Re: [Sursound] Soundfield ST350
Steve, Can you access the pictures from the Flickr link? As far as I can tell, the section you need is everything above the standard filler-piece and screws to fit. If you email Simon Davies at Rycote and copy him in to the link, he should be able to let you know what’s available. TSL aren’t exactly the most helpful of companies and their pricing is decidedly geared towards the high-end. I was incredibly lucky to be able to purchase my kit (the original demo model) direct from Soundfield at a substantial discount and I very much miss the personal service that one used to get from Ken Giles. Let me know if there’s anything else I can do to help. Regards, John Please note new email address & direct line phone number email: j...@johnleonard.uk phone +44 (0)20 3286 5942 > On 9 Feb 2016, at 01:52, Steven Boardman wrote: > > Thanks John. > > Yes it is at a ridiculous price, that's why I wanted to use some of my > other kit, and buy the minimum I need from them. I don't see why I can't > use one of my stereo blimps/guns and furries with a > modified suspension. Its just knowing what I can use with what. > > Get me off list with those pictures please. > > Best regards > > Steve > On 8 Feb 2016 10:19 pm, "John Leonard" wrote: > >> The new set-up for an ST3/450 in a Rycote uses a special fitting: it???s a >> tube with thumbscrews, mounted on a modified Lyre system. As far as I???m >> aware, you have to buy the complete set-up from TSL, at some ludicrously >> inflated price, no doubt. I can look at mine when I get home tonight and >> see how it fits together and send a link to a picture. >> >> Regards, >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> Please note new email address & direct line phone number >> email: j...@johnleonard.uk >> phone +44 (0)20 3286 5942 >> >> >>> On 8 Feb 2016, at 13:03, Steven Boardman >> wrote: >>> >>> Rycote also can't tell me, as they only make them for soundfield, and >> say >>> I need to contact them! >> >> ___ >> Sursound mailing list >> Sursound@music.vt.edu >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, >> edit account or options, view archives and so on. >> > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/4aef964c/attachment.html> > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit > account or options, view archives and so on. > > __ > This email has been scanned by Netintelligence > http://www.netintelligence.com/email > ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Soundfield ST350
Hi John Yes, I got the link. Thank you so much! I was thinking exactly the same thing. I am very hopeful this will save a bundle, as I can just use it in a m/s windjammer. I will email Simon to double check. I love this list!.☺ Thanks all. Best Steve On 9 Feb 2016 6:58 pm, "John Leonard" wrote: > Steve, > > Can you access the pictures from the Flickr link? As far as I can tell, > the section you need is everything above the standard filler-piece and > screws to fit. > > If you email Simon Davies at Rycote and copy him in to the link, he should > be able to let you know what’s available. > > TSL aren’t exactly the most helpful of companies and their pricing is > decidedly geared towards the high-end. I was incredibly lucky to be able to > purchase my kit (the original demo model) direct from Soundfield at a > substantial discount and I very much miss the personal service that one > used to get from Ken Giles. > > Let me know if there’s anything else I can do to help. > > Regards, > > John > > > Please note new email address & direct line phone number > email: j...@johnleonard.uk > phone +44 (0)20 3286 5942 > > > > On 9 Feb 2016, at 01:52, Steven Boardman > wrote: > > > > Thanks John. > > > > Yes it is at a ridiculous price, that's why I wanted to use some of my > > other kit, and buy the minimum I need from them. I don't see why I can't > > use one of my stereo blimps/guns and furries with a > > modified suspension. Its just knowing what I can use with what. > > > > Get me off list with those pictures please. > > > > Best regards > > > > Steve > > On 8 Feb 2016 10:19 pm, "John Leonard" wrote: > > > >> The new set-up for an ST3/450 in a Rycote uses a special fitting: > it???s a > >> tube with thumbscrews, mounted on a modified Lyre system. As far as > I???m > >> aware, you have to buy the complete set-up from TSL, at some ludicrously > >> inflated price, no doubt. I can look at mine when I get home tonight and > >> see how it fits together and send a link to a picture. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> John > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Please note new email address & direct line phone number > >> email: j...@johnleonard.uk > >> phone +44 (0)20 3286 5942 > >> > >> > >>> On 8 Feb 2016, at 13:03, Steven Boardman > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Rycote also can't tell me, as they only make them for soundfield, and > >> say > >>> I need to contact them! > >> > >> ___ > >> Sursound mailing list > >> Sursound@music.vt.edu > >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > >> edit account or options, view archives and so on. > >> > > -- next part -- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/4aef964c/attachment.html > > > > ___ > > Sursound mailing list > > Sursound@music.vt.edu > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > edit account or options, view archives and so on. > > > > __ > > This email has been scanned by Netintelligence > > http://www.netintelligence.com/email > > > > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > edit account or options, view archives and so on. > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/3c33217d/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
Hi Martin, one note on the arrangement, as far as I know, traditional ambisonic decoding won’t work on hemispherical setups (due to the partial coverage of the sphere by the speakers). You may have to use more recent/advanced methods to get decoding matrices, such as the energy-preserving ambisonic decoding with modified basis functions (EPAD), or the hybrid ambisonic/VBAP All-round ambisonic decoding (ALLRAD), published by Franz Zotter (and collaborators) from University of Graz. I know of two usable available implementations of such decoder matrix calculators, one is a compact Matlab/Octave library I made available recently: http://research.spa.aalto.fi/projects/ambi-lib/ambi.html https://github.com/polarch/Higher-Order-Ambisonics the other is Aaron Heller’s ambisonic decoding toolbox, more extended than mine, which includes scripts to produce VST plugins from the decoding matrices using Faust, which may be more suitable for your workflow: https://bitbucket.org/ambidecodertoolbox/adt.git Best, Archontis > On 08 Feb 2016, at 17:19, Martin Dupras wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next > week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical > arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone > with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the > right direction? > > What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which > would likely consist of: > > - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m > - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees > - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees > > Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the > first 16-speakers in this diagramme: > http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg > > I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual" > arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached > to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that > will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice? > > The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers > to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some > good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the > speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s. > > Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated! > > Cheers, > > - martin > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit > account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
On,y wikipedia but contains the info you need : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonic_reproduction_systems#Horizontal-only_systems On 9 February 2016 at 12:45, Politis Archontis wrote: > Hi Martin, > > one note on the arrangement, as far as I know, traditional ambisonic > decoding won’t work on hemispherical setups (due to the partial coverage of > the sphere by the speakers). You may have to use more recent/advanced > methods to get decoding matrices, such as the energy-preserving ambisonic > decoding with modified basis functions (EPAD), or the hybrid ambisonic/VBAP > All-round ambisonic decoding (ALLRAD), published by Franz Zotter (and > collaborators) from University of Graz. > > I know of two usable available implementations of such decoder matrix > calculators, one is a compact Matlab/Octave library I made available > recently: > > http://research.spa.aalto.fi/projects/ambi-lib/ambi.html > https://github.com/polarch/Higher-Order-Ambisonics > > the other is Aaron Heller’s ambisonic decoding toolbox, more extended than > mine, which includes scripts to produce VST plugins from the decoding > matrices using Faust, which may be more suitable for your workflow: > > https://bitbucket.org/ambidecodertoolbox/adt.git > > Best, > Archontis > > > > On 08 Feb 2016, at 17:19, Martin Dupras wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next > > week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical > > arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone > > with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the > > right direction? > > > > What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which > > would likely consist of: > > > > - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m > > - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees > > - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees > > > > Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the > > first 16-speakers in this diagramme: > > > http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg > > > > I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual" > > arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached > > to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that > > will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice? > > > > The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers > > to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some > > good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the > > speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s. > > > > Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated! > > > > Cheers, > > > > - martin > > ___ > > Sursound mailing list > > Sursound@music.vt.edu > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > edit account or options, view archives and so on. > > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > edit account or options, view archives and so on. > -- www.augustineleudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/3c1b0036/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
and : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonic_reproduction_systems#Full-sphere_systems:_Platonic_Solids On 9 February 2016 at 12:58, Augustine Leudar wrote: > On,y wikipedia but contains the info you need : > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonic_reproduction_systems#Horizontal-only_systems > > On 9 February 2016 at 12:45, Politis Archontis > wrote: > >> Hi Martin, >> >> one note on the arrangement, as far as I know, traditional ambisonic >> decoding won’t work on hemispherical setups (due to the partial coverage of >> the sphere by the speakers). You may have to use more recent/advanced >> methods to get decoding matrices, such as the energy-preserving ambisonic >> decoding with modified basis functions (EPAD), or the hybrid ambisonic/VBAP >> All-round ambisonic decoding (ALLRAD), published by Franz Zotter (and >> collaborators) from University of Graz. >> >> I know of two usable available implementations of such decoder matrix >> calculators, one is a compact Matlab/Octave library I made available >> recently: >> >> http://research.spa.aalto.fi/projects/ambi-lib/ambi.html >> https://github.com/polarch/Higher-Order-Ambisonics >> >> the other is Aaron Heller’s ambisonic decoding toolbox, more extended >> than mine, which includes scripts to produce VST plugins from the decoding >> matrices using Faust, which may be more suitable for your workflow: >> >> https://bitbucket.org/ambidecodertoolbox/adt.git >> >> Best, >> Archontis >> >> >> > On 08 Feb 2016, at 17:19, Martin Dupras wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next >> > week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical >> > arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone >> > with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the >> > right direction? >> > >> > What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which >> > would likely consist of: >> > >> > - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m >> > - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees >> > - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees >> > >> > Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the >> > first 16-speakers in this diagramme: >> > >> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg >> > >> > I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual" >> > arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached >> > to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that >> > will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice? >> > >> > The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers >> > to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some >> > good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the >> > speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s. >> > >> > Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated! >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > - martin >> > ___ >> > Sursound mailing list >> > Sursound@music.vt.edu >> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe >> here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. >> >> ___ >> Sursound mailing list >> Sursound@music.vt.edu >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, >> edit account or options, view archives and so on. >> > > > > -- > www.augustineleudar.com > -- www.augustineleudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/6fa4742a/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Soundfield ST350
On 09-Feb-16 01:52, Steven Boardman wrote: Thanks John. Yes it is at a ridiculous price, ... This from the depths of Stroud The base bar, "filler strip" and underneath gubbins is all standard 140mm "stereo" windshield stuff. The lyres are also standard ones used for the so-called Softie Mount - with dovetail receptacles rather than integral clips. The pricey bit is the circular clamp which fits between the lyres. This is made specifically for TSL (Soundfield). It is actually an SLA (a version of particularly robust 3D printing) and is the only conceivable way one could produce such a component for the minimal quantity ever likely to be sold. The SLAs This is the pain of extreme short-run engineering. Chris Woolf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Soundfield ST350
Apologies - that email got truncated... Try again. On 09-Feb-16 16:29, Chris wrote: On 09-Feb-16 01:52, Steven Boardman wrote: Thanks John. Yes it is at a ridiculous price, ... This from the depths of Stroud The base bar, "filler strip" and underneath gubbins is all standard 140mm "stereo" windshield stuff. The lyres are also standard ones used for the so-called Softie Mount - with dovetail receptacles rather than integral clips. The pricey bit is the circular clamp which fits between the lyres. This is made specifically for TSL (Soundfield). It is actually an SLA (a version of particularly robust 3D printing) and is the only conceivable way one could produce such a component for the minimal quantity ever likely to be sold. The SLAs have to be hand-finished - the dovetails muct fit precisely, with no risk of rattle - and the clamp screw has to be threaed in. None of that comes cheaply in the one-off world. This is the pain of extreme short-run engineering. Chris Woolf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
Martin Dupras wrote: > Hi, > > I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next > week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical > arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone > with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the > right direction? > > What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which > would likely consist of: > > - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m > - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees > - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees > > Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the > first 16-speakers in this diagramme: > http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg > > I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual" > arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached > to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that > will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice? I have no experience with full-sphere systems, so please ignore everything I say. You don't say what order of Ambisonics you will be using. With first-order all speakers cooperate to localise a sound, so that when speakers above push those below pull. It therefore helps to have speakers placed above and below the height of the listeners' ears. Your proposed arrangement does not appear to do this, while the Observatory Vilnius arrangement does. With higher orders this is less of a concern. If the material you will be using is mostly horizontal-only then many speakers level with the listeners' ears helps. If the material makes full use of the whole sphere then the closer you can get to a Platonic solid the better. 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 - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
Thanks for all the responses. Much appreciated. I'll re-phrase the question in light of some of the answers I've been given. I will be using third-order Ambisonics. My aim mostly is to experiment to get a good sense of what is possible with Ambisonics with height. I have experimented successfully with 8-channel planar Ambisonics some time ago. My primary intent is to spatialise multiple monophonic (synthesised) sources using 3rd-order Ambisonics spatialisation, and the playback of mixed sources (spatialised monphonic and stereophonic sources as well as B-format 4-channel recordings.) At this moment in time, I have the opportunity to deploy (next week) a 16-channel array, so I would like some advice on a configuration that would be a good start to experiment with Ambisonics with height. Someone suggested that I consult the wikipedia page on Ambisonics. That is indeed where I got the idea that an "upper hemisphere" setup might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers. There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my original question. So let me ask a new question. Given the constraint that I can only use 16 speakers at the moment, and that I need to deploy this next week, can somehow point me in the direction of what might be a suitable and reasonable geometric configuration to try out? It seems to me that the only really practical options here are two stacked rings (stacked octagons) or a hemisphere. I would have thought that the hemisphere would be the better choice, and in my scenario, a full lighting rig allows me theoretically speaking to have speakers at the required positions. Again, thank you for all the responses. - martin On 8 February 2016 at 15:19, Martin Dupras wrote: > Hi, > > I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next > week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical > arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone > with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the > right direction? > > What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which > would likely consist of: > > - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m > - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees > - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees > > Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the > first 16-speakers in this diagramme: > http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg > > I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual" > arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached > to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that > will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice? > > The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers > to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some > good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the > speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s. > > Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated! > > Cheers, > > - martin ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
I know Im treading on thin ice here around all these ferocious maths guys... but might it be that there is not a suitable array that uses 16 speakers? I know if you have 16 speakers you will want to use all of them but an Icosahedron is only 12 speakers (vertices) but it might be the best option. Also you could try ICST ambisonics plugins in max - they let you put the speaker array in and it adjusts accordingly. On 9 February 2016 at 21:51, Martin Dupras wrote: > Thanks for all the responses. Much appreciated. > > I'll re-phrase the question in light of some of the answers I've been > given. > > I will be using third-order Ambisonics. My aim mostly is to experiment > to get a good sense of what is possible with Ambisonics with height. I > have experimented successfully with 8-channel planar Ambisonics some > time ago. My primary intent is to spatialise multiple monophonic > (synthesised) sources using 3rd-order Ambisonics spatialisation, and > the playback of mixed sources (spatialised monphonic and stereophonic > sources as well as B-format 4-channel recordings.) > > At this moment in time, I have the opportunity to deploy (next week) a > 16-channel array, so I would like some advice on a configuration that > would be a good start to experiment with Ambisonics with height. > Someone suggested that I consult the wikipedia page on Ambisonics. > That is indeed where I got the idea that an "upper hemisphere" setup > might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers. > There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical > configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my > original question. > > So let me ask a new question. Given the constraint that I can only use > 16 speakers at the moment, and that I need to deploy this next week, > can somehow point me in the direction of what might be a suitable and > reasonable geometric configuration to try out? It seems to me that the > only really practical options here are two stacked rings (stacked > octagons) or a hemisphere. I would have thought that the hemisphere > would be the better choice, and in my scenario, a full lighting rig > allows me theoretically speaking to have speakers at the required > positions. > > Again, thank you for all the responses. > > - martin > > > On 8 February 2016 at 15:19, Martin Dupras wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next > > week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical > > arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone > > with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the > > right direction? > > > > What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which > > would likely consist of: > > > > - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m > > - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees > > - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees > > > > Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the > > first 16-speakers in this diagramme: > > > http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg > > > > I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual" > > arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached > > to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that > > will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice? > > > > The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers > > to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some > > good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the > > speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s. > > > > Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated! > > > > Cheers, > > > > - martin > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > edit account or options, view archives and so on. > -- www.augustineleudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/6d5ca824/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
find out if there is a convention or "most usual" >> > arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached >> > to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that >> > will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice? >> > >> > The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers >> > to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some >> > good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the >> > speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s. >> > >> > Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated! >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > - martin >> ___ >> Sursound mailing list >> Sursound@music.vt.edu >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, >> edit account or options, view archives and so on. >> > > > > -- > www.augustineleudar.com > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/6d5ca824/attachment.html> > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit > account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
Firstly, I've never got beyond twelve (two stacked hexagons), so ignore my comments at your _non_-peril ;-)> It strikes me, that it all depends on what you want from height : Your initial proposal was with the base ring at ear height. If your vertical 'stuff' is equally 'up' and 'down' you'd be better off with an octagon on the floor and another the same distance above ear height (plan A). If the vertical 'stuff' is both complex/essential _and_ all (/almost all) 'up' then a hemisphere sounds a better option (plan B). Plan A is theoretically 'easy peasy', but from my experience still quite fiddly (and time-consuming) to set up. Plan B s far more 'cutting edge' (both in mechanical set-up, but not least in decoding, ...). If this is : -(sort of) your first time -in a few days time -without a dress rehearsal then I'd lean towards Plan A. But, hey, with that sort of caution we'd never have discovered America . . . Good luck, Michael > Thanks for all the responses. Much appreciated. > > I'll re-phrase the question in light of some of the answers I've been > given. > > I will be using third-order Ambisonics. My aim mostly is to experiment > to get a good sense of what is possible with Ambisonics with height. I > have experimented successfully with 8-channel planar Ambisonics some > time ago. My primary intent is to spatialise multiple monophonic > (synthesised) sources using 3rd-order Ambisonics spatialisation, and > the playback of mixed sources (spatialised monphonic and stereophonic > sources as well as B-format 4-channel recordings.) > > At this moment in time, I have the opportunity to deploy (next week) a > 16-channel array, so I would like some advice on a configuration that > would be a good start to experiment with Ambisonics with height. > Someone suggested that I consult the wikipedia page on Ambisonics. > That is indeed where I got the idea that an "upper hemisphere" setup > might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers. > There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical > configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my > original question. > > So let me ask a new question. Given the constraint that I can only use > 16 speakers at the moment, and that I need to deploy this next week, > can somehow point me in the direction of what might be a suitable and > reasonable geometric configuration to try out? It seems to me that the > only really practical options here are two stacked rings (stacked > octagons) or a hemisphere. I would have thought that the hemisphere > would be the better choice, and in my scenario, a full lighting rig > allows me theoretically speaking to have speakers at the required > positions. > > Again, thank you for all the responses. > > - martin > > > On 8 February 2016 at 15:19, Martin Dupras wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next >> week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical >> arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone >> with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the >> right direction? >> >> What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which >> would likely consist of: >> >> - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m >> - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees >> - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees >> >> Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the >> first 16-speakers in this diagramme: >> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg >> >> I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual" >> arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached >> to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that >> will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice? >> >> The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers >> to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some >> good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the >> speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s. >> >> Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated! >> >> Cheers, >> >> - martin > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > edit account or options, view archives and so on. > ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
Plan A is more or less my backup. I'm fairly confident that I can get that working. For my needs the verticality is more important up than down, I would say, but it's a good point that the amount of complexity might make it a better option for my plans next week. I'll keep digging for a hemispherical layout though. Still not found a single example yet. Thanks for all the help! - martin On 9 February 2016 at 22:18, Michael Chapman wrote: > > Firstly, I've never got beyond twelve (two stacked hexagons), so > ignore my comments at your _non_-peril ;-)> > > It strikes me, that it all depends on what you want from height : > > Your initial proposal was with the base ring at ear height. > If your vertical 'stuff' is equally 'up' and 'down' you'd be better off > with an octagon on the floor and another the same distance above ear > height (plan A). > > If the vertical 'stuff' is both complex/essential _and_ all (/almost all) > 'up' then a hemisphere sounds a better option (plan B). > > Plan A is theoretically 'easy peasy', but from my experience still quite > fiddly (and time-consuming) to set up. > Plan B s far more 'cutting edge' (both in mechanical set-up, but not least > in decoding, ...). > > If this is : > -(sort of) your first time > -in a few days time > -without a dress rehearsal > then I'd lean towards Plan A. > > But, hey, with that sort of caution we'd never have discovered America . > . . > > Good luck, > > Michael > > > >> Thanks for all the responses. Much appreciated. >> >> I'll re-phrase the question in light of some of the answers I've been >> given. >> >> I will be using third-order Ambisonics. My aim mostly is to experiment >> to get a good sense of what is possible with Ambisonics with height. I >> have experimented successfully with 8-channel planar Ambisonics some >> time ago. My primary intent is to spatialise multiple monophonic >> (synthesised) sources using 3rd-order Ambisonics spatialisation, and >> the playback of mixed sources (spatialised monphonic and stereophonic >> sources as well as B-format 4-channel recordings.) >> >> At this moment in time, I have the opportunity to deploy (next week) a >> 16-channel array, so I would like some advice on a configuration that >> would be a good start to experiment with Ambisonics with height. >> Someone suggested that I consult the wikipedia page on Ambisonics. >> That is indeed where I got the idea that an "upper hemisphere" setup >> might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers. >> There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical >> configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my >> original question. >> >> So let me ask a new question. Given the constraint that I can only use >> 16 speakers at the moment, and that I need to deploy this next week, >> can somehow point me in the direction of what might be a suitable and >> reasonable geometric configuration to try out? It seems to me that the >> only really practical options here are two stacked rings (stacked >> octagons) or a hemisphere. I would have thought that the hemisphere >> would be the better choice, and in my scenario, a full lighting rig >> allows me theoretically speaking to have speakers at the required >> positions. >> >> Again, thank you for all the responses. >> >> - martin >> >> >> On 8 February 2016 at 15:19, Martin Dupras wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next >>> week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical >>> arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone >>> with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the >>> right direction? >>> >>> What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which >>> would likely consist of: >>> >>> - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m >>> - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees >>> - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees >>> >>> Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the >>> first 16-speakers in this diagramme: >>> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg >>> >>> I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual" >>> arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached >>> to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that >>> will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice? >>> >>> The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers >>> to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some >>> good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the >>> speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s. >>> >>> Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> - martin >> ___ >> Sursound mailing list >> Sursound@mus
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
hich > >>> would likely consist of: > >>> > >>> - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m > >>> - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees > >>> - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees > >>> > >>> Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the > >>> first 16-speakers in this diagramme: > >>> > http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg > >>> > >>> I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual" > >>> arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached > >>> to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that > >>> will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice? > >>> > >>> The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers > >>> to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some > >>> good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the > >>> speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s. > >>> > >>> Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated! > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> - martin > >> ___ > >> Sursound mailing list > >> Sursound@music.vt.edu > >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > >> edit account or options, view archives and so on. > >> > > > > ___ > > Sursound mailing list > > Sursound@music.vt.edu > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > edit account or options, view archives and so on. > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > edit account or options, view archives and so on. > -- www.augustineleudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/9b17c6e0/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
to try out? It seems to me that the >>> only really practical options here are two stacked rings (stacked >>> octagons) or a hemisphere. I would have thought that the hemisphere >>> would be the better choice, and in my scenario, a full lighting rig >>> allows me theoretically speaking to have speakers at the required >>> positions. >>> >>> Again, thank you for all the responses. >>> >>> - martin >>> >>> >>> On 8 February 2016 at 15:19, Martin Dupras wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next >>>> week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical >>>> arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone >>>> with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the >>>> right direction? >>>> >>>> What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which >>>> would likely consist of: >>>> >>>> - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m >>>> - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees >>>> - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees >>>> >>>> Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the >>>> first 16-speakers in this diagramme: >>>> >>> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg >>>> >>>> I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual" >>>> arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached >>>> to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that >>>> will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice? >>>> >>>> The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers >>>> to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some >>>> good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the >>>> speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s. >>>> >>>> Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated! >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> - martin >>> ___ >>> Sursound mailing list >>> Sursound@music.vt.edu >>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, >>> edit account or options, view archives and so on. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> www.augustineleudar.com >> -- next part -- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/6d5ca824/attachment.html> >> ___ >> Sursound mailing list >> Sursound@music.vt.edu >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit >> account or options, view archives and so on. > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit > account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
misphere" setup >>>> might be suitable, since I only have on this occasion 16 speakers. >>>> There is however no suggestion as to what a suitable hemispherical >>>> configuration might be for a 16-speaker array, which is why I asked my >>>> original question. >>>> >>>> So let me ask a new question. Given the constraint that I can only use >>>> 16 speakers at the moment, and that I need to deploy this next week, >>>> can somehow point me in the direction of what might be a suitable and >>>> reasonable geometric configuration to try out? It seems to me that the >>>> only really practical options here are two stacked rings (stacked >>>> octagons) or a hemisphere. I would have thought that the hemisphere >>>> would be the better choice, and in my scenario, a full lighting rig >>>> allows me theoretically speaking to have speakers at the required >>>> positions. >>>> >>>> Again, thank you for all the responses. >>>> >>>> - martin >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 February 2016 at 15:19, Martin Dupras wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next >>>>> week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical >>>>> arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone >>>>> with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the >>>>> right direction? >>>>> >>>>> What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which >>>>> would likely consist of: >>>>> >>>>> - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m >>>>> - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees >>>>> - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees >>>>> >>>>> Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the >>>>> first 16-speakers in this diagramme: >>>>> >>>> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg >>>>> >>>>> I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual" >>>>> arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached >>>>> to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that >>>>> will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice? >>>>> >>>>> The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers >>>>> to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some >>>>> good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the >>>>> speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s. >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated! >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> - martin >>>> ___ >>>> Sursound mailing list >>>> Sursound@music.vt.edu >>>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, >>>> edit account or options, view archives and so on. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.augustineleudar.com >>> -- next part -- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >>> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/6d5ca824/attachment.html> >>> ___ >>> Sursound mailing list >>> Sursound@music.vt.edu >>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, >>> edit account or options, view archives and so on. >> ___ >> Sursound mailing list >> Sursound@music.vt.edu >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit >> account or options, view archives and so on. > > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit > account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
> Hi Martin, > > HOA are not limited to icosahedra or only uniform arrangements (which > exist also beyond the 5 platonic solids). Details, please. Michael ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
> Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as opposed to > other spatial audio techniques ? I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and will create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software that I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.) I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with Ambisonics, but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them. - martin ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
I have found amplitude panning to be more effective for some applications. On 9 February 2016 at 22:42, Martin Dupras wrote: > > Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as opposed to > > other spatial audio techniques ? > > I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in > mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent > Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a > planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with > some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and will > create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software that > I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.) > > I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with Ambisonics, > but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them. > > - martin > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > edit account or options, view archives and so on. > -- www.augustineleudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/1b5482ff/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
also DBAP On 9 February 2016 at 22:47, Augustine Leudar wrote: > I have found amplitude panning to be more effective for some applications. > > On 9 February 2016 at 22:42, Martin Dupras wrote: > >> > Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as opposed >> to >> > other spatial audio techniques ? >> >> I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in >> mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent >> Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a >> planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with >> some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and will >> create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software that >> I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.) >> >> I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with Ambisonics, >> but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them. >> >> - martin >> ___ >> Sursound mailing list >> Sursound@music.vt.edu >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, >> edit account or options, view archives and so on. >> > > > > -- > www.augustineleudar.com > -- www.augustineleudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/ecd00130/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
Hi Michael, What I had in mind are t-designs, which exist till a very high number of points and they have been used by various researchers in decoder design (and spherical acoustic processing in general). These are perfectly uniform for all practical purposes. And there exist other uniform arrangements on the sphere, mainly distinguished by the method that generates them, such as Fliege grids and Lebedev grids, all used in research for ambisonic-related research. For irregular arrangements, I mentioned already the work of Zotter, Frank etc. from IEM Graz, all published. There is also the work of Epain and rest from Sydney university, with a decoder that has constant energy vector spread, also suitable for irregular setups. And there is also the work of Davide Scaini from Barcelona media and Pompeau Fabra, which targets irregular setups using numerical optimisation on the velocity and energy vectors, and who has also released python code to produce decoders. Regards, Archontis > On 10 Feb 2016, at 00:40, Michael Chapman wrote: > >> Hi Martin, >> >> HOA are not limited to icosahedra or only uniform arrangements (which >> exist also beyond the 5 platonic solids). > > Details, please. > > Michael > > > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit > account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
I have found amplitude planning effective in some circumstances, but I find that it's not portable, e.g. I can't deploy the same to a different speaker arrangement, and I can't scale it down to a smaller array while composing, among other issues. I did funnily enough do some basic experiments with Distance-Based Amplitude Panning with reasonably good results, I just haven't gone much further. I've used it in some site-specific installation work to good effect, but again it didn't strike me as being particularly scalable or portable, hence why Ambisonics is still my first choice. - martin On 9 February 2016 at 22:47, Augustine Leudar wrote: > I have found amplitude panning to be more effective for some applications. > > On 9 February 2016 at 22:42, Martin Dupras wrote: > >> > Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as opposed to >> > other spatial audio techniques ? >> >> I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in >> mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent >> Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a >> planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with >> some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and will >> create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software that >> I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.) >> >> I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with Ambisonics, >> but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them. >> >> - martin >> ___ >> Sursound mailing list >> Sursound@music.vt.edu >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, >> edit account or options, view archives and so on. >> > > > > -- > www.augustineleudar.com > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/1b5482ff/attachment.html> > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit > account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
I understand - most of my stuff is site specific so thus my views. If scalability and portability are important to you - you might also want to check out Dolby and DTS's competing new object based 3D audio software - no idea how easy it is to get your hands on Dolbys - but DTS should be approachable. DTS say their system lets you put in the speaker array map and then the file adjusts to the array - so one file is compatable with multiple arrays., not sure about Dolbys. On 9 February 2016 at 22:59, Martin Dupras wrote: > I have found amplitude planning effective in some circumstances, but I > find that it's not portable, e.g. I can't deploy the same to a > different speaker arrangement, and I can't scale it down to a smaller > array while composing, among other issues. > > I did funnily enough do some basic experiments with Distance-Based > Amplitude Panning with reasonably good results, I just haven't gone > much further. I've used it in some site-specific installation work to > good effect, but again it didn't strike me as being particularly > scalable or portable, hence why Ambisonics is still my first choice. > > - martin > > > On 9 February 2016 at 22:47, Augustine Leudar > wrote: > > I have found amplitude panning to be more effective for some > applications. > > > > On 9 February 2016 at 22:42, Martin Dupras > wrote: > > > >> > Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as > opposed to > >> > other spatial audio techniques ? > >> > >> I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in > >> mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent > >> Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a > >> planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with > >> some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and will > >> create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software that > >> I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.) > >> > >> I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with Ambisonics, > >> but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them. > >> > >> - martin > >> ___ > >> Sursound mailing list > >> Sursound@music.vt.edu > >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > >> edit account or options, view archives and so on. > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > www.augustineleudar.com > > -- next part -- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/1b5482ff/attachment.html > > > > ___ > > Sursound mailing list > > Sursound@music.vt.edu > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > edit account or options, view archives and so on. > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > edit account or options, view archives and so on. > -- www.augustineleudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/71d2682f/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
Ah, but my objection is that those are proprietary systems, and I would much rather not use any. Part of the appeal of Ambisonics for me is that it's freely usable by all and no licensing is necessary. That's actually really very important to me, I'm afraid. I have no issue in principle using commercial software that decodes something that is an open format; I do have issue being locked into a format or protocol that is not in the hands of the public. - martin On 9 February 2016 at 23:04, Augustine Leudar wrote: > I understand - most of my stuff is site specific so thus my views. If > scalability and portability are important to you - you might also want to > check out Dolby and DTS's competing new object based 3D audio software - > no idea how easy it is to get your hands on Dolbys - but DTS should be > approachable. DTS say their system lets you put in the speaker array map > and then the file adjusts to the array - so one file is compatable with > multiple arrays., not sure about Dolbys. > > On 9 February 2016 at 22:59, Martin Dupras wrote: > >> I have found amplitude planning effective in some circumstances, but I >> find that it's not portable, e.g. I can't deploy the same to a >> different speaker arrangement, and I can't scale it down to a smaller >> array while composing, among other issues. >> >> I did funnily enough do some basic experiments with Distance-Based >> Amplitude Panning with reasonably good results, I just haven't gone >> much further. I've used it in some site-specific installation work to >> good effect, but again it didn't strike me as being particularly >> scalable or portable, hence why Ambisonics is still my first choice. >> >> - martin >> >> >> On 9 February 2016 at 22:47, Augustine Leudar >> wrote: >> > I have found amplitude panning to be more effective for some >> applications. >> > >> > On 9 February 2016 at 22:42, Martin Dupras >> wrote: >> > >> >> > Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as >> opposed to >> >> > other spatial audio techniques ? >> >> >> >> I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in >> >> mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent >> >> Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a >> >> planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with >> >> some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and will >> >> create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software that >> >> I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.) >> >> >> >> I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with Ambisonics, >> >> but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them. >> >> >> >> - martin >> >> ___ >> >> Sursound mailing list >> >> Sursound@music.vt.edu >> >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, >> >> edit account or options, view archives and so on. >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > www.augustineleudar.com >> > -- next part -- >> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> > URL: < >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/1b5482ff/attachment.html >> > >> > ___ >> > Sursound mailing list >> > Sursound@music.vt.edu >> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, >> edit account or options, view archives and so on. >> ___ >> Sursound mailing list >> Sursound@music.vt.edu >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, >> edit account or options, view archives and so on. >> > > > > -- > www.augustineleudar.com > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/71d2682f/attachment.html> > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit > account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
Thats fair enough - I think they'd be quite useful if you were making a film soundtrack though ! On 9 February 2016 at 23:07, Martin Dupras wrote: > Ah, but my objection is that those are proprietary systems, and I > would much rather not use any. Part of the appeal of Ambisonics for me > is that it's freely usable by all and no licensing is necessary. > > That's actually really very important to me, I'm afraid. I have no > issue in principle using commercial software that decodes something > that is an open format; I do have issue being locked into a format or > protocol that is not in the hands of the public. > > - martin > > > On 9 February 2016 at 23:04, Augustine Leudar > wrote: > > I understand - most of my stuff is site specific so thus my views. If > > scalability and portability are important to you - you might also want to > > check out Dolby and DTS's competing new object based 3D audio software - > > no idea how easy it is to get your hands on Dolbys - but DTS should be > > approachable. DTS say their system lets you put in the speaker array map > > and then the file adjusts to the array - so one file is compatable with > > multiple arrays., not sure about Dolbys. > > > > On 9 February 2016 at 22:59, Martin Dupras > wrote: > > > >> I have found amplitude planning effective in some circumstances, but I > >> find that it's not portable, e.g. I can't deploy the same to a > >> different speaker arrangement, and I can't scale it down to a smaller > >> array while composing, among other issues. > >> > >> I did funnily enough do some basic experiments with Distance-Based > >> Amplitude Panning with reasonably good results, I just haven't gone > >> much further. I've used it in some site-specific installation work to > >> good effect, but again it didn't strike me as being particularly > >> scalable or portable, hence why Ambisonics is still my first choice. > >> > >> - martin > >> > >> > >> On 9 February 2016 at 22:47, Augustine Leudar < > augustineleu...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > I have found amplitude panning to be more effective for some > >> applications. > >> > > >> > On 9 February 2016 at 22:42, Martin Dupras > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as > >> opposed to > >> >> > other spatial audio techniques ? > >> >> > >> >> I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in > >> >> mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent > >> >> Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a > >> >> planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with > >> >> some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and will > >> >> create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software > that > >> >> I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.) > >> >> > >> >> I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with > Ambisonics, > >> >> but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them. > >> >> > >> >> - martin > >> >> ___ > >> >> Sursound mailing list > >> >> Sursound@music.vt.edu > >> >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe > here, > >> >> edit account or options, view archives and so on. > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > www.augustineleudar.com > >> > -- next part -- > >> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >> > URL: < > >> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/1b5482ff/attachment.html > >> > > >> > ___ > >> > Sursound mailing list > >> > Sursound@music.vt.edu > >> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe > here, > >> edit account or options, view archives and so on. > >> ___ > >> Sursound mailing list > >> Sursound@music.vt.edu > >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > >> edit
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
5, 5, 5, 1 - geodesic but conformed to the likely rectangular room, first set of 5 on ground, first and third set lined up, divide height into fourths & perimeter into fifths, place accordingly...? idk, this is what i'd do On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Augustine Leudar wrote: > Thats fair enough - I think they'd be quite useful if you were making a > film soundtrack though ! > > On 9 February 2016 at 23:07, Martin Dupras wrote: > > > Ah, but my objection is that those are proprietary systems, and I > > would much rather not use any. Part of the appeal of Ambisonics for me > > is that it's freely usable by all and no licensing is necessary. > > > > That's actually really very important to me, I'm afraid. I have no > > issue in principle using commercial software that decodes something > > that is an open format; I do have issue being locked into a format or > > protocol that is not in the hands of the public. > > > > - martin > > > > > > On 9 February 2016 at 23:04, Augustine Leudar > > > wrote: > > > I understand - most of my stuff is site specific so thus my views. If > > > scalability and portability are important to you - you might also want > to > > > check out Dolby and DTS's competing new object based 3D audio > software - > > > no idea how easy it is to get your hands on Dolbys - but DTS should be > > > approachable. DTS say their system lets you put in the speaker array > map > > > and then the file adjusts to the array - so one file is compatable > with > > > multiple arrays., not sure about Dolbys. > > > > > > On 9 February 2016 at 22:59, Martin Dupras > > wrote: > > > > > >> I have found amplitude planning effective in some circumstances, but I > > >> find that it's not portable, e.g. I can't deploy the same to a > > >> different speaker arrangement, and I can't scale it down to a smaller > > >> array while composing, among other issues. > > >> > > >> I did funnily enough do some basic experiments with Distance-Based > > >> Amplitude Panning with reasonably good results, I just haven't gone > > >> much further. I've used it in some site-specific installation work to > > >> good effect, but again it didn't strike me as being particularly > > >> scalable or portable, hence why Ambisonics is still my first choice. > > >> > > >> - martin > > >> > > >> > > >> On 9 February 2016 at 22:47, Augustine Leudar < > > augustineleu...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > I have found amplitude panning to be more effective for some > > >> applications. > > >> > > > >> > On 9 February 2016 at 22:42, Martin Dupras > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> > Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as > > >> opposed to > > >> >> > other spatial audio techniques ? > > >> >> > > >> >> I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in > > >> >> mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent > > >> >> Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a > > >> >> planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with > > >> >> some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and > will > > >> >> create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software > > that > > >> >> I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.) > > >> >> > > >> >> I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with > > Ambisonics, > > >> >> but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them. > > >> >> > > >> >> - martin > > >> >> ___ > > >> >> Sursound mailing list > > >> >> Sursound@music.vt.edu > > >> >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe > > here, > > >> >> edit account or options, view archives and so on. > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > www.augustineleudar.com > > >> > -- next part -- > > >> > An HTML attachment was
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
practical options here are two stacked rings (stacked octagons) or a hemisphere. I would have thought that the hemisphere would be the better choice, and in my scenario, a full lighting rig allows me theoretically speaking to have speakers at the required positions. Again, thank you for all the responses. - martin On 8 February 2016 at 15:19, Martin Dupras wrote: Hi, I'm intending to try setting up a 16-speaker Ambisonics array next week in a small TV studio. I'm trying to figure out the practical arrangements for setting up the speakers. I was wondering if anyone with experience might be able to offer some advice or point me in the right direction? What I'm planning at the moment is a half-sphere arrangement which would likely consist of: - 8 speakers in a circle of radius 2m at a height of approximately 1.6m - 6 speakers in a smaller circle at an elevation of 45 degrees - 2 speakers at an elevation of approximately 75 degrees Alternatively, I would be happy with an arrangement similar to the first 16-speakers in this diagramme: http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loudspeaker-plan-observatory.jpg I've been trying to find out if there is a convention or "most usual" arrangement but couldn't find anything. I'm not particularly attached to the actual arrangement, I just want to find an arrangement that will work well enough with 16 speakers. Any advice? The other thing I would welcome is advice on how to mount the speakers to lighting rigs in a manner that is practical enough to offer some good compromise between precision and ease of setup. I believe the speakers we'll be using for the upper tiers will be Genelec 8060s. Many thanks. Any advice will be greatly appreciated! Cheers, - martin ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. -- www.augustineleudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/6d5ca824/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on practicalities of 16-speaker half-spherical arrangement
On 02/09/2016 03:07 PM, Martin Dupras wrote: Ah, but my objection is that those are proprietary systems, and I would much rather not use any. Part of the appeal of Ambisonics for me is that it's freely usable by all and no licensing is necessary. Yup, same here. That's actually really very important to me, I'm afraid. I have no issue in principle using commercial software that decodes something that is an open format; I do have issue being locked into a format or protocol that is not in the hands of the public. Openness is crucial for me. That plus "portability" as mentioned in the thread. I find it very convenient to not be tied to a particular speaker arrangement when composing or performing, and just decode to whatever is available in concert. Software like ADT makes it possible to design a "reasonable" decoder on the spot if needed. -- Fernando On 9 February 2016 at 23:04, Augustine Leudar wrote: I understand - most of my stuff is site specific so thus my views. If scalability and portability are important to you - you might also want to check out Dolby and DTS's competing new object based 3D audio software - no idea how easy it is to get your hands on Dolbys - but DTS should be approachable. DTS say their system lets you put in the speaker array map and then the file adjusts to the array - so one file is compatable with multiple arrays., not sure about Dolbys. On 9 February 2016 at 22:59, Martin Dupras wrote: I have found amplitude planning effective in some circumstances, but I find that it's not portable, e.g. I can't deploy the same to a different speaker arrangement, and I can't scale it down to a smaller array while composing, among other issues. I did funnily enough do some basic experiments with Distance-Based Amplitude Panning with reasonably good results, I just haven't gone much further. I've used it in some site-specific installation work to good effect, but again it didn't strike me as being particularly scalable or portable, hence why Ambisonics is still my first choice. - martin On 9 February 2016 at 22:47, Augustine Leudar wrote: I have found amplitude panning to be more effective for some applications. On 9 February 2016 at 22:42, Martin Dupras wrote: Out of curiosity - can I ask why you want to use ambisonics as opposed to other spatial audio techniques ? I'm not sure how to answer. What other techniques did you have in mind? The reasons are several: I understand at least to some extent Ambisonics, and I have some (but limited) experience doing it in a planer array; Ambisonics are flexible and scalable; compatible with some B-format that my colleagues and I have realised already and will create in the near future; and can be implemented in the software that I use (largely PureData and SuperCollider.) I don't really see which techniques seriously compete with Ambisonics, but I'll very happily check them out if you point me to them. - martin ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. -- www.augustineleudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: < https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/1b5482ff/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. -- www.augustineleudar.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160209/71d2682f/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
