Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[etienne deleflie]

>
> Is there really any commercially available Ambisonic material?
>

yes ... in computer games. Buy yourself a PS3, then buy Codemaster's F1, or
Dirt games ... and you'll be hearing (IIRC) 4th order ambisonic encoding
and decoding ... you can listen in 3D sound using Simon Goodwin's hybrid
3D7.1 layout (height produced over an adapted 7.1 layout).


> My impression is that the general public, even the audio public,
> has never heard of it, even now. I think the revivial of interest
> is mostly just among people like the people here.
>

I think that is largely true.

Ambisonics has the problem that it is impractical. I believe it is too
impractical for the home (at least with the currently available
technology). I've blogged about that here:
http://etiennedeleflie.net/2012/01/03/ambisonics-is-bad-technology/

> And canned artificial music , well, surround of
> any kind hardly matters.

I think it is the exact opposite. "Canned artificial music" is the only
place where spatial audio maters and maters a lot. Here, I draw a
distinction between 'surround' ... and spatial audio. The use of our
spatial perceptual abilities to isolate sounds (auditory stream
segregation) is used and abused with great skill by contemporary
'producers'. That's why the most important plugins in DAWs are things like
reverberation, panning, digital delay, low-pass-filters, volume control
etc. These are all *spatial* processes. I've blogger about that here:
http://etiennedeleflie.net/2012/01/04/aphex-twin-and-spatial-audio/

Am I missing something?


You are forgetting that ambisonics is inaccessible (to the masses). In this
respect Ambisonics is a half-technology. The missing half is the half that
allows people to have a consistently good and dependable spatial audio
experience by buying a product, going home and hitting 'play'. In the
consumer market place, its called *user experience*. The user-experience
delivered by today's ambisonic technologies is only sufferable by a select
few ... audio-engineers, technically minded audiophiles, academic
researchers ...

Etienne


>
> Robert
>
>
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
>  On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:52:22PM -0700, Robert Greene wrote:
>>
>>  Surround in music has never been a hit in any form and it still
>>> is not. Moreover most music is not really enhanced by it in the minds of
>>> most people. Orchestral music benefits enormously--most of what you hear
>>> in an orchestra concert is all around you--but most people do not listen
>>> to that kind of music. And canned artificial music , well, surround of
>>> any kind hardly matters.
>>>
>>
>> Correct. And if you want to use Ambisonics for anything beyond
>> listening to classical music, e.g. to compete with 5.1 for movie
>> sound, you need higher order. Which was near impossible or at least
>> horribly complicated and expensive with analog technology.
>> The revival of the past ten years or so is largely the result of
>> higher order becoming possible in practice, along with an interest
>> from telecom companies rather than music producers.
>>
>> 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
>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound>
>>
>>  __**_
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound>
>



-- 
http://etiennedeleflie.net
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120331/b51f6266/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Peter Lennox]

gosh!

this is like the mid-90s, when I first joined the list, and the topic "why 
hasn't ambisonics taken off?" cropped up every few days, sometimes a week.

It's always hard to prove why something doesn't happen - and thus, as a basis 
for a dissertation, I would be very wary of advising the dissertation question 
be framed this way.

But there are some jolly good arguments here, and collecting and collating them 
would be a good idea - who knows, if the dissertation is decent, it could be 
hosted on ambisonia.com, when York university get it up and running?

Dr Peter Lennox

School of Technology,
Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology
University of Derby, UK
e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk
t: 01332 593155

From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf 
Of Robert Greene [gre...@math.ucla.edu]
Sent: 31 March 2012 03:35
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

I am curious about this concept of revival of Ambisonics  in the past ten
years.

Is there really any commercially available Ambisonic material?

Is anyone actually selling higher order Ambisonic products?

I realize that of course anything at all can be implemented
on computers.

But suppose I wanted to hear say a decoded
version of UHJ recordings of the past?
(I can do this--I have a processor--but I mean for a person
outside the field). Could you do this by just pushing a few
buttons?

Is anyone out in the real world actually hearing any
Ambisonic material at all, people outside the group
of people interested in it in a serious quasi professional
(or really professional) way?

My impression is that the general public, even the audio public,
has never heard of it, even now. I think the revivial of interest
is mostly just among people like the people here.

Am I missing something?
Robert

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:52:22PM -0700, Robert Greene wrote:
>
>> Surround in music has never been a hit in any form and it still
>> is not. Moreover most music is not really enhanced by it in the minds of
>> most people. Orchestral music benefits enormously--most of what you hear
>> in an orchestra concert is all around you--but most people do not listen
>> to that kind of music. And canned artificial music , well, surround of
>> any kind hardly matters.
>
> Correct. And if you want to use Ambisonics for anything beyond
> listening to classical music, e.g. to compete with 5.1 for movie
> sound, you need higher order. Which was near impossible or at least
> horribly complicated and expensive with analog technology.
> The revival of the past ten years or so is largely the result of
> higher order becoming possible in practice, along with an interest
> from telecom companies rather than music producers.
>
> 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
> 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

_
The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the 
right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this email was sent to you in 
error, please notify the sender and delete this email. Please direct any 
concerns to info...@derby.ac.uk.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Eero Aro]

Hi

I wasn't going to post this on the list, I actually did sent it to Cara 
directly.

But as the thread took off, here it is. Let's mourn together.

I warmly agree with Mark Stahlman about the fact that one point recording -
two speaker reproduction is a very European and especially British-German
concept. Using a lot of microphones, channels and speakers has always been
the American way. (And Japanese... 22.2...)

My five eurocents worth:

- Ambisonics was developed by music enthusiasts and mathematicians.
It wasn't developed by any company that has a development department.
- Ambisonics developed at a time when Quadraphonics was dying away
in the USA, at the end of the 1970's. Quadraphony didn't sell and
manufacturers lost their interest to gear and recordings. After all, 
quadraphonics
didn't work either. (And remember the meaning of the Oil Crisis to world 
economy.)

- Ambisonics was early, it could have survived if it had come at the same
time with digital media. Analog carriers weren't too handy for 
multichannel audio.

- Two channel media needed matrixing. UHJ was developed, but there were
no decoders available for the consumers. There were only a couple of small
manufacturers that made decoders, for example Minim Ltd.
- When UHJ was used in recordings, very often it wasn't mentioned in the
record sleeve or cover at all. UHJ was also considered "phasey" and because
of that some record companies forbade their engineers to use UHJ.
- In Britain the BBC didn't allow UHJ encoding being mentioned in the 
programme

details. This was because a government broadcaster must not favour a single
manufacturer.
- Very few record companies started using UHJ.
- Chicken and egg syndrome: No Music - No Equipment
- Dolby Surround was a market leader in encoded video and film sound.
Dolby decoders didn't decode UHJ or vice versa. People didn't know what
different encoding systems were and how they should have been used.
(The public had already been confused earlier about Quad, SQ, QS, CD4...)
- Dolby wasn't interested in implementing a foreign invention into their
products. NIH. Maybe Ambisonics wasn't good enough for picture audio.
(It wasn't, Dolby Surround is much more robust for that.)
- There weren't any major manufacturers who would have started making
domestic equipment for Ambisonics. The only real attempts were made by
Nimbus when they were discussing with some Japanese manufacturers.
Mitsubishi made a demo series of a preamp and Onkyo put a digital version
of the Minim AD-7 into their top-of the range Tuner-amplifier. 
Discussions with

other manufacturers never lead to real products.
- The developers didn't have a marketing background. The NRDC tried to
market the consept on a license basis, but as far as I know, didn't 
spend too

much energy on the thing. The business was moved over to BTG after that,
which didn't get much more sone than the NRDC had done. Both authorities
are large and Ambisonics was a tiny factor within agriculture, industy etc.
- Both professional and domestic equipment has been priced very high, except
the Minim decoders.  The Soundfield microphone didn't attract sound 
engineers

because it was so expensive.
- Sound engineers find it hard to use the B-Format in normal production.
Some have difficulties in understanding how B-Format works.
- Even if sound engineers did use the Soundfield, they used it as a 
stereo mic.

- ProTools is a recording studio standard workstation. ProTools was designed
with stereo in mind and in the beginning it wasn't capable of handling
multichannel audio. Thus there were no multichannel plugins either.
In a professional recording studio productivity is a major thing and you 
cannot
spend time by playing with different toy softwares and bounce signals 
between

different programs. That is why ProTools and stereo was used in 99,9% of
productions.

Eero
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Robert Greene]

This surely confirms my view , at least to my mind.
When the only available items is computer games...
well, I know there is money in they, but they are not for me
and I care not at all what they sound like.

This seems to me going out not with a bang but a definite
whimper. Gerzon would be disappointed, I think. As I understand
his life, he liked music. And that is what he was
interested in reproducing. I think it is a shame that
no way has been found for that purpose to be realized.

Robert

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, etienne deleflie wrote:



Is there really any commercially available Ambisonic material?



yes ... in computer games. Buy yourself a PS3, then buy Codemaster's F1, or
Dirt games ... and you'll be hearing (IIRC) 4th order ambisonic encoding
and decoding ... you can listen in 3D sound using Simon Goodwin's hybrid
3D7.1 layout (height produced over an adapted 7.1 layout).



My impression is that the general public, even the audio public,
has never heard of it, even now. I think the revivial of interest
is mostly just among people like the people here.



I think that is largely true.

Ambisonics has the problem that it is impractical. I believe it is too
impractical for the home (at least with the currently available
technology). I've blogged about that here:
http://etiennedeleflie.net/2012/01/03/ambisonics-is-bad-technology/


And canned artificial music , well, surround of
any kind hardly matters.


I think it is the exact opposite. "Canned artificial music" is the only
place where spatial audio maters and maters a lot. Here, I draw a
distinction between 'surround' ... and spatial audio. The use of our
spatial perceptual abilities to isolate sounds (auditory stream
segregation) is used and abused with great skill by contemporary
'producers'. That's why the most important plugins in DAWs are things like
reverberation, panning, digital delay, low-pass-filters, volume control
etc. These are all *spatial* processes. I've blogger about that here:
http://etiennedeleflie.net/2012/01/04/aphex-twin-and-spatial-audio/

Am I missing something?


You are forgetting that ambisonics is inaccessible (to the masses). In this
respect Ambisonics is a half-technology. The missing half is the half that
allows people to have a consistently good and dependable spatial audio
experience by buying a product, going home and hitting 'play'. In the
consumer market place, its called *user experience*. The user-experience
delivered by today's ambisonic technologies is only sufferable by a select
few ... audio-engineers, technically minded audiophiles, academic
researchers ...

Etienne




Robert


On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

 On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:52:22PM -0700, Robert Greene wrote:


 Surround in music has never been a hit in any form and it still

is not. Moreover most music is not really enhanced by it in the minds of
most people. Orchestral music benefits enormously--most of what you hear
in an orchestra concert is all around you--but most people do not listen
to that kind of music. And canned artificial music , well, surround of
any kind hardly matters.



Correct. And if you want to use Ambisonics for anything beyond
listening to classical music, e.g. to compete with 5.1 for movie
sound, you need higher order. Which was near impossible or at least
horribly complicated and expensive with analog technology.
The revival of the past ten years or so is largely the result of
higher order becoming possible in practice, along with an interest
from telecom companies rather than music producers.

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
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound>

 __**_

Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound>





--
http://etiennedeleflie.net
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120331/b51f6266/attachment.html>
___
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] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Richard Dobson]

On 31/03/2012 11:30, Eero Aro wrote:

Hi


..

- The developers didn't have a marketing background. The NRDC tried to
market the consept on a license basis, but as far as I know, didn't
spend too
much energy on the thing. The business was moved over to BTG after that,
which didn't get much more sone than the NRDC had done. Both authorities
are large and Ambisonics was a tiny factor within agriculture, industy etc.



This article discusses the NRDC aspects in some detail:

http://www.ambisonic.net/ambi_AM91.html


My own assumption when first discovering Ambsonics (public concert by 
electric Phoenix, and later via CDP, from the late 80s) was that it was 
purposed towards use in public diffusion - live concerts, e/a 
performance etc, and above all, for enabling composers to work in 
surround (including the seemingly all-important height dimension) 
without having to commit to a specific speaker layout. I don't think it 
ever  occurred to me at the time that people in any numbers would listen 
to surround at home, or that such a thing as an "ambisonic CD" would 
ever exist. It was quite strange knowing that the BBC  regularly 
broadcast in UHJ (especially drama, apparently), but never announced the 
fact; it all contributed to the sense of it being some secret 
other-worldy process strictly for the "cognoscenti".


I suspect that sense, far from diminishing, is if anything even more 
palpable today. It is more than ever something for the large 
presentation space, and something that the public at large will neither 
know nor care about having at home. The remaining problem being that 
dedicated composition tools supporting it are still not really there; 
and probably never will be while it remains a technological moveable 
feast reminiscent of the old problem of nailing jelly to a tree.


Richard Dobson
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Eero Aro]

Richard Dobson wrote:


My own assumption when first discovering Ambsonics (public concert by
electric Phoenix, and later via CDP, from the late 80s) was that it was
purposed towards use in public diffusion


Rob Alexander describes the beginnings of Ambisonics in Gerzon's biography:
http://www.michaelgerzon.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=4

A small group made music recordings, had listening sessions, developed ideas
and built equipment.

Eero
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Robert Greene]

One of the things that is emerging here is(dare I say so)
that Ambisonics for music at home is just not such a good idea.
Attractive though it is mathematically--and it is very much that--
it is really impractical for home music.

Perhaps it is worthwhile to think for a moment about why.
My view:
Music of the ordinary sort is in front. Of course there
are exceptions but everything from the Vienna Philharmonic
to Earl Scruggs, may be rest in peace, is performs in front
of the audience, with the audience looking forward.

Now Ambisonics because of the emphasis on homogeneity makes
itself do a lot of work for little purpose. Moreover, it
pretty much ignores the fact that perception of location to
the side is not amplitude driven as is frontal perception
as in Blumlein stereo. This does not work on the sides.
So one ends up needing quite high order to make just music
in front really sound right.

For music purposes, something  more convincing
can be done with a smaller number of channels and speakers
than higher order Ambisonics calls for.

One really needs some early reflections at the side and
some ambience that is about it. No one really care
much if one can reproduce a bird tweeting 117 degrees left
from directly in front.

I really like the mathematics, but I think from this
viewpoint maybe that Ambisonics did not take off
for music is really not so hard to understand and was
maybe not even a miscarriage of justice.

The failure of one point or quasi one point stereo
(*Blumlein or ORTF) in the USA was a big error.
But maybe the failure of Ambisonics for music as a practical
matter at home was not.

That said, I do wish that there were at least a few SACDs
that showed Ambisonics at its best for playback on five channels.
Just so one had a demo! How can it be that no one has
run such a thing up?

Second, the SOudnbfield mike really does seem to me
to be exceptionally low in coloration. I wish  it were
more widely used just for (one point) stereo.

Third, it is really too bad that the one place
where Ambisonics could help out in commonplace
daily life--namely, in how to mix stereo to three
(or more) frontal channels, that there is not a cheap
easy simple standalone unit to do just that.
Instead people (E.g. J. Bongiorno) are marketing
devices which as far as I can tell do this in a
simplistic and wrong way while the real answer
is practically unavailable.,

Such a device cheap would be a real service to the
world of audio. But like almost everything else
in the Ambisonics world, it hardly exists. Unless
you are prepared to spend a lot of money on Meridian,
it really does not exist as a product at all,
unless I am missing something,

If I am, please let me know.

Robert
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Eric Benjamin]

Robert - You are certainly correct in that the general public has never heard 
of 
Ambisonics.  But then they haven't heard the names of many of the technologies 
that fuel the entertainment devices that they purchase, either.  


> Is there really any commercially available Ambisonic material?
About all I can think of are the recordings from Nimbus records.  But there 
were 
a few hundred Ambisonics recordings downloadable from ambisonia, which is now 
sadly inactive.  


< Is anyone actually sellng higher order Ambisonic products?
Just a few.  There is the Blue Ripple  decoder:
http://www.blueripplesound.com/products

The Harpex decoder:
http://harpex.net/

The "Eigenmike", which is effectively a 4th or 5th-order soundfield microphone
http://www.mhacoustics.com/mh_acoustics/Eigenmike_microphone_array.html

The Visisonics microphone array:
www.visisonics.com

Some of the above is a bit like space-age technology that trickled down from 
NASA research into daily life.  


> suppose I wanted to hear say a decoded version of UHJ recordings <>?
Not as easily as one might wish.  Perhaps the easiest way would be to download 
the Blue Ripple transcoder to convert it to B-format, and then play the 
resulting file in any of several players.

There is considerable academic interest.  Yes, I know, that's not the same as 
commercial interest but it is a sign of activity.  Back in the 70s when 
Ambisonics was first appearing there were between 1 and 4 AES publications a 
year on the subject.  The rate of publications has ramped up, especially since 
1990, and in 2010 there were 60 publications via the AES.  Ambisonics is really 
a very active area of audio research.


- Original Message 
From: Robert Greene 
To: Surround Sound discussion group 
Sent: Fri, March 30, 2012 7:35:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?


I am curious about this concept of revival of Ambisonics  in the past ten 
years.

Is there really any commercially available Ambisonic material?

Is anyone actually selling higher order Ambisonic products?

I realize that of course anything at all can be implemented
on computers.

But suppose I wanted to hear say a decoded
version of UHJ recordings of the past?
(I can do this--I have a processor--but I mean for a person
outside the field). Could you do this by just pushing a few
buttons?

Is anyone out in the real world actually hearing any
Ambisonic material at all, people outside the group
of people interested in it in a serious quasi professional
(or really professional) way?

My impression is that the general public, even the audio public,
has never heard of it, even now. I think the revivial of interest
is mostly just among people like the people here.

Am I missing something?
Robert

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:52:22PM -0700, Robert Greene wrote:
>
>> Surround in music has never been a hit in any form and it still
>> is not. Moreover most music is not really enhanced by it in the minds of
>> most people. Orchestral music benefits enormously--most of what you hear
>> in an orchestra concert is all around you--but most people do not listen
>> to that kind of music. And canned artificial music , well, surround of
>> any kind hardly matters.
>
> Correct. And if you want to use Ambisonics for anything beyond
> listening to classical music, e.g. to compete with 5.1 for movie
> sound, you need higher order. Which was near impossible or at least
> horribly complicated and expensive with analog technology.
> The revival of the past ten years or so is largely the result of
> higher order becoming possible in practice, along with an interest
> from telecom companies rather than music producers.
>
> 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
> 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] 25th AES UK Conference: Spatial Audio and 4th Ambisonics Symposium

[Eric Benjamin]

The conference is now in the past and the Grand Vizier has nearly recovered 
from 
his hangover.  Can any of the attendees describe the highlights?  And where are 
the papers?
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Simon Edmonds]

I think it is useful to cover all the reasons why Ambisonics didn't 
'take off' in the past and there is plenty of material here to cover that.


The interesting question is where it goes from here

I am halfway through my MA in Creative Music Practice and my original 
research question was "What are the implications of 3D sound for the 
composition, production, performance and dissemination of music?". Over 
the past couple of years I have been working with my commercial 
collaborator, Kieran Tyrrell of Sonalksis, on ideas around production 
tools and the point where Ambisonics stands out is as a core 
intermediate and archival format. We have a mixing system where the mix 
busses and reverb are in 3rd order B-format. This enables any project to 
mixed to full 3D with height in a suitably high positional resolution. 
The output can be mastered to whatever format you desire from mono 
through to a 30 channel icosahedral orthoganal array, VBAP, 10.2... you 
name it.


The point being that for any format to succeed it needs content and for 
content to be created, there needs to be an audience with suitable kit 
to listen on - its the classic catch 22 so we decided to take the 
approach that we have. In commercial terms, the probable first market 
will be for live events from big product launches matched to immersive 
video, big dance club installs and art/theatrical performances. We have 
certainly got a lot of interest so far.


Because of the support of the academic community in supplying plugins 
(thanks, Bruce) and Max/MST externals (thanks ICST) coupled with the 
processing power of today's Macs and PCs. Creating custom systems that 
can utilise Ambisonic techniques is really straightforward. The major 
cost is in the number of outputs, amplifiers and speakers you need to 
playback the results and hence our focus on big, well funded, live events.


Cara - feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions - we 
may even be able to collaborate on stuff


Simon Edmonds
**

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Eero Aro]

Robert Greene wrote:


it is really too bad that the one place
where Ambisonics could help out in commonplace
daily life--namely, in how to mix stereo to three
(or more) frontal channels, that there is not a cheap
easy simple standalone unit to do just that.


Oh yes, there is and has been for a long time:
http://www.agmdigital.com/page42/page10/page10.html

However, the site says:
"TSS1-D Versions are currently SOLD OUT"

There is also a software version, the AGM ESsEX:
http://www.agmdigital.de/agm/agm.html

I have seen and heard the TSS processor in actual work at
a film soundstage and it does a very good job.

Eero
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 03/31/2012 04:35 AM, Robert Greene wrote:

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Fons Adriaensen wrote:


The revival of the past ten years or so is largely the result of
higher order becoming possible in practice, along with an interest
from telecom companies rather than music producers.



I am curious about this concept of revival of Ambisonics in the past ten
years.

Is there really any commercially available Ambisonic material?

Is anyone actually selling higher order Ambisonic products?


no, and yes, a few.

i guess the revival fons is talking about is to be found in research, 
electro-acoustic music, and custom-made installations, not in the mass 
market.


ambisonics has seen a surge of interest over the last few years. check 
out the proceedings of the last four ambisonic symposia (if their mere 
existence isn't proof enough), the ICSA 2012, various ICMCs, and, among 
others, the upcoming linux audio conference, which has 7 sessions that 
refer to ambisonic technology.


it's not entirely a pipe dream that this "behind the scenes" interest 
will eventually influence the market. for now, ambi is clearly not an 
end-user format, but it has merits as a production platform for music, 
certainly for movies, and for specialised installations.


it is my firm belief that first-order ambisonics doesn't stand a chance 
outside of a very small, audiophile market of enthusiasts who are 
prepared to design their living room around the audio system and who are 
willing to endure some awkwardness to be rewarded by a very good and 
detailed, but also very fragile, spatial impression.
first order just doesn't work for larger areas, and it certainly doesn't 
do for a drop-in replacement of 5.1. HOA however does, and it is only 
just now becoming feasible, which might explain the resurrected 
interest. it was simply not possible with 70s analog equipment or 
80s/90s know-how and computing power.

and the entrance barrier to HOA is being lowered steadily.


--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487

Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT

http://stackingdwarves.net

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Trond Lossius]

In addition to everything else that has been stated in this thread already, I 
also believe we can think of consumer media technology as following two 
diverging strands, in particular from the 80s onwards. One is the high fidelity 
approach. High quality stereo reproduction systems, quadraphonic, 5.1 and 
ambisonics are all positioned somewhere along this trajectory.

The other is instead emphasizing mobility and an individualized media 
experience. The cassette, walkman, ghettoblaster, mp3 files, iPod, laptop, 
iPhone and streamed music are all parts of this tendency. The philosophy is 
that once a certain degree of audio quality has been reached, mobility is more 
important than further improvement of quality/fidelity.

With the iPod with a screen, iPhone, iPad and video on demand we can see the 
same tendency starting to unfold for moving image as well. My guess is that 
iTunes in the coming years will be more successful at distributing video 
content to the home market than BluRay disks, in spite of the latter having 
better quality by far. Cloud-based video content is more accessible than the 
physical BluRay disks as you have to head over to a shop or video rental place 
to fetch, and the quality of iTunes videos is or eventually will get "good 
enough". Similarly I believe that the relative amount of video watched on iPads 
and other kinds of portable tablets will increase in the future as compared to 
HD TV. The Apple TV is already suggesting that in the future TV to a larger 
degree will be a supporting device for tablets, rather than remain the main 
device for controlling and watching TV and video content.

Cheers,
Trond
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Newmedia]

Robert:
 
> Music of the ordinary sort is in front . . .
 
Yes it is!  Which is why Ambisonics makes *no* sense for the FRONT in  a 
musical reproduction system.
 
However, it still makes great sense for the REST -- the sides, back and  
UP-AND-DOWN "ambience" for listening to music.
 
This is why Robin Miller teamed up with Ralph Glasgal to produce the HSD 3D 
 system -- Ambiophonics for the FRONT and first-order Ambisonics for the 
REST  (with all apologies to Robin for the actual, patented, details, which I 
might  have gotten wrong, of how he accomplished this feat.)
 
_http://www.filmaker.com/surround.htm_ 
(http://www.filmaker.com/surround.htm) 
 
It sounds AMAZING (and only uses 6-channels for distribution) . . . but,  
alas, also needs people to use a Soundfield (or equivalent) microphone to  
capture the *rest* along with whatever is being used to capture the "music" in 
 the front and to change their work-flow accordingly.
 
As far as using the Soundfield microphone as a "stereo" mic, my favorite is 
 still Peter Moore's Cowboy Junkies 1988 The Trinity Session  (particularly 
the opening track "Mining for Gold," which so hauntingly captures  the 
sounds of the stone church in which it was recorded) -- are there other  
*stereo* recordings that also show-off this capability of the microphone?
 
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trinity_Session_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trinity_Session) 
 
Mark Stahlman
Brooklyn NY
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 3/31/2012 12:18:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
gre...@math.ucla.edu writes:


One  of the things that is emerging here is(dare I say so)
that Ambisonics for  music at home is just not such a good idea.
Attractive though it is  mathematically--and it is very much that--
it is really impractical for  home music.

Perhaps it is worthwhile to think for a moment about  why.
My view:
Music of the ordinary sort is in front. Of course  there
are exceptions but everything from the Vienna Philharmonic
to Earl  Scruggs, may be rest in peace, is performs in front
of the audience, with  the audience looking forward.

Now Ambisonics because of the emphasis on  homogeneity makes
itself do a lot of work for little purpose. Moreover,  it
pretty much ignores the fact that perception of location to
the side  is not amplitude driven as is frontal perception
as in Blumlein stereo.  This does not work on the sides.
So one ends up needing quite high order to  make just music
in front really sound right.

For music purposes,  something  more convincing
can be done with a smaller number of  channels and speakers
than higher order Ambisonics calls for.

One  really needs some early reflections at the side and
some ambience that is  about it. No one really care
much if one can reproduce a bird tweeting 117  degrees left
from directly in front.

I really like the mathematics,  but I think from this
viewpoint maybe that Ambisonics did not take  off
for music is really not so hard to understand and was
maybe not even  a miscarriage of justice.

The failure of one point or quasi one point  stereo
(*Blumlein or ORTF) in the USA was a big error.
But maybe the  failure of Ambisonics for music as a practical
matter at home was  not.

That said, I do wish that there were at least a few SACDs
that  showed Ambisonics at its best for playback on five channels.
Just so one  had a demo! How can it be that no one has
run such a thing  up?

Second, the SOudnbfield mike really does seem to me
to be  exceptionally low in coloration. I wish  it were
more widely used just  for (one point) stereo.

Third, it is really too bad that the one  place
where Ambisonics could help out in commonplace
daily life--namely,  in how to mix stereo to three
(or more) frontal channels, that there is not  a cheap
easy simple standalone unit to do just that.
Instead people  (E.g. J. Bongiorno) are marketing
devices which as far as I can tell do  this in a
simplistic and wrong way while the real answer
is practically  unavailable.,

Such a device cheap would be a real service to  the
world of audio. But like almost everything else
in the Ambisonics  world, it hardly exists. Unless
you are prepared to spend a lot of money on  Meridian,
it really does not exist as a product at all,
unless I am  missing something,

If I am, please let me  know.

Robert
___
Sursound  mailing  list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120331/ef2bd671/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Dave Hunt]

Hi,

This thread brings up several things that have been discussed  
previously, and others have given good answers that cover why  
ambisonics has failed to enter the mainstream.



Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:23:04 +0100
From: Peter Lennox 

I don't even think it has failed - it just took off in a 'slow  
burn' way


Actually, there is more being done on spherical harmonics and  
ambisonics than ever before - more experimental setups, more free  
tools ( look at Wigware, for example) - it's now easy peasy to make  
and use ambisonics, to convert to and from 5.1 - even stereo(UHJ)


Ultimately, "speaker formats" are dead, to eventually be replaced  
by "speaker layout agnostic"  - whether ambisonic, 'scene  
description' (for use in ambisonic, 5.1, 7.1, wavefield synthesis,  
etc) - in fact, in future, hybrids are likely to be the norm



I recently attended a seminar at PLASA (Professional Lighting and  
Sound Association) in he UK. On the panel were the main man from  
Soundfield, two representatives of BSkyB (a major digital video  
organisation), a man from Dolby and one from the BBC research  
department in Salford. Fascinating.


BSkyB are probably Soundfield's biggest customer. They've bought many  
Soundfield microphones (and I gather a number of Soundfield's 5.1  
upmixers) for sports coverage and love the way they can use and  
manipulate the signal while ensuring automatic mono, stereo and  
surround compatibility. They then code to Dolby 5.1 and Stereo for  
broadcast over two different channels. They can't possibly monitor  
all these options accurately for live events and depend on it all  
happening correctly and reliably automatically.


The BBC are looking at ambisonics and other systems, but is not as  
well funded as in the past, are subject to great commercial  
constraints, and dependent on commercial technology.


There was much talk of sound object coding, another word for all the  
things in Peter's last paragraph, and Fraunhofer's MPEG surround.  
Trouble with this is that even the most basic infrastructure (stuff  
in people's houses and the means to deliver it) is not there, so it  
is currently a pipe dream.


Also talk of binaural, probably the simplest and easiest, but even  
among iPod and mobile phone users hardly out of the starting blocks.


The man from Dolby was fairly quiet. They're doing well with things  
as they are.




Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:03:07 +0100
From: Richard Dobson 

My own assumption when first discovering Ambsonics (public concert by
electric Phoenix, and later via CDP, from the late 80s) was that it  
was

purposed towards use in public diffusion - live concerts, e/a
performance etc, and above all, for enabling composers to work in
surround (including the seemingly all-important height dimension)
without having to commit to a specific speaker layout.



I suspect that sense, far from diminishing, is if anything even more
palpable today. It is more than ever something for the large
presentation space, and something that the public at large will  
neither

know nor care about having at home. The remaining problem being that
dedicated composition tools supporting it are still not really there;
and probably never will be while it remains a technological moveable
feast reminiscent of the old problem of nailing jelly to a tree.


The tools are increasingly there, as Peter says. The technology  
(speakers and amplifiers) are cheaper, better and more readily  
available than ever. The live music and event sector is in a good  
state (unlike the recording  sector), and audiences produce funding.  
Surround sound can provide a better experience. I have worked on a  
number of  events and concerts using quad, ambisonics and performance  
'diffusion' systems. The audience don't have to worry about the  
technology.


Ambisonics is 'an idea whose time has come'. It's not perfect, but  
nothing ever is. The present is already hybrid and the future will  
become increasingly so. A range of solutions at different scales for  
different events. Interesting times.


Ciao,

Dave Hunt

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Sursound Digest, Vol 44, Issue 26

[Augustine Leudar]

UHJ recordings of the past?
> (I can do this--I have a processor--but I mean for a person
> outside the field). Could you do this by just pushing a few
> buttons?
>
> Is anyone out in the real world actually hearing any
> Ambisonic material at all, people outside the group
> of people interested in it in a serious quasi professional
> (or really professional) way?
>
> My impression is that the general public, even the audio public,
> has never heard of it, even now. I think the revivial of interest
> is mostly just among people like the people here.
>
> Am I missing something?
> Robert
>
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:52:22PM -0700, Robert Greene wrote:
>>
>>> Surround in music has never been a hit in any form and it still
>>> is not. Moreover most music is not really enhanced by it in the minds of
>>> most people. Orchestral music benefits enormously--most of what you hear
>>> in an orchestra concert is all around you--but most people do not listen
>>> to that kind of music. And canned artificial music , well, surround of
>>> any kind hardly matters.
>>
>> Correct. And if you want to use Ambisonics for anything beyond
>> listening to classical music, e.g. to compete with 5.1 for movie
>> sound, you need higher order. Which was near impossible or at least
>> horribly complicated and expensive with analog technology.
>> The revival of the past ten years or so is largely the result of
>> higher order becoming possible in practice, along with an interest
>> from telecom companies rather than music producers.
>>
>> 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
>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:11:12 +1100
> From: etienne deleflie 
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?
> To: Surround Sound discussion group 
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>>
>> Is there really any commercially available Ambisonic material?
>>
>
> yes ... in computer games. Buy yourself a PS3, then buy Codemaster's F1, or
> Dirt games ... and you'll be hearing (IIRC) 4th order ambisonic encoding
> and decoding ... you can listen in 3D sound using Simon Goodwin's hybrid
> 3D7.1 layout (height produced over an adapted 7.1 layout).
>
>
>> My impression is that the general public, even the audio public,
>> has never heard of it, even now. I think the revivial of interest
>> is mostly just among people like the people here.
>>
>
> I think that is largely true.
>
> Ambisonics has the problem that it is impractical. I believe it is too
> impractical for the home (at least with the currently available
> technology). I've blogged about that here:
> http://etiennedeleflie.net/2012/01/03/ambisonics-is-bad-technology/
>
>> And canned artificial music , well, surround of
>> any kind hardly matters.
>
> I think it is the exact opposite. "Canned artificial music" is the only
> place where spatial audio maters and maters a lot. Here, I draw a
> distinction between 'surround' ... and spatial audio. The use of our
> spatial perceptual abilities to isolate sounds (auditory stream
> segregation) is used and abused with great skill by contemporary
> 'producers'. That's why the most important plugins in DAWs are things like
> reverberation, panning, digital delay, low-pass-filters, volume control
> etc. These are all *spatial* processes. I've blogger about that here:
> http://etiennedeleflie.net/2012/01/04/aphex-twin-and-spatial-audio/
>
> Am I missing something?
>
>
> You are forgetting that ambisonics is inaccessible (to the masses). In this
> respect Ambisonics is a half-technology. The missing half is the half that
> allows people to have a consistently good and dependable spatial audio
> experience by buying a product, going home and hitting 'play'. In the
> consumer market place, its called *user experience*. The user-experience
> delivered by today's ambisonic technologies is only sufferable by a select
> few ... audio-engineers, technically minded audiophiles, academic
> researchers ...
>
> Etienne
>
>
>>
&g

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[David Pickett]

At 05:30 31/03/2012, Eero Aro wrote:


 The Soundfield microphone didn't attract sound engineers
because it was so expensive.


In my experience, early models were also very fussy regarding output 
levels: either noisy or distorted.  The expense kicks in when 
professionally one needs more than one example in case of failure, 
which was not unknown in those days.



- ProTools is a recording studio standard workstation. ProTools was designed
with stereo in mind and in the beginning it wasn't capable of handling
multichannel audio. Thus there were no multichannel plugins either.


Protools came along a decade later.  It was analog when the SF mike 
came out, and lack of phase coherence on multi-track magnetic tape is 
one reason why ambisonics didnt take off then.


In a professional recording studio productivity is a major thing and 
you cannot

spend time by playing with different toy softwares and bounce signals between
different programs.


I dont quite see this argument.  We take as much time as necessary to 
get things right.


David

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Eero Aro]

David Pickett wrote:


In my experience, early models were also very fussy regarding output
levels: either noisy or distorted.


As is common in Sursound, we are drifting out from the thread subject, but
yes, tell me news. I tried to use a SFM for dialogue recording in the 
first half

of the nineties, but had to give up because of the high self noise of the
microphone. Our actors sometimes use a very soft voice and the studio
air conditioning noise attacked from all around.  Instead of the SFM I used
a good mono mic and encoded it into UHJ with the Transcoder. I only
used the SFM for recording ambient sound effect outdoors (which again was
problematic because I had to arrange powering for an Adat and the SFM).


Protools came along a decade later.
When I wrote my list I didn't think about just certain years. To be 
fair, I didn't

think a lot, it was a flow.


It was analog when the SF mike came
out, and lack of phase coherence on multi-track magnetic tape is one
reason why ambisonics didnt take off then.


In my job in the broadcasting studio one problem was also the lack of
tracks in the analog multitrack. 16 tracks would have meant only four 
"sounds"
in B-Format. We normally used 8-10 stereo tape recorders for playback in 
mixing,

so mixing a radio play in B-Format wasn't a realistic option.


I dont quite see this argument. We take as much time as necessary to get
things right.


Maybe I was a bit too critical. In my job at the broadcasting the 
workflow really
had to be fluent. Getting the programs finished in a certain time 
wouldn't have

happened without proper tools and a well thought out workflow. The best way
to achieve that is to get the whole process done within the same application
from beginning to end. When I have discussed with recording studio people
they have told me the same thing.

Eero
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

[Sursound] Dissertation thoughts and another opinion

[Eric Carmichel]

Hi Cara,
I enjoyed reading your post and the many responses that followed. I assume 
you’re aware of the book “Michael Gerzon: Beyond Psychoacoustics.” I believe 
you’d find it to be worthwhile reading for your dissertation.
As an American, I’ll confess we like things big, loud, and gimmicky. Promoting 
Ambisonics here isn't so easy, even at a presumed "progressive" university. MP3 
files played through earbud-type headphones are favored by many young adults. 
I’m guessing this is universal.
I first heard of Ambisonics in the 1970s through articles that appeared in The 
Audio Amateur and Wireless World. At that time I wasn’t ready for anything 
beyond stereo, so I didn’t pay close attention to the emerging quad 
technologies. Admittedly, I was a teenager and was building my first 
“Williamson” vacuum tube amplifier back then. It was only recently that I 
“discovered” the magic and science of Ambisonics.
Things oftentimes happen serendipitously: While pursuing a PhD in Hearing 
Science, I wanted to create virtual listening environments from recorded, 
real-world scenarios to be used for testing cochlear implant (CI) patients. 
Current test protocols for assessing listening ability in noise seemed quite 
limiting. While questioning what was being used to assess CI patients, I read 
about auralization. Bengt-Inge Dalenbäck, PhD was most helpful here. From there 
I jumped onto Ambisonics, and just recently started making music recordings 
using an Ambisonic microphone. People on this sursound list have been very 
helpful, and the persons you hear from are well-respected in this field (not 
speaking for myself, though).
In addition to hearing science, I’m also studying Audio Production Technology 
at a music-oriented school (this is distinctly different from the university I 
attend). I use Pro Tools regularly, but it doesn’t have the surround plug-in. I 
also have Steinberg’s Nuendo on my computer, and this allows me to use the 
popular Ambisonic VST plug-ins. By the way, for those who may not have tried 
it, I’ve have good success with the Harpex software for creating HRTF 
simulations from B-format files. I also have access to awesome studio gear 
(Neumann U47 mics, an SSL console, tubed compressors, and the like), but no one 
I work with addresses anything beyond stereo unless you get into sound for 
video (but sound for video is pretty much effects-oriented).
Back to Ambisonics: One topic you may wish to explore as a “new” topic is using 
Ambisonics in hearing research; specifically, understanding hearing pathologies 
(compared to normal-hearing psychoacoustics). I’ve tried to promote Ambisonics 
as a research tool and for music recording (two distinct audiences). I have a 
few links on my website (cochlearconcepts) that you can probably find 
elsewhere, but there’s also a PowerPoint somewhere on my site that briefly 
touches on the need for real-world testing (the paper focused on Ecological 
Psychology because it was also intended for a grad psych class). My hearing 
research led me to Ambisonics, and Ambisonics led me back to my love for music 
production technologies. I, too, have a heck of a lot to learn, but it has been 
a worthwhile journey.
Very best of luck with your school and project!
Sincerely,
Eric
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120331/b4c73127/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Paul Hodges]

--On 31 March 2012 19:45 +0300 Eero Aro  wrote:


it is really too bad that the one place
where Ambisonics could help out in commonplace
daily life--namely, in how to mix stereo to three
(or more) frontal channels, that there is not a cheap
easy simple standalone unit to do just that.


Oh yes, there is and has been for a long time:
http://www.agmdigital.com/page42/page10/page10.html


19" rack-mount is not "commonplace daily life"; I can't see if it's 
"cheap", because no prices are shown, but again, a 19" rack-mount box is 
unlikely to be cheap in domestic terms.


The price for the software version comes up as "NaN", which doesn't really 
inspire confidence, either.


Paul

--
Paul Hodges


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Paul Hodges]

--On 31 March 2012 12:53 -0400 newme...@aol.com wrote:


Music of the ordinary sort is in front . . .


Yes it is!  Which is why Ambisonics makes *no* sense for the FRONT in  a
musical reproduction system.


"Music of the ordinary sort" being the music that's in front, I guess, 
making that a tautology.


I frequently listen to, and record, music in churches (commonly with an 
organ behind or to one side), and concerts with music surrounding the 
audience in the round (in places as varied as Walthamstow Town Hall, The 
Union Chapel Islington, and the Royal Festival Hall).


Paul

--
Paul Hodges


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[David Pickett]

At 14:04 31/03/2012, Eero Aro wrote:

David Pickett wrote:


In my experience, early models were also very fussy regarding output
levels: either noisy or distorted.


As is common in Sursound, we are drifting out from the thread subject


Not really drifting: this is a very good reason why the SF mic was 
not accepted for professional recording of large ensembles that cost 
$$$/ minute.





I dont quite see this argument. We take as much time as necessary to get
things right.


Maybe I was a bit too critical. In my job at the broadcasting the 
workflow really
had to be fluent. Getting the programs finished in a certain time 
wouldn't have

happened without proper tools and a well thought out workflow. The best way
to achieve that is to get the whole process done within the same application
from beginning to end. When I have discussed with recording studio people
they have told me the same thing.



I confess that my perspective is recording studios, as opposed to 
broadcasting and that the time constraints differ between the two.



For recording studios, this is probably the case today when the 
bottom line is all, but in the 70s and 80s it was not so: then if we 
had to remix or cut a recording three times to get it "right", that 
was what was done.  Musical and audio values were considered 
important enough to devote care on -- and I dont mean the 
microediting that is done today with a join every other note!


David

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[David Pickett]

At 14:33 31/03/2012, Paul Hodges wrote:

--On 31 March 2012 12:53 -0400 newme...@aol.com wrote:


Music of the ordinary sort is in front . . .


Yes it is!  Which is why Ambisonics makes *no* sense for the FRONT in  a
musical reproduction system.


"Music of the ordinary sort" being the music that's in front, I 
guess, making that a tautology.


I frequently listen to, and record, music in churches (commonly with 
an organ behind or to one side), and concerts with music surrounding 
the audience in the round (in places as varied as Walthamstow Town 
Hall, The Union Chapel Islington, and the Royal Festival Hall).


I shall never buy into the concept that music should come only from 
the front. One of the most exciting recordings I have is the Tallis 
Scholars' later version of the Allegri Miserere, which is available 
as a 5.1 high definition download. The distant choir in the rear is 
magical. Of course, the performance is also magical, but the physical 
disposition of the performers makes it feel much more like a live 
event to me. All to whom I have played this have also been impressed.


I dont think this particular recording was made with the SF mic, but 
my point is that there is much music that benefits from direct sound 
in the rear. I have many Tacet.de recordings that use the rear 
channels for direct sound, also to great musical effect in my 
opinion.  The same repertoire is available in 2-channel stereo if 
that is the listener's preference, so why not do something different?


David

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Eero Aro]

David Pickett wrote:

One of the most exciting recordings I have is the Tallis
Scholars' later version of the Allegri Miserere


Here is another great performance and recording:

2L29SACD Ensemble 96 IMMORTAL NYSTEDT

http://www.2l.no/

Amazing! Not Ambisonics, not SFM.

Eero
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Peter Lennox]

well!

Cara, you've had loads of responses!


I hope that the sheer volume hasn't overwhelmed you

With my dissertation supervisor head on, I'd like to offer the following:

Your dissertation question clearly touches something important, but lacks focus.
By that, I mean (in a caring way, possums) that framing the question this way 
makes it very difficult to elicit clear answers. Proving why something didn't 
happen is very often impossible - it's like the evolutionery arguments as to 
why this species made it, whilst that one didn't. The reasons are usually 
incredibly complex, and intrinsically involve chaotic elements - the toss of a 
coin, the arrival of this circumstance instead of that, the confluence of these 
causal items instead of the lack of coincidence of such.

Having said all that...

You've clearly struck a nerve - the responses here show that plenty of 
articulate and knowledgeable people have something to offer on this - and these 
people won't be around for ever! - clearly, Blumlein has gone, Gerzon has gone, 
Felgett isn't around.. - BUT: Peter Craven is. I know he is not so active on 
this list, but look for algol.co.uk.

I think the reasons you've garnered here are all relevant - it was too early 
("...nothing so powerful as an idea whose time is right" - yet an idea too 
early is as out of time as an idea too late) for the rest of technology, it 
wasn't taken up by a major tech company, it was too hard to understand, by 
domestic and pro users alike.

Consider the signal chain for stereo - you're trying to transfer signals from 
one end to the other - from capture/synthesis, through storage, transmission, 
reception to display. To do that, in 'standard stereo', a pair of signals - 
carried at various stages via 4 parallel connections (left: +ve and "ground", 
right +ve and ground) must be correctly made at every connection stage - from 
mic, through desk, via effects, at monitoring, to storage or direct to 
transmission to the receiving venue, via a reciever or transceiver, pre-amp, 
amp, to speakers. Only if those connections have been correctly made  right 
through the chain, has the spatial information been correctly transferred. And 
at the end of all that, if the listener is sitting in the wrong place... - it's 
still not right!

Now, for 1st order ambisonics, add two more channels through most of the chain 
- that's another four connections - and they must be correct in relation to 
each other, and to the previous four. At the final display, where (generally) 
the signals must be "decoded" to more-the-double the number of speakers in the 
stereo case... the opportunities for getting it wrong have climbed 
disproportionately... AND - the sweet spot has got smaller!


As for higher order...


So, Robert Greene's point that any system that relies on users having 
sophisticated mathematical knowledge, is doomed, seems fair enough. Of course, 
modern cars, computers, etc use sophisticated maths - but it's all "black box" 
- hidden.

So it could well be that, if Apple, or similar, had taken it up, it might well 
have been a different story - but they didn't. Now, as to why they didn't... 
that's kind of the question you're asking - and really, you'd have to identify 
who it was that didn't pick it up, and ask them.



AS for my earlier point - that it hasn't actually 'failed' yet - well, as 
others have noted, it may have failed to take off as a domestic format - but 
what is that, actually? - 5.1 is merely a description of a speaker layout. You 
can put what you will on it - 1st order horizontal ambisonics, 3rd order 
ambisonic panning (not the same as an ambisonic sound field reconstruction, 
more a case of a panning method that uses more than pair-wise sets of speaker), 
so it isn't really a whole 'format'.
And from Codemaster's 'Dirt' through TC electronics reverbs, to others, 
"ambisonics inside" is, if not ubiquitous, surreptitiously around. Likewise, 
Funktion 1 use it in the larger scale, at Glastonbury and Glade, The 
researchers who use it for military situation simulations in several countries, 
researchers who use it for training in conditions of impaired vision, 
artists/scientist teams who use it for data sonification, reconstructions of 
historic acoustics, capture of modern complex spatial acoustics... there's 
plenty going on.

It's just not concentrated in the domestic forum.


So, overall, I think you have a fertile research area, you have plenty of 
people who can offer - but you could do with recontextualising the question 
slightly.

Good luck!

Dr Peter Lennox

School of Technology,
Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology
University of Derby, UK
e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk
t: 01332 593155

From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf 
Of Cara Gleeson [coarsean...@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 March 2012 15:50
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

Hi,

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Peter Lennox]

Further to my last, Cara - can I suggest the following?

ask the members of the list here for specific criticisms of ambisonics -what 
works, what doesn't work, what difficulties they encounter, how they might 
improve things - both practical and fanciful. They are, after all, experts.

Such a 'summing up' of the state of play so far might be jolly handy, and would 
give some substance to your dissertation

again, good luck

Dr Peter Lennox

School of Technology,
Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology
University of Derby, UK
e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk
t: 01332 593155

From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf 
Of Eero Aro [eero@dlc.fi]
Sent: 31 March 2012 23:00
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

David Pickett wrote:
> One of the most exciting recordings I have is the Tallis
> Scholars' later version of the Allegri Miserere

Here is another great performance and recording:

2L29SACD Ensemble 96 IMMORTAL NYSTEDT

http://www.2l.no/

Amazing! Not Ambisonics, not SFM.

Eero
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

_
The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the 
right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this email was sent to you in 
error, please notify the sender and delete this email. Please direct any 
concerns to info...@derby.ac.uk.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Robert Greene]

This is a diversion. Maybe it is part of being interested in surround 
sound to believe it is really important.


 Of course music exists that is  not in front. But the vast bulk of 
concert music is not like that. People like to look at what is happening. 
They always have, and I doubt that this will change soon.


We all know this.  I suppose if organs in churches are the
main thing you listen to... but that is a miniscule
part of the acoustic music market.
Probably someone will  mention Gabrieli eventually and Berlioz
Let us read those as given and admit that music is mostly in front.
Because of course it mostly is.

Robert

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Paul Hodges wrote:


--On 31 March 2012 12:53 -0400 newme...@aol.com wrote:


Music of the ordinary sort is in front . . .


Yes it is!  Which is why Ambisonics makes *no* sense for the FRONT in  a
musical reproduction system.


"Music of the ordinary sort" being the music that's in front, I guess, making 
that a tautology.


I frequently listen to, and record, music in churches (commonly with an organ 
behind or to one side), and concerts with music surrounding the audience in 
the round (in places as varied as Walthamstow Town Hall, The Union Chapel 
Islington, and the Royal Festival Hall).


Paul

--
Paul Hodges


___
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] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[Robert Greene]

I did not say it should(be played in front)! It just is. 
Of course there are instances when antiphonal effects

are used, and very well they can work too.

But I think that using this sort of thing as a way
to persuade people they ought to have 16 channels
of playback or something is wrong headed. It won't
work, I think.

Only someone who was a little unhinged
on the subject would go to the trouble to set
up high order Ambisonics in order to hear the tiny
fraction of the repertoire where actual sources are
behind or to the sides.
Surround is great--because it creates (when done right)
the concert hall--and that really is all around you.
But direct sources that are totally nonfrontal--
not important.

I think the big mistake of Ambisonics in practical terms
is that it emphasized homogeneity--a mathematical nicety
but a nonstarter as a musical matter. And it makes it complicated
and ineffective except with great effort at relatively simple
things, or things that should be relatively simple.

I suppose many of you know the classic men in a balloon joke
popular among mathematicians(who do not mind laughing at themselves):

Two men are flying in a balloon and they are lost. As they sail
over a man standing in a field they call out "Where are we?"
The man in the field says nothing until finally as the balloon
is almost out of earshot , the man in the field calls out
"You are in a balloon".
One of the men in the balloon says to the other, "That fellow
in the field must be a mathematician".
"Why do you say that?"
"We asked him a simple question ,
 he thought for a  very long
time about the answer, his answer was absolutely correct,
and  his answer  was completely  useless."

I would not say that Ambisonics was useless and it is surely
intriguing as an application of mathematics. But I do think
only a truly impractical person would have decided that in
practice homogeneity was a vital criterion for reproducing music
as it is.

Robert





On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, David Pickett wrote:


At 14:33 31/03/2012, Paul Hodges wrote:

--On 31 March 2012 12:53 -0400 newme...@aol.com wrote:


Music of the ordinary sort is in front . . .


Yes it is!  Which is why Ambisonics makes *no* sense for the FRONT in  a
musical reproduction system.


"Music of the ordinary sort" being the music that's in front, I guess, 
making that a tautology.


I frequently listen to, and record, music in churches (commonly with an 
organ behind or to one side), and concerts with music surrounding the 
audience in the round (in places as varied as Walthamstow Town Hall, The 
Union Chapel Islington, and the Royal Festival Hall).


I shall never buy into the concept that music should come only from the 
front. One of the most exciting recordings I have is the Tallis Scholars' 
later version of the Allegri Miserere, which is available as a 5.1 high 
definition download. The distant choir in the rear is magical. Of course, the 
performance is also magical, but the physical disposition of the performers 
makes it feel much more like a live event to me. All to whom I have played 
this have also been impressed.


I dont think this particular recording was made with the SF mic, but my point 
is that there is much music that benefits from direct sound in the rear. I 
have many Tacet.de recordings that use the rear channels for direct sound, 
also to great musical effect in my opinion.  The same repertoire is available 
in 2-channel stereo if that is the listener's preference, so why not do 
something different?


David

___
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] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[umashankar mantravadi]

for me, ambisonics (or a soundfield microphone) is the tool to use for acoustic 
measurements, to archive the sound of spaces as they exist before they get torn 
down, burnt or modified into shopping malls. but then, i got into ambisonics 
through attempts to measure the acoustics of ancient archaeological sites. (i 
have been a sound recordist for 40  years, been recording ambisonically - 
usually as a second recording - for about four.) umashankar

i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
 > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:45:41 -0700
> From: gre...@math.ucla.edu
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?
> 
> 
> I did not say it should(be played in front)! It just is. 
> Of course there are instances when antiphonal effects
> are used, and very well they can work too.
> 
> But I think that using this sort of thing as a way
> to persuade people they ought to have 16 channels
> of playback or something is wrong headed. It won't
> work, I think.
> 
> Only someone who was a little unhinged
> on the subject would go to the trouble to set
> up high order Ambisonics in order to hear the tiny
> fraction of the repertoire where actual sources are
> behind or to the sides.
> Surround is great--because it creates (when done right)
> the concert hall--and that really is all around you.
> But direct sources that are totally nonfrontal--
> not important.
> 
> I think the big mistake of Ambisonics in practical terms
> is that it emphasized homogeneity--a mathematical nicety
> but a nonstarter as a musical matter. And it makes it complicated
> and ineffective except with great effort at relatively simple
> things, or things that should be relatively simple.
> 
> I suppose many of you know the classic men in a balloon joke
> popular among mathematicians(who do not mind laughing at themselves):
> 
> Two men are flying in a balloon and they are lost. As they sail
> over a man standing in a field they call out "Where are we?"
> The man in the field says nothing until finally as the balloon
> is almost out of earshot , the man in the field calls out
> "You are in a balloon".
> One of the men in the balloon says to the other, "That fellow
> in the field must be a mathematician".
> "Why do you say that?"
> "We asked him a simple question ,
>   he thought for a  very long
> time about the answer, his answer was absolutely correct,
> and  his answer  was completely  useless."
> 
> I would not say that Ambisonics was useless and it is surely
> intriguing as an application of mathematics. But I do think
> only a truly impractical person would have decided that in
> practice homogeneity was a vital criterion for reproducing music
> as it is.
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, David Pickett wrote:
> 
> > At 14:33 31/03/2012, Paul Hodges wrote:
> >> --On 31 March 2012 12:53 -0400 newme...@aol.com wrote:
> >> 
>  Music of the ordinary sort is in front . . .
> >>> 
> >>> Yes it is!  Which is why Ambisonics makes *no* sense for the FRONT in  a
> >>> musical reproduction system.
> >> 
> >> "Music of the ordinary sort" being the music that's in front, I guess, 
> >> making that a tautology.
> >> 
> >> I frequently listen to, and record, music in churches (commonly with an 
> >> organ behind or to one side), and concerts with music surrounding the 
> >> audience in the round (in places as varied as Walthamstow Town Hall, The 
> >> Union Chapel Islington, and the Royal Festival Hall).
> >
> > I shall never buy into the concept that music should come only from the 
> > front. One of the most exciting recordings I have is the Tallis Scholars' 
> > later version of the Allegri Miserere, which is available as a 5.1 high 
> > definition download. The distant choir in the rear is magical. Of course, 
> > the 
> > performance is also magical, but the physical disposition of the performers 
> > makes it feel much more like a live event to me. All to whom I have played 
> > this have also been impressed.
> >
> > I dont think this particular recording was made with the SF mic, but my 
> > point 
> > is that there is much music that benefits from direct sound in the rear. I 
> > have many Tacet.de recordings that use the rear channels for direct sound, 
> > also to great musical effect in my opinion.  The same repertoire is 
> > available 
> > in 2-channel stereo if that is the listener's preference, so why not do 
> > something different?
> >
> > David
> >
> > ___
> > 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
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please?

[etienne deleflie]

>
> Your dissertation question clearly touches something important, but lacks
> focus.
> By that, I mean (in a caring way, possums) that framing the question this
> way makes it very difficult to elicit clear answers.


 A better way to frame the question might be:

"Given ambisonic's lack of commercial success and lack of content, why has
it persisted for so many years?"

And the answer might include things such as:
- engineering minds are drawn to its mathematical elegance
- audiophiles are drawn to its capacity to reproduce the experience of
listening to music mediated by specific performance venue acoustics
- contemporary society has a fascination with technology

and, perhaps most importantly:

- the eroticism of virtual reality ... Any technology that claims to be
able to get close to the experience of reality holds a powerful magic.
James Gibson (respected perceptual psychologist) argued that it was not
possible for a mediated reality to ever be confused with reality ... but
the eroticism of the idea insists on trying to achieve this. In the field
of VR the notion of presence is precisely defined as "the illusion that a
mediated experience is not mediated" (Lombard)... exactly what Gibson says
is not possible. I think it is this eroticism which fuels much of the
efforts behind ambisonics.

[As an aside, I believe that the notion of music within VR creates a
tension  where the magic of the music must compete with the magic of
the illusion of reality. The only time when that tension is resolved is
when ambisonics is used to record/capture musical performance]

Etienne
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound