivity, occluding objects etc.. Sources inside the speaker distance cannot be be correctly represented with 1st order ambisonics, as the x,y,z components all diminish to zero at the listeners position, and this can be compensated to some extent by increasing W to maintain a similar loudness. As far as I can see, higher order components also tend towards zero (apart from R, which tends towards a constant of -0.5). Modelling near sources in HOA seems to depend mostly on the 'proximity effect': an increase of gain at low frequencies in the directional components. I'm not sure that this is really 'gimmickry' as Jörn suggests. Hi... I would highly suspect that some 3D audio game engines (Codemasters, for example "DiRT" series) are considering distance cues. Although I don't know this, I believe this would add a lot to a more realistic game impression. The fact that many people don't consider distance as some important parameter doesn't mean it is a "gimmick", agreed. Thanks for the clarifications! Stefan ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
Hi, Date: 20 Jul 2011 11:36:10 +0100 From: dave.mal...@york.ac.uk Hi all, I think that one of the problems with all these discussions is that we tend to think of the distance of an audio object as being the exactly the same sort of thing as the coordinates of the object w.r.t. the listener - but it's not because, unlike direction, we humans can't determine it absolutely, but only as implied via the object's (and our) interaction with the environment. For a unknown distant stationary source in an anechoic environment there are _no_ cues as to distance, unless the listener can move and gain something via parallax or loudness variation. For close sources (i.e. in the curved wavefront zone) there may be some cues from bass lift, but even these would be ambiguous for median plane sources if head turning is not allowed (Greene-Lee head brace, anyone?) Dave M. Agreed, though you are really talking of a particular (and fairly uncommon) situation. An unknown sound source, which implies something electronically generated, and thus with no readily identifiable source. An anechoic environment. Apart from HF absorption by the air, only really appreciable at quite large distances, the only variable is then loudness, the same sound louder or quieter. As we have no knowledge as to how loud it is supposed to be at a given distance, we have no reference point for comparison. In a 'soundscape' containing several sources some distance relationships between them can be discerned. Of course this is aided by prior experience. Given a recognisable sound source, such as a blackbird or violin, amplitude alone gives some rough idea of distance, though it cannot be stated with any accuracy. Given two familiar sources, a rough relative distance between them can be perceived. Any sense of scale can be disrupted by playback levels that are louder or quieter than 'real' levels. Loud sounds are more 'present' (nearer ?), and are usually produced by larger sources. I, like I suspect many on this list, am interested in how aural compositions can be made spatially 'effective': to convey convincing and believable images, even if they are 'unrealistic'. Most modern audio production for music, film or any other medium aims to produce something 'hyper-real': clear, polished, stripped of extraneous sound, crafted. The listener is usually static. Ciao, Dave Hunt ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
Here is the truth! I have spent a LOT of time at live musical events(when the music was not too interesting , while I waited for what I came to hear or just sat through if I had gone for some social reason only) listening with my eyes closed to whether one could hear the distance of things. My admittedly informal conclusion is that one cannot except if things are very near by(e.g. near by instruments in the orchestra when I am playing). In the audience at a fair distance from the orchestra, one has some impression that the orchestra is not really close. It sounds tonally different from what it would sound like up close and the shape of the dynamics is different (more reverb field, less direct arrival). But where is the orchestra? It is just kind of "out there". THere is no real feeling of exactly how far it is out there at all, none to speak of. It seems to me pretty clear that such a rather vague and generalized feeling prevents--for this type of music--the whole idea of distance from being really important musically. Theoretically, yes, musically no--one just does not hear it. The trouble with stereo is that it is too close and too little. Surrounds to make for realism (of orchestral music) needs to make the orchestra seem either larger or further away---because 2 speaker stereo does tend to localize things at a fairly definite distance, more or less at the plane of the speakers--unless you do it awfully well and then it doesn't do that so much. Stereo orchestral music sounds weird because it is tonally close (usually) but physically way too small for the tonal closeness and the plane of the speakers closeness just makes things even worse. WHen you are 15 feet from it, an orchestra--being about 60 feet wide usually--subtends a huge angle and is LARGE. And actually at that close range it has front to back depth too--that is still close enough for that. Robert On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote: Hi all, I think that one of the problems with all these discussions is that we tend to think of the distance of an audio object as being the exactly the same sort of thing as the coordinates of the object w.r.t. the listener - but it's not because, unlike direction, we humans can't determine it absolutely, but only as implied via the object's (and our) interaction with the environment. For a unknown distant stationary source in an anechoic environment there are _no_ cues as to distance, unless the listener can move and gain something via parallax or loudness variation. For close sources (i.e. in the curved wavefront zone) there may be some cues from bass lift, but even these would be ambiguous for median plane sources if head turning is not allowed (Greene-Lee head brace, anyone?) Dave M. On Jul 20 2011, Dave Hunt wrote: Hi, Modelling distance, and controlling it on a per source basis, is founded on sound physical principles and can be made 'convincing', even with low order ambisonics. Agreed that it is 'bolted on', though synthesis (being the converse of analysis) involves controlling a large number of parameters to simulate what occurs naturally. Even WFS, as described in the literature, suggests that sources be recorded individually as dry and close as possible, and the 'scene' then reconstructed on playback. So it too synthesises distance. Ciao, Dave Hunt ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
PS FIrst line refers to Dave's message not mine Also some words got left out-- later on in the opening of the second paragraph it is supposed to say that one cannot expect to hear any kind of exact distance except if things are very near by On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Robert Greene wrote: Here is the truth! I have spent a LOT of time at live musical events(when the music was not too interesting , while I waited for what I came to hear or just sat through if I had gone for some social reason only) listening with my eyes closed to whether one could hear the distance of things. My admittedly informal conclusion is that one cannot except if things are very near by(e.g. near by instruments in the orchestra when I am playing). In the audience at a fair distance from the orchestra, one has some impression that the orchestra is not really close. It sounds tonally different from what it would sound like up close and the shape of the dynamics is different (more reverb field, less direct arrival). But where is the orchestra? It is just kind of "out there". THere is no real feeling of exactly how far it is out there at all, none to speak of. It seems to me pretty clear that such a rather vague and generalized feeling prevents--for this type of music--the whole idea of distance from being really important musically. Theoretically, yes, musically no--one just does not hear it. The trouble with stereo is that it is too close and too little. Surrounds to make for realism (of orchestral music) needs to make the orchestra seem either larger or further away---because 2 speaker stereo does tend to localize things at a fairly definite distance, more or less at the plane of the speakers--unless you do it awfully well and then it doesn't do that so much. Stereo orchestral music sounds weird because it is tonally close (usually) but physically way too small for the tonal closeness and the plane of the speakers closeness just makes things even worse. WHen you are 15 feet from it, an orchestra--being about 60 feet wide usually--subtends a huge angle and is LARGE. And actually at that close range it has front to back depth too--that is still close enough for that. Robert On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, dave.mal...@york.ac.uk wrote: Hi all, I think that one of the problems with all these discussions is that we tend to think of the distance of an audio object as being the exactly the same sort of thing as the coordinates of the object w.r.t. the listener - but it's not because, unlike direction, we humans can't determine it absolutely, but only as implied via the object's (and our) interaction with the environment. For a unknown distant stationary source in an anechoic environment there are _no_ cues as to distance, unless the listener can move and gain something via parallax or loudness variation. For close sources (i.e. in the curved wavefront zone) there may be some cues from bass lift, but even these would be ambiguous for median plane sources if head turning is not allowed (Greene-Lee head brace, anyone?) Dave M. On Jul 20 2011, Dave Hunt wrote: Hi, Modelling distance, and controlling it on a per source basis, is founded on sound physical principles and can be made 'convincing', even with low order ambisonics. Agreed that it is 'bolted on', though synthesis (being the converse of analysis) involves controlling a large number of parameters to simulate what occurs naturally. Even WFS, as described in the literature, suggests that sources be recorded individually as dry and close as possible, and the 'scene' then reconstructed on playback. So it too synthesises distance. Ciao, Dave Hunt ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
> It is true that 1st order ambisonics doesn't consider distance, with all sources being reproduced at the distance of the speakers, . > synthesis, the ambisonic encoding equations do not include distance, Both of these are untrue. For the second, see the Appendix of BLaH3 "Is my decoder Ambisonic?" Heller et al, AES San Francisco, 2008 There are two convenient proofs of the fallacy of the first. While making a normal recording, creep silently up to your TetraMic or Soundfield and whisper into it. When you play this back to an unsuspecting victim seated in the centre of a simple Classic Ambisonic rig, he will flinch. He certainly doesn't hear you at the radius of the speakers. The other 'proof' is the B-format motorcycle that Soundfield have played at nauseum at various shows. Ambisonic myth has it that this was recorded by the young Dr. Peter Lennox on Grand Vizier Malham's modified Calrec Soundfield Mk 3A while the Vizier was away on a diplomatic visit to the Great Turtle that Supports the Universe. This mike was one of the first to have IMHO, the proper EQ which allow a Soundfield to implement the correct Ambisonic Encoding Eqns in the Appendix of BLaH3. BTW, real human distance perception is TERRIBLE under anechoic conditions cos waveform curvature is about the only thing left. Those of you investigating distance perception, please take note. And you need a proper Classic Ambi decoder as defined by MAG and BLaH3 with NFC. _ Why does this work? At LF, simple 1st order Ambisonics with NFC IS a wavefield / soundfield reconstruction system. Then there's the snake oil in Calrec Soundfields, hand squeezed from solid Unobtainium by Yorkshire virgins ... Shaddup Lee! Just Shaddup! ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
On 07/20/2011 03:49 AM, Richard Dobson wrote: >So - noisy pterodactyls and dragons are mixing it with the brass section. How >weird > is that likely to sound? Especially if the music track itself has been > recorded in surround the way so many people enthuse about here"? > Dragons in the Brass section? I think groups like Blind Guardian would embrace this format in that case. :") -- Bearcat M. Şandor Cell: 406.210.3500 Jabber/xmpp/gtalk/email: bear...@feline-soul.net MSN: bearcatsan...@hotmail.com Yahoo: bearcatsandor AIM: bearcatmsandor ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
On Jul 20 2011, Dave Hunt wrote: Hi, Date: 20 Jul 2011 11:36:10 +0100 From: dave.mal...@york.ac.uk Hi all, I think that one of the problems with all these discussions is that we tend to think of the distance of an audio object as being the exactly the same sort of thing as the coordinates of the object w.r.t. the listener - but it's not because, unlike direction, we humans can't determine it absolutely, but only as implied via the object's (and our) interaction with the environment. For a unknown distant stationary source in an anechoic environment there are _no_ cues as to distance, unless the listener can move and gain something via parallax or loudness variation. For close sources (i.e. in the curved wavefront zone) there may be some cues from bass lift, but even these would be ambiguous for median plane sources if head turning is not allowed (Greene-Lee head brace, anyone?) Dave M. Agreed, though you are really talking of a particular (and fairly uncommon) situation. An unknown sound source, which implies something electronically generated, and thus with no readily identifiable source. An anechoic environment. Absolutely, I was taking it ad absurdum to illustrate the point that (assuming no movement, including head turning) the only thing we get that isn't about experience or environmental interaction is direction. Even then, without head movement and/or prior knowledge (needed to allow higher order components of HRTF's to come into play), anomalies are possible - cf cones of confusion. Apart from HF absorption by the air, only really appreciable at quite large distances, the only variable is then loudness, the same sound louder or quieter. As we have no knowledge as to how loud it is supposed to be at a given distance, we have no reference point for comparison. Absolutely (again) and even on familiar(is) sounds, experiments in anechoic rooms have shown that large errors occur for simple loudness based distance estimation. Dave M. In a 'soundscape' containing several sources some distance relationships between them can be discerned. Of course this is aided by prior experience. Given a recognisable sound source, such as a blackbird or violin, amplitude alone gives some rough idea of distance, though it cannot be stated with any accuracy. Given two familiar sources, a rough relative distance between them can be perceived. Any sense of scale can be disrupted by playback levels that are louder or quieter than 'real' levels. Loud sounds are more 'present' (nearer ?), and are usually produced by larger sources. I, like I suspect many on this list, am interested in how aural compositions can be made spatially 'effective': to convey convincing and believable images, even if they are 'unrealistic'. Most modern audio production for music, film or any other medium aims to produce something 'hyper-real': clear, polished, stripped of extraneous sound, crafted. The listener is usually static. Ciao, Dave Hunt ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
On Jul 21 2011, "Bearcat M. Şandor" wrote: On 07/20/2011 03:49 AM, Richard Dobson wrote: So - noisy pterodactyls and dragons are mixing it with the brass section. How weird is that likely to sound? Especially if the music track itself has been recorded in surround the way so many people enthuse about here"? Dragons in the Brass section? I think groups like Blind Guardian would embrace this format in that case. :") Weird, I did a search for Blind Guardian but accidentally typed "Gau" and came up with; BLIND BEAMFORMING FOR NON GAUSSIAN SIGNALS by Jean-Françcois Cardoso ... perso.telecom-paristech.fr/~cardoso/Papers.PDF/iee.pdf which seems strangely connected with making higher order microphones Dave M. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
