Re: [Sursound] Bittorrent responses--thanks!
On 06/06/2012 05:39 AM, Eric Carmichel wrote: ... everyone's friendly advice made me feel more at ease regarding bittorrent downloads. one thing to put you even more at ease: the idea behind bittorrent is that you can download little snippets of a file from several torrent "seeders", to maximise the download speed. each snippet is therefore checksummed after download to ensure it has no bit errors. the same mechanism makes it very hard for malicious seeders to slip you a corrupted snippet. so if you have reason to believe the original file (and its meta-information) is trustworthy, there should be very little additional risk from the torrent download as such. [1] so if you always initiate your download from ambisonia.com, all should be well unless a) the server has been compromised, or b) a malicious ambisonia contributor has uploaded a file containing malware. given the small size of our community and the fact that everybody jumps on new uploads within a few hours of their arrival on ambisonia, a malware upload would hardly go unnoticed. furthermore, for malware to actually become effective on your system, it has to exploit a hole in the player you are using, which, given the diversity of players and the quite arcane setups necessary for ambi playback, is highly unlikely. the other option would be to include an executable, and the user being stupid enough to actually execute it. similarly unlikely, since you appear to be a security-conscious person without a double-click-on-any-exe-and-ok-all-warnings-to-make-them-go-away pattern :) best, jörn [1] iirc, the hash algo is sha-1, which has demonstrable weaknesses and might be broken in the very near future, but the effort to create a hash collision is still big enough for any malicious seeder to seek softer targets elsewhere. -- 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] The Sound of Vision (Mirage-sonics?)
Gregory, R.L., (1996) "Is your green as green as mine?" in The Sunday Times,
Science section 8th September 1996
Dr Peter Lennox
School of Technology
University of Derby, UK
tel: 01332 593155
e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk
-Original Message-
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On
Behalf Of Robert Greene
Sent: 04 June 2012 03:02
To: Eric Carmichel; Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] The Sound of Vision (Mirage-sonics?)
Could I point out that in fact one does not
know what auditory reality is like for other
people whether or not they are hearing impaired?
One supposes it is similar. And structurally
it is similar--people tend to hear sound in the
same locations under given circumstances.
But literal sensation is entirely unknowable--
do you see the same color when you look at
green grass that I do? This is essentially unknowable.
One supposes so for convenience. But there is
no way to know because pure sensation cannot be
communicated.
This is something that will not change. More
and more evidence can be adduced to the effect
that the brain processes are similar. But there
cannot be proof that the experience is the same--
this is unverifiable from the scientific viewpoint
and always will be(in anything like our present
scientific world anyway). Thought and sensation
transfer in the literal sense is not around.
Of course there is always that movie("Strange Days")
Maybe someday. But right now, no one can know
what anyone else experiences except in some structural sense.
Robert
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Eric Carmichel wrote:
> Greetings All,
> I continue to learn a lot from this site (and someday hope to have something
> to give back). For now, however, I will briefly comment on posts by
> Umashankar Mantravadi, Augustine Leudar, and Entienne.
>
> Entienne wrote the following [abridged]: **The argument essentially says that
> for something to appear real it has to fit people's *pre-conception* of what
> is real, rather than fit what actually is real. In other words, throw out
> veridicality (coincidence with reality); instead, try to satisfy people's
> belief of reality. This is another argument for questioning the extent to
> which physical modeling has the capacity to create illusions of reality in
> sound...**
>
> Entienne made me consider further something of great importance re my CI
> research. Briefly, we really don?t know what auditory perception is like for
> hearing-impaired listeners (remembering that there?s a lot more to
> sensorineural hearing loss than threshold elevation). For example, does the
> Haas effect work for them? Why is noise-source segregation so difficult? Does
> breaking apart an auditory scene create greater dysfunction, or can they put
> the pieces back together to give the illusion of a unified sound source (as
> with the cello example)? How does multi-band compression sound for them, etc?
> We would most certainly like to know how altering a physical stimulus
> improves their belief of reality (thus improving their ability to communicate
> or enjoy music)? But how do we measure the perception of cochlear implant and
> hearing aid users other than providing *physically accurate, real-world*
> stimuli? Side note: Thanks for the reference to H. Wallach
> (1940).
>
> Re Augustine?s post: Thanks for suggesting Gary Kendall?s paper. While it
> doesn?t provide a *complete* explanation (who can?), it is a good read. I
> proposed a somewhat similar study while a grad student, but the stimuli would
> have included speech, dynamical sounds (such as breaking glass or a bouncing
> ball), and unfamiliar sounds. The constituent components of the unfamiliar
> sounds would be spatially separated but have identical start times. We could
> then ask whether it?s familiarity (as with a cello), arrival times, or other
> variables that unify the separate sounds into a common source.
>
> Umashankar Mantravadi wrote the following: *As a location sound mixer, I
> exploited the visual reinforcement of sound in many situations. If you are
> recording half a dozen people speaking, and the camera focuses on one -
> provided the sound is in synch - the person in picture will sound louder,
> nearer the mic, than the others. It is a surprisingly strong effect, and one
> side benefit is you can check for synch very quickly using it.*
>
> Many thanks for sharing this experience. I am currently creating AV stimuli
> (using a PowerPoint presentation as the metronome/teleprompter). While there
> is nothing new or novel about incorporating video, I am unaware of any
> investigations using cochlear implant patients? in a surround of uncorrelated
> background noise combined with a video of the talker(s). One could also study
> the effects of simulated cochlear implant hearing (using normal-hearing
> subjects) with visual cues in a *natural* environment.
>
> It has been known for some time that lipreading is useful fo
Re: [Sursound] The Sound of Vision (Mirage-sonics?)
> Gregory, R.L., (1996) "Is your green as green as mine?" in The Sunday > Times, Science section 8th September 1996 > > Dr Peter Lennox At least one can describe green-greener-greenest, or loud- louder-loudest, or high-pitch---higher-pitch--- ... but colour is really an odd one: You can only describe 'green' as 'green', but what I see as green you may 'see' as red ... but we both call it green. There is -as far as I know- no relative way of describing colours . . . Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] The Sound of Vision (Mirage-sonics?)
That's exactly what Richard Gregory was saying (He's no longer with us, but his website - richardgregoryonline - lives on, I believe) Dr Peter Lennox School of Technology University of Derby, UK tel: 01332 593155 e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk -Original Message- From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Chapman Sent: 06 June 2012 13:58 To: Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] The Sound of Vision (Mirage-sonics?) > Gregory, R.L., (1996) "Is your green as green as mine?" in The Sunday > Times, Science section 8th September 1996 > > Dr Peter Lennox At least one can describe green-greener-greenest, or loud- louder-loudest, or high-pitch---higher-pitch--- ... but colour is really an odd one: You can only describe 'green' as 'green', but what I see as green you may 'see' as red ... but we both call it green. There is -as far as I know- no relative way of describing colours . . . Michael ___ 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] The Sound of Vision (Mirage-sonics?)
Yep - try http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/articles/brainy-mind-bmj.pdf On 06/06/2012 14:55, Peter Lennox wrote: That's exactly what Richard Gregory was saying (He's no longer with us, but his website - richardgregoryonline - lives on, I believe) Dr Peter Lennox School of Technology University of Derby, UK tel: 01332 593155 e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk -Original Message- From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Chapman Sent: 06 June 2012 13:58 To: Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] The Sound of Vision (Mirage-sonics?) Gregory, R.L., (1996) "Is your green as green as mine?" in The Sunday Times, Science section 8th September 1996 Dr Peter Lennox At least one can describe green-greener-greenest, or loud- louder-loudest, or high-pitch---higher-pitch--- ... but colour is really an odd one: You can only describe 'green' as 'green', but what I see as green you may 'see' as red ... but we both call it green. There is -as far as I know- no relative way of describing colours . . . Michael ___ 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 -- These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer /*/ /* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */ /* Music Research Centre */ /* Department of Music"http://music.york.ac.uk/"; */ /* The University of York Phone 01904 322448*/ /* Heslington Fax 01904 322450*/ /* York YO10 5DD */ /* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */ /*"http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/"; */ /*/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] B- Format to A-format conversion for an ambisonics fx (SERO SERO)
m not sure why converting to from B - format A - format will > necessarily allow you more creative possibilities - I'm not really > sure why you would do that, A - format as I understand it is just the > raw recordings that come out of a microphone ? > You can see a patch Ive made here for spatialising audio in 3d with a > wii controller (an electroacoustic granular magic wand): > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cmodvSM5jE > > Id be happy to share knowledge patches etc , > cheers, > Gus > > > > > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120606/1c0bd214/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] The Sound of Vision (Mirage-sonics?)
--On 06 June 2012 12:57 + Michael Chapman wrote: > but what I see as > green you may 'see' as red ... but we both call it green. I disagree; there is no meaning to saying "what we see green as" other than "what we experience when we look at the colour which we agree to call green". Paul -- Paul Hodges ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] Setting up my first ambisonic system
Hey folks, I am looking to setup an ambisonic sounds system for use in music performance. I apologize if this subject has come up already, but I tried searching the email archive, the search feature does not work! The general idea is to have multiple audio tracks encoded in Max/MSP and then send that to a decoder which would then send the audio to speakers. Some questions: 1. what kind of decoder should I use: hardware or software? I assume is using a software decoder it will be running on another computer. 2. What would be a good scalable and portable strategy to get the audio to the speakers? Running a bunch of cables all over the place would be a nightmare. Are there wireless options? Thanks, Anthony -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120606/002b9f54/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Setting up my first ambisonic system
On 06/06/2012 07:33 PM, Anthony Palomba wrote: The general idea is to have multiple audio tracks encoded in Max/MSP and then send that to a decoder which would then send the audio to speakers. Some questions: 1. what kind of decoder should I use: hardware or software? I assume is using a software decoder it will be running on another computer. software. but why would you want to use a separate computer for that? either find something that works in max/msp, or use jack to patch the generated b-format into ambdec or another decoder of your choice. what platform are you on? 2. What would be a good scalable and portable strategy to get the audio to the speakers? Running a bunch of cables all over the place would be a nightmare. Are there wireless options? since you seem to have a problem with nightmares (i can relate to that!), wireless is definitely _not_ an option. running cables isn't too hard. if you must minimize the amount of cabling, go for passive speakers with a centralized amp rack - that way, there is only one wire per speaker. how many channels are we talking about? -- 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
[Sursound] Red is blue & sideways is straight ahead
Hello All, First, many thanks for taking time to read this. This may be one of my better attempts at communicating what I’m attempting to do. I very much appreciate and respect all the input regarding human perception (re prior posts / the sound of vision). Professor Robert Greene wrote *...But right now, no one can know what anyone else experiences except in some structural sense.* I fully agree, but we (experimenters, psychologists) would have to provide the same physical stimulus for participants to agree on what *red” is. This means that light reflecting off of the *red* object contains the electromagnetic wavelengths requisite for stimulating the retinal cones (and rods too?) and eliciting a perception of the colour red (or the light itself is could be *red* by physical definition). Same goes for audio stimuli. I believe it would be interesting to study how the hearing impaired *hear* reverberation. Have you listened to the Scottish prayer example that is often used in classroom demonstrations? This so-called “ghoulies and ghosties” demonstration (found on the “Harvard tapes”) has become somewhat of a classic. The recording is of a hammer striking a brick followed by an old Scottish prayer. The reader is Dr. Stanford Fidell. Playing the recording backwards focuses our attention on the echoes. Practically no one reports hearing echoes in small (although reverberant) spaces when a transient sound is initiated. The echoes are not *heard* although the reflected sound may arrive as much as 30 to 50 ms later. The Scottish prayer demonstration is designed to make the point that these echoes do exist and are appreciable in size. Our hearing mechanism somehow manages to suppress the late-arriving reflections, and they go unnoticed (at least for the majority of us). There is reason to believe that hearing-impaired persons have greater difficulty suppressing reverberation (a central processing issue, not necessarily peripheral organ dysfunction??). Hearing and consciously perceiving these echoes could, then, impart a deleterious effect on word recognition ability. But without providing the same physical stimulus to the hearing impaired listener, can we determine the magnitude of effect? If the recording of the hammer (transient) is perceived as being the same regardless whether it is played in reverse or not, we can make inferences regarding echo suppression. But if the recording used for one population (normal-hearing listeners) is not identical to the recording used to study a different population (e.g. hearing-impaired listeners), what initial inferences can we make about the latter’s perception under reverberant conditions? A recording / playback system that includes echoes coming from multiple directions could provide additional insight (and real-world validity). All I’ve been saying is that the one variable that can be controlled is the physical stimulus. Stimuli that represent real-world scenarios have more external validity than tightly controlled sounds made up of monaural buzzes, clicks or tones. Similarly, it’s relatively easy to build and program a robot that can navigate in a virtual world built around well-defined colors, blocks and shapes; understanding how we navigate in the real (complex) world requires more complex stimuli (e.g. Rodney Brooks’ robots successfully navigate over difficult terrain without a priori info about the environment). We will never know what these robots are *thinking* (some don’t even run on code), but we can still measure their performance and then find ways to improve on the design. I wish to improve hearing aid and cochlear implant design; consequently, I need physical stimuli that represent the world outside of the laboratory. This has been my impetus for exploring Ambisonics. Naturally, I'm greatly enjoying the musical / artistic aspects of Ambisonics as well. Kind regards, Eric -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120606/e4f83d8b/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Setting up my first ambisonic system
Hello Jörn, Thanks for your response. I use Max/MSP and Abelton Live running on a mac. I figured I would decode on a separate machine because I thought it might be CPU intensive. The laptop I am running the performance on, will already be working pretty hard doing other signal/video processing tasks. There are ambisonic encode/decode externals for Max... http://www.grahamwakefield.net/soft/ambi~/index.htm That might be the easiest thing to try first. Ideally I would like to have 8 (maybe more) speakers that I could configure in various different ways. -ap On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier < netti...@stackingdwarves.net> wrote: > On 06/06/2012 07:33 PM, Anthony Palomba wrote: > > The general idea is to have multiple audio tracks encoded in Max/MSP and >> then >> send that to a decoder which would then send the audio to speakers. >> >> Some questions: >> 1. what kind of decoder should I use: hardware or software? >> I assume is using a software decoder it will be running on another >> computer. >> > > software. but why would you want to use a separate computer for that? > either find something that works in max/msp, or use jack to patch the > generated b-format into ambdec or another decoder of your choice. what > platform are you on? > > > 2. What would be a good scalable and portable strategy to get the audio to >> the speakers? >> Running a bunch of cables all over the place would be a nightmare. Are >> there >> wireless options? >> > > since you seem to have a problem with nightmares (i can relate to that!), > wireless is definitely _not_ an option. running cables isn't too hard. if > you must minimize the amount of cabling, go for passive speakers with a > centralized amp rack - that way, there is only one wire per speaker. > > how many channels are we talking about? > > -- > Jörn Nettingsmeier > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 > > Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio) > Tonmeister VDT > > http://stackingdwarves.net > > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120606/9fe17e57/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Red is blue & sideways is straight ahead
majority of us). There is reason to believe that hearing-impaired persons have greater difficulty suppressing reverberation (a central processing issue, not necessarily peripheral organ dysfunction??). Hearing and consciously perceiving these echoes could, then, impart a deleterious effect on word recognition ability. But without providing the same physical stimulus to the hearing impaired listener, can we determine the magnitude of effect? If the recording of the hammer (transient) is perceived as being the same regardless whether it is played in reverse or not, we can make inferences regarding echo suppression. But if the recording used for one population (normal-hearing listeners) is not identical to the recording used to study a different population (e.g. hearing-impaired listeners), what initial inferences can we make about the latter’s perception under reverberant conditions? A recording / playback system that includes echoes coming from multiple directions could provide additional insight (and real-world validity). All I’ve been saying is that the one variable that can be controlled is the physical stimulus. Stimuli that represent real-world scenarios have more external validity than tightly controlled sounds made up of monaural buzzes, clicks or tones. Similarly, it’s relatively easy to build and program a robot that can navigate in a virtual world built around well-defined colors, blocks and shapes; understanding how we navigate in the real (complex) world requires more complex stimuli (e.g. Rodney Brooks’ robots successfully navigate over difficult terrain without a priori info about the environment). We will never know what these robots are *thinking* (some don’t even run on code), but we can still measure their performance and then find ways to improve on the design. I wish to improve hearing aid and cochlear implant design; consequently, I need physical stimuli that represent the world outside of the laboratory. This has been my impetus for exploring Ambisonics. Naturally, I'm greatly enjoying the musical / artistic aspects of Ambisonics as well. Kind regards, Eric -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120606/e4f83d8b/attachment.html> ___ 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
