[Sursound] audio point / audio plenum
Dear sursounders, I found a reference in a musical text of the 1960s originated in the UK that mentions the terms "audio point" and "audio plenum" perhaps in reference to a technique that would be able to control the spread of a single source in the stereophonic image. Do these terms ring the bell of anyone here? Huge thanks and best regards Gregorio Garcia Karman ggkar...@musicologia.com ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] High Sonic Definition HSD 3D *Full* Sphere Surround
Ricardo: > Mark, please don't ignore my question about HSD 3D systems. Sorry -- when I finished my "conversation" with Mr. Greene, I moved on to other matters. HSD 3D is Robin Miller's system, which expands on Ambiophonics (which lends itself to synthesized "ambience") by adding surround speakers, including 4x planar and 4x height, and includes a unique microphone and *full* spherical recorded performances! _http://www.filmaker.com/surround.htm_ (http://www.filmaker.com/surround.htm) There are two 10-speaker "rigs" set up to play this *breakthrough* technology -- the original in Robin's studio in Bethlehem PA and my "demo" system in Bushwick (currently disassembled). Robin helped me to set mine up because I was trying to assist him to show the system to Sony and others (to be used along with 3D television), so we felt that a demo facility in New York City might make that easier. Please address your questions about the technology and its application to Robin -- he really knows what he's doing (whereas I just make technology predictions for hedge funds and governments)! Mark Stahlman Brooklyn NY -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120415/84c6c663/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] High Sonic Definition HSD 3D *Full* Sphere Surround
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 08:09:44AM -0400, newme...@aol.com wrote: > There are two 10-speaker "rigs" set up to play this *breakthrough* > technology -- the original in Robin's studio in Bethlehem PA and my "demo" > system > in Bushwick (currently disassembled). I wonder what the function of the Ambiophone part of this system is. If it works in the way its invertors claim it works (that is by crosstalk cancellation) it can't even handle two people sitting side by side. Or someone please explain by which magic the L and R signals arrive without crosstalk at the L and R ears of both listeners. If the Ambiophone has a larger sweet spot than a few cm laterally, it can't work by crosstalk cancellation. In that case the system is without theoretical basis, and its proponents probably don't know why it works at all and have been telling sweet stories. For a tentative answer to the original question, I'd suggest that the Ambiophone part is there only because without it there's nothing new to sell to Sony. I'll happily be corrected if I get this completely wrong. 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
Re: [Sursound] Spatial music
At 19:14 14/04/2012, JEFF SILBERMAN wrote: > I'm thinking that the 99% own flatscreens by now. Is that really so? My tv wont die. I dont use it for anything than videos, but I see no need to replace it simply because it takes up a lot of space. David ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Spatial music
On 15 Apr 2012, at 15:57, David Pickett wrote: > At 19:14 14/04/2012, JEFF SILBERMAN wrote: > > > I'm thinking that the 99% own flatscreens by now. > > Is that really so? My tv wont die. I dont use it for anything than videos, > but I see no need to replace it simply because it takes up a lot of space. Well, there's also the issue of picture quality and energy consumption (direct and indirect, because in the summer people often crank the AC to get rid of heat, a significant portion of which is generated by TV, Computer, etc.). LED backlit LCD screens save considerable amounts of power over CRT and Plasma screens. Of course, once we get OLED it will be another incremental savings over the LED backlit stuff. But of course, resource use is also energy, so it becomes a balancing act trying to guess the best life-cycle for resource optimization. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] High Sonic Definition HSD 3D *Full* Sphere Surround
Fons: > I wonder what the function of the Ambiophone part of this system is. For HSD 3D, the L/R speakers are indeed 8-degrees apart and operate through X-talk cancellation to produce the FRONTAL component. > If it works in the way its invertors claim it works (that is by > crosstalk cancellation) it can't even handle two people sitting > side by side. I have spent a few hours at Ralph Glasgal's place listening to his *impre ssive* setup, as well as listening on a variety of lesser configurations that he also has -- overall probably hearing 30+ stereo recordings. It works! Which is to say that there is a significant multi-person sweet-spot and what appears to be good localization of the performers, as well as an interesting "synthesis" of the performance hall. Ralph has showed his system to many attendees to various at NY AES meetings (and many others) and has made the technology widely available. I'd suggest that you try it out and come to your own conclusions. In addition to L/R, the HSD 3D rig that Robin uses (as well as my "demo" system) has 4x planar and 4x Z-axis speakers. You are sitting in the middle of a "cube-on-edge" but you will have to go to his studio to hear that. These 8 speakers are supported by 4-channels which I presume are some encoding of FOA. So, the total system is carried by 6-channels, making it compatible with 5.1 distribution technology. None of this was designed to "impress" Sony. That was my idea, since I happen to know some senior execs there. The system had been around for quite awhile before I came along and wasn't changed at all. While they were interested enough to take some meetings, Sony isn't really a single *company* and those who are involved with sound technologies to accompany 3D television work in Tokyo (or San Diego). Execs in NYC have no ability to even ask them to take a look at something new. Case closed. Mark Stahlman Brooklyn NY -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120415/e74a7b64/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] audio point / audio plenum
On 15 Apr 2012, at 11:07, Gregorio Garcia Karman wrote: > I found a reference in a musical text of the 1960s originated in the UK that > mentions the terms "audio point" and "audio plenum" perhaps in reference to a > technique that would be able to control the spread of a single source in the > stereophonic image. Do these terms ring the bell of anyone here? I have on occasion seen a "plenum" control on old tube radios, and wondered what exactly it's supposed to do. Maybe some sort of balance control: width and direction? Posting the text passage might help disambiguating the use of these terms in context. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Spatial music
At 10:22 15/04/2012, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: > >On 15 Apr 2012, at 15:57, David Pickett wrote: > >> At 19:14 14/04/2012, JEFF SILBERMAN wrote: >> >> > I'm thinking that the 99% own flatscreens by now. >> >> Is that really so? My tv wont die. I dont use it for anything than >videos, but I see no need to replace it simply because it takes up a >lot of space. > >Well, there's also the issue of picture quality It satisfies me totally. David ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Spatial music
At 10:22 15/04/2012, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: > >On 15 Apr 2012, at 15:57, David Pickett wrote: > >> At 19:14 14/04/2012, JEFF SILBERMAN wrote: >> >> > I'm thinking that the 99% own flatscreens by now. >> >> Is that really so? My tv wont die. I dont use it for anything than >videos, but I see no need to replace it simply because it takes up a >lot of space. > >Well, there's also the issue of picture quality and energy consumption >(direct and indirect, because in the summer people often crank the AC >to get rid of heat, a significant portion of which is generated by TV, >Computer, etc.). I am not one of those people to have the television on when I am not watching it. Also, like my Prius, there may be reason to think that the amount I would save on a flat screen tv doesnt compensate for the ecological manufacturing costs. :-) David ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] audio point / audio plenum
Gregorio Garcia Karman wrote: > I found a reference in a musical text of the 1960s originated in the UK that > mentions the terms "audio point" and "audio plenum" perhaps in reference to > a technique that would be able to control the spread of a single source in > the stereophonic image. Do these terms ring the bell of anyone here? The terms ring no bells in me. However, spreading a single source in a stereo image is a standard problem when mixing multi-track mono sources. One solution is the PS22 Stereo Maker plug-in from Waves Audio. The screenshot on Page 21 of their manual (page 22 in the PDF file) should give you the idea; visit: http://www.waves.com/Manuals/Plugins/PS22.pdf The PS22 process was invented by Michael Gerzon shortly before his death. The digital process is an evolution of analogue "spreaders" developed for Ambisonic mixing. Regards, Martin -- Martin J Leese E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Spatial music
This is very unlikely to be true, that one can justify getting a new TV to save electricity for the sake of the world. To save on your own bills will also take a very long time. People seldom do the arithmetic on this. When the first gas crisis occurred(in the 1970s) I did some calculation of how long it would take to recoup the purchase price of getting a more fuel-efficient car. After that, I kept right on driving the car I had--it was going to take forever in terms of the lives of cars. Saving energy is good. Stop having children--that is where the real energy and carbon footprint is. Robert On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, David Pickett wrote: At 10:22 15/04/2012, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: On 15 Apr 2012, at 15:57, David Pickett wrote: At 19:14 14/04/2012, JEFF SILBERMAN wrote: > I'm thinking that the 99% own flatscreens by now. Is that really so? My tv wont die. I dont use it for anything than videos, but I see no need to replace it simply because it takes up a lot of space. Well, there's also the issue of picture quality and energy consumption (direct and indirect, because in the summer people often crank the AC to get rid of heat, a significant portion of which is generated by TV, Computer, etc.). I am not one of those people to have the television on when I am not watching it. Also, like my Prius, there may be reason to think that the amount I would save on a flat screen tv doesnt compensate for the ecological manufacturing costs. :-) 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] [OT] Spatial music
This is getting rather off-topic, but... On 15 Apr 2012, at 23:02, Robert Greene wrote: > This is very unlikely to be true, that one can justify > getting a new TV to save electricity for the sake of the world. > To save on your own bills will also take a very long time. > > People seldom do the arithmetic on this. When the first > gas crisis occurred(in the 1970s) I did some calculation > of how long it would take to recoup the purchase price > of getting a more fuel-efficient car. After that, I kept > right on driving the car I had--it was going to take forever > in terms of the lives of cars. This is a matter of degree. It's also a matter of ecology vs. economy. There are many things that are cheaper, but not environmentally sound, which is also one of the problems with greenhouse gas emission trading: it's in some cases profitable to generate bad stuff, then destroy it, and then sell the so obtained emission credits, than not generating the bad stuff in the first place. So obviously, since the production and disposal/recycling of a product has an energy and carbon footprint, too, it would be foolish to throw out a brand new CRT and replace it with a LED TV "to save the planet." On the other hand, if you have an aging CRT, that eventually you plan to replace, then when to do this can very well be based on energy cost, particularly if indirect energy consumption is taken into account, too. And of course, it depends how much TV you watch. If all you do is watch the evening news, then there's little point. If you have a waiting room, and the TV runs from 7:30 till midnight uninterrupted, it's a different story. So it's a matter of degree and math, whereby the almighty $ doesn't necessarily reveal what is the most ecologically sound moment to switch devices, only when it's the most economical moment, and the two, unfortunately, are not congruent. > Saving energy is good. Stop having children--that is where > the real energy and carbon footprint is. True, although that's generally not a problem in "1st world" countries where populations only remain stable through immigration, and otherwise would be declining. Anyway, this is taking quite a detour, because all I was saying that there are other considerations, besides the lower amount of space taken up by a flat screen TV that make people switch, among them picture quality and energy consumption. So I didn't single out the latter, just pointed out that these two are additional factors besides less space, and a more fashionable look of the device. Ronald ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] Why Ambisonics Didn't Become A Standard, OT: Spatial Music; Low Cost Speakers
I've been following the "dissertation" thread. (We are one of the two companies that build first-order Ambisonic microphones.) First-order Ambisonics has/had lots of positives: 1. Needs only four source tracks for an essentially unlimited number of playback formats 2. A set of good tools for studio and field recording was/is available 3. It offered/offers fine surround sound presentation, especially realistic rendering of ambience, for many recordings. That makes a real difference for live recordings (e.g., club performances), but not studio recordings. 4. If offered/offers "good enough" surround sound presentation for more complex spatial recordings 5. It encodes height at no cost. Whether you use the height information is up to you. And a few negatives: 1. No one could/can figure out a way to build a very profitable company around its intellectual property. A profitable company is necessary to promote/champion the idea. 2. Other companies had very powerful profit-related motives to oppose it (e.g., Dolby). 3. Higher order Ambisonics, with its need for more source tracks, is needed to meet the full surround sound agenda of large sweet spot and detailed spatial location 4. Better is the enemy of good enough -- we Ambisonic boosters tend to shoot ourselves in the foot, completely dismissing first-order in favor of higher-order. 5. People understand "one source track per playback speaker" much more easily than a decoding process. 6. Open systems are really difficult to standardize. Witness the popularity of seriously unwieldy Linux-based Ambisonic solutions here in this newsgroup. And on the "OT: Spatial Music" thread: Ronald Antony talked about the cost of good speakers being a barrier: " ... and anything halfway acceptable is on a good sale at least $250/speaker". This has changed in the last ten years. Good speakers today are acceptably inexpensive: around $75 to $175 per speaker channel. Have a look at: Pioneer SP-BS41-LR ($149.99/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/content/pioneer-sp-bs41-lr-loudspeaker Wharfedale Diamond 10.1 ($350/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/content/wharfedale-diamond-101-loudspeaker NHT SuperZero 2.0 ($198/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/content/entry-level-10 Boston Acoustics A 25 ($299.98/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/content/boston-acoustics-25-loudspeaker PSB Alpha B1 ($279/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/507psb/index.html Infinity Primus P162 (or older P150 and P160, or newer P153 and P163) loudspeaker ($298/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1007inf/index.html All of them have been reviewed on Stereophile's web site. Most of the reviews include a nice set of measurements. Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com) Core Sound LLC Home of TetraMic ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Why Ambisonics Didn't Become A Standard, OT: Spatial Music; Low Cost Speakers
At 19:44 15/04/2012, Len Moskowitz wrote: A lot of stuff, with which I agree, plus: Ronald Antony talked about the cost of good speakers being a barrier: " ... and anything halfway acceptable is on a good sale at least $250/speaker". This has changed in the last ten years. Good speakers today are acceptably inexpensive: around $75 to $175 per speaker channel. Have a look at: Pioneer SP-BS41-LR ($149.99/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/content/pioneer-sp-bs41-lr-loudspeaker Wharfedale Diamond 10.1 ($350/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/content/wharfedale-diamond-101-loudspeaker NHT SuperZero 2.0 ($198/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/content/entry-level-10 Boston Acoustics A 25 ($299.98/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/content/boston-acoustics-25-loudspeaker PSB Alpha B1 ($279/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/507psb/index.html Infinity Primus P162 (or older P150 and P160, or newer P153 and P163) loudspeaker ($298/pair) - http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1007inf/index.html All of them have been reviewed on Stereophile's web site. Most of the reviews include a nice set of measurements. This is an impressive list. Only one caveat: bookshelf speakers need to be mounted on stands in order to be close to optimally placed, which increases the system price and probably diminishes the Wife Acceptance Factor. One reason wny I went for the B&W DM603s. David ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Why Ambisonics Didn't Become A Standard, OT: Spatial Music; Low Cost Speakers
I should add one more thing: In my opinion TetraMic is probably the finest Blumlein array available today. That means that for stereo decodes, if you like how Blumlein sounds (and I do), FOA is at the top of the heap. It's interesting that Ambisonics - a technology that most people think of in the context of Surround Sound - can be used to record superlative stereo. Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com) Core Sound LLC Home of TetraMic ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Why Ambisonics Didn't Become A Standard, OT: Spatial Music; Low Cost Speakers
Interesting indeed, but not new. I think the Unicorn Fenby Legacy(Music of Delius), the part that was done with the Soundfield mike, is one of the finest of all stereo recordings of an orchestra. For naturalness of sound, it is unbeatable and hard for anything else to equal in my view. Robert On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, Len Moskowitz wrote: I should add one more thing: In my opinion TetraMic is probably the finest Blumlein array available today. That means that for stereo decodes, if you like how Blumlein sounds (and I do), FOA is at the top of the heap. It's interesting that Ambisonics - a technology that most people think of in the context of Surround Sound - can be used to record superlative stereo. Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com) Core Sound LLC Home of TetraMic ___ 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
