Re: [Sursound] [ot] new and interesting words
Michael Chapman wrote: Think, I might excuse Finnish for not having a word for ossuary, though ! It has, although it possibly wasn't very clear in Sampo's original post. The word is "luusto", as he wrote. Finnish, as many other languages can form an neverending multitude of words by combining existing words together. Eero ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] E's Sursound Saga, Part I--Why what I do wrong works
feedback loops?), at least not without the help of ReWire. However, MIDI-based DAWs communicate perfectly well with MIDI hardware; hence my initial impetus to use a DAW controller. Interestingly, the university I attended spent a good deal of energy poo-pooing their newly purchased DAW simply because it didn’t do what they magically wanted it to do. Nobody was interested in learning how to use Digital Performer or any other DAW. I was offered 50 Canadian bucks towards travel expenses to a conference in return for several hundred hours of writing code. The code or stand-alone program was to make the R-Space system do things exactly as it did before: Present one sentence at a time, but in the background of restaurant noise. Well, I don’t work for free (especially when a project is likely to fail), and such a ridiculous notion compelled me to use the ‘f’ word--something I rarely do. Fortunately, only a small minority of persons I encountered in academia expected others to be their personal slaves. There are researchers, students, and professors who I’m willing to bend over backwards for because they’re sincere and nice people. I also know that many of these individuals are not DAW literate, nor do they have experience using MIDI hardware devices or software. They’re not media production experts. The mention of ReWire would simply confuse them, and setting up multi-track busses, aux sends, effect returns, VSTs, etc. is not in their vocabulary. They’re comfortable with MATLAB, but not with Pro Tools. As a person with an electronics background (and a recording of a squirrel), I have to see things from their perspective. This brings me to the topic of DAWs, chips (Burr-Brown analog versus Cirrus Logic digital), and the like... To make a user-friendly system that presents stimuli, records responses, automatically adjusts settings, blah blah, I have look at the end-user. That often means designing a system with an ON/OFF switch, a simple boot sequence (and no ReWire), and a drop-down menu of standardized sentence lists to be used as the speech stimuli (choice of IEEE sentences, CNC sentences, etc.) and a Start/Stop button. The complexity and sophistication of the system has to be invisible to the user. Any system that requires the user to make changes on the fly is asking for trouble. Sometimes the presentation levels have to be displayed in units that aren’t standard in audio production (e.g. dBu) but are common in audiology (e.g., dB HL). More importantly, the presentation levels as displayed on the computer screen have to match the actual levels at the listening position--this, fortunately, is the easy part unless someone tampers with the hardware or software. Hardware devices are less likely to be tampered with, and unlike the purely analog days of old, calibration settings for mixed-signal devices are less likely to drift with age. My main caveat with hardware is cost, but my home-brew hardware devices integrate nicely with MIDI software. USB and FireWire replace the traditional MIDI ports (conversion from one data type to another is invisible to the user), so setup is simple for the end-user. It’s also fair to state that I’m quite comfortable with the hardware implementation of digital and analog signal processing. I use hardware a lot because that’s what I grew up with. I use microcontrollers and PIC chips, too, but I can still do a lot with TTL gates, Karnaugh maps, and Hardware Description Language. I suppose I’m old school in many ways, but always willing to learn and apply new technologies. I read a lot and build modern gadgets from kits. Help and suggestions are always welcome--I'm also learn from making mistakes, and I'm not afraid to admit that I'm wrong when shown a better way of doing things. This concludes the first part of my Saga. In the next chapter I’ll address typical speech-test background noise, and why I choose Ambisonic over a multi-talker surround of cocktail speech derived from monaural sources (as well as other types of surround noise). Because I did the mastering for a number of widely-used speech-in-noise tests, I have a good idea of what’s being used by CI researchers. Til next time, E -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121014/8b6f2a59/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] [ot] new and interesting words
> Michael Chapman wrote: > >> Think, I might excuse Finnish for not having a word for ossuary, >> though ! > > It has, although it possibly wasn't very clear in Sampo's original > post. The word is "luusto", as he wrote. > > Finnish, as many other languages can form an neverending multitude > of words by combining existing words together. > Ah thought that was Sampo's creation (possibly with a US patent attached ... ;-)> My donation to English is sibloid (adj., from sibling). (Seeing as we are apparently archived on the Web, I thought I'd lay claim before M$ patented it.) Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Hybrid Hi-Fi (HyFi?), IRs, etc.
On 14 October 2012 01:34, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > On 2012-10-05, Richard Furse wrote: > > > Tell me... In games most of the individual sound sources, apart from general > ambience, seem to be well placed monophonic ones, fed from a single channel. > So in essence, they are "encoded" at infinite order. Has anybody done any > work on how to overlay such sources optimally against a lower order, perhaps > recorded, background? This is the (old) problem of properly representing (and reproducing) the spatial extent of sound sources. If the source is actually rather small - say, a small bird or, as we are in games mode, the snick of a safety catch - or so distant as to be effectively small, there is no problem in simply applying the standard encoding equations for the order in use. For large or close sources, the problem is significantly different. In games audio, the sound of, something with a significant angular extent - say a vehicle - is often represented with a collection of several monophonic sound files, each making up part of the overall sounding object (in this case, these would probably include at least the exhaust, engine, and tyre noise). which can all be panned separately into the sound image, as dictated by the geometrical relationship between the player and the vehicle. This geometrically determined separate panning of parts of the sound image may even extend to early reflections, if enough computing power is left over from the graphics. > > There has been some talk about mixed order playback in the past, and it's > always ended up with somebody saying that different orders don't really mesh > too well. They don't when you are mixing together B formats of different orders, but this is not really what you would be doing here, as the order of the directional sampling of individual sources is set by the encoding used to pan the source into the soundfield, not the fact that the monaural is effectively infinite order if played over a single speaker. > So, how well *can* they mesh, given that the stuff games put out > are grossly higher sampled in direction than any realistic playback rig? Any > ideas of how to efficiently spatially sample them back to the rig geometry, > and regularize the decoding problem? All I can say is long experience (albeit it in the context of electroacoustic music, rather tha games) has shown that the "suspension of disbelief" effect is very powerful and can quite easily enable a listener to accept a mono sound playing back from a single speaker provided that it is a believable sound, in context. All the best Dave -- As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University, so this disclaimer is redundant These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer Dave Malham Ex-Music Research Centre Department of Music The University of York Heslington York YO10 5DD UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Flux Ircam Tools
Greetings, If you are affiliated with an academic institution you can qualify for a 50% discount of the retail pricing on any FLUX plugins, including IRCAM Tools.Flux just had a 50% promotion (for everyone) that ended at the end of the summer, but the academic discount is good all year. I would also like to draw your attention to a similar plugin product called Anymix by a company called IOSONO http://www.iosono-sound.com/ . It is a little bit more cost-effective, but does only contain a surround mix plugin, whereas IRCAM Tools contains more than simply SPAT. With both FLUX and ISOSONO you can download a 30-day full-featured trial - you just require an iLok key to put the temporary authorization on. Cheers! Dr. Jason Stanford Assistant Professor of Music Department of Music Research and Composition Don Wright Faculty of Music Western University London, Canada N6A 3K7 Office: Talbot College TC218 jsta...@uwo.ca jason.tl.stanf...@gmail.com On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:45 AM, HAIGELBAGEL PRODUCTIONS < haigelba...@senet.com.au> wrote: > Keep an eye out for "specials" Sometimes Ircam Tools go on sale for half > price. > > Cheers, > > Haig > > > On 11/10/2012 1:41 AM, Dave Malham wrote: > >> Spat has supported B format for quite a long time and is (or at least >> was - I haven't used it for a decade or so) quite a nice piece of >> software, but I do think it's rather expensive at around a 1000 Euros. >> >> Dave >> >> On 10 October 2012 15:25, Moritz Fehr wrote: >> >>> Hi List, >>> >>> do you have experience with the Flux Ircam Tools? I am especially >>> interested if it is possible to work in Spat using B-Format. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Moritz >>> >>> >>> >>> -- next part -- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/private/sursound/** >>> attachments/20121010/37cf9c3b/**attachment.html<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121010/37cf9c3b/attachment.html> >>> > >>> __**_ >>> 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> > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121014/408fa0fb/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
