Jörn Nettingsmeier a écrit :
> have you seen jerome daniel's "experimenter's corner"?
I tried to read the beginning of his doctoral thesis; because it's in
French, I though it would be easier to understand than the vast
majority of papers in English, but I was wrong because the common
language
On 07/10/2011 11:10 AM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
> To clarify a few basic things:
>
> The first poster in this thread (and obviously some other people who
> maybe should have known better) are claiming that you could receive a
> 360º representation via just two (supposedly narrow) front speakers.
You can read the propaganda from Mangler
about the "required" rise time of an amplifier:
http://www.manger-audio.co.uk/products.htm
Robert Greene a écrit :
> No speaker requires a "fast" amplifier,
> whatever that means. ALL amplifiers that
> are not defective are far faster in any reasonable
No speaker requires a "fast" amplifier,
whatever that means. ALL amplifiers that
are not defective are far faster in any reasonable
sense than any speaker is. Some amps
have a tiny roll off of the extreme top
on account of output networks or the like.
But really this is a nonissue for any serious
Stefan Schreiber a écrit :
> Hello Marc...
>
> I don't get access to the (dropbox) file.
>
> >
> > Error (404)
> >
> > We can't find the page you're looking for.
It's not my DropBox, it's David's.
He probably removed the file. I get the same error.
His last message was :
"I have deleted my
Hello Marc...
I don't get access to the (dropbox) file.
Error (404)
We can't find the page you're looking for.
Is this because I am not based in the USA?
Best,
Stefan
Marc Lavallée wrote:
dw a écrit :
On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
If you can't reproduce
Ralph Glasgal wrote:
Thanks Stefan. The very bottom remarks are really about previous posts.
In theory it is possible to do full periphonic sound via two somethings (maybe
not looudspeakers as we know them). Choueiri believes he can come close to
this by using laser-like loudspeakers, preci
scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110710/045f7811/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
On 07/10/2011 12:59 PM, umashankar mantravadi wrote:
just a thought (please shoot me down if i am talking air). all the
microphones we currently use (except for some cell phone microphones,
according to the patents) are first order microphones the patterns
just a combination of omni and figure o
On 07/10/2011 06:14 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeier a écrit :
and don't mind around 10% THD in the low frequencies (which is not as
bad as it sounds, but also not as good as manger make it sound),
oops, this is bogus. THD means "total harmonic distortion", so it makes
no sense to
This one is vaguely in-head rather than down, and also well-out-of head.
I am doing these with the my public domain 'stereo' filter, which is not
ideal for this. I have deleted my stuff as I am turning my back on audio
for another decade after I tidy up some loose ends.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/
On 10/07/2011 19:36, Marc Lavallée wrote:
dw a écrit :
On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
If you can't reproduce full horizontal 360º surround via two front
speakers, then the "binaural via two loudspeakers" approach doesn't
work, and there is no solution to reproduce "3D sound" in
dw a écrit :
> On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
> >
> >
> > If you can't reproduce full horizontal 360º surround via two front
> > speakers, then the "binaural via two loudspeakers" approach doesn't
> > work, and there is no solution to reproduce "3D sound" in this way.
> > (Your c
On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
If you can't reproduce full horizontal 360º surround via two front
speakers, then the "binaural via two loudspeakers" approach doesn't
work, and there is no solution to reproduce "3D sound" in this way.
(Your colleague Choueiri claims this on the
,
Stefan
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110710/90a6b180/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
Stefan Schreiber a écrit :
> Now come on, a square wave is not about music!
Iannis Xenakis would not agree with you...
--
Marc
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
is about electronics. Full stop.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110710/288b5990/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Su
--
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110710/65aef2ea/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Stefan Schreiber a écrit :
> I don't want to annoy anybody or you, but don't explain acoustics via
> square waves...
I think that square waves is a good choice because of the amount of
resolution required, and because of their harmonic distribution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6crWlxKB_E
ht
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 05:44:50PM +0100, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
> As a violinist, my choice would be the sawtooth wave, just for
> demonstrational purposes.
Which has the same problems (infinite bandwidth etc.)
But yes, as a violinist it would probably hurt your
ears less...
Ciao,
--
FA
_
ect about this. ;-)
I don't want to annoy anybody or you, but don't explain acoustics via
square waves...
Best,
Stefan
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110710/6c9
next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110710/286b6ae2/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailm
Robert Greene a écrit :
> Is this the one you mean(the "strange article")?
>
> http://www.regonaudio.com/SphericalHarmonics.pdf
Yes! :)
> I wrote it myself!
> I surely did not mean for it to be strange at all.
> But the idea is intrinsically a bit complicated.
> What one is really doing is dev
Jörn Nettingsmeier a écrit :
> On 07/10/2011 03:41 AM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> > I'm waiting for a pair of
> > very directional speakers that should (hopefully) help me enjoy
> > conventional stereo.
>
> then the manger might be for you:
> http://manger-msw.de/index.php?language=en
>
> this is a
Is this the one you mean(the "strange article")?
http://www.regonaudio.com/SphericalHarmonics.pdf
I wrote it myself!
I surely did not mean for it to be strange at all.
But the idea is intrinsically a bit complicated.
What one is really doing is developing ad hoc
eigenfunctions of the Laplacian
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 04:29:46PM +0530, umashankar mantravadi wrote:
>
> just a thought (please shoot me down if i am talking air). all the
> microphones we currently use (except for some cell phone microphones,
> according to the patents) are first order microphones the patterns just a
> com
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:49:49AM +0100, dw wrote:
> You snipped the context.
>
> "i don't think that's possible. imagine two similar instruments, one at
> 0° and the other at 180°. once recorded in mono, they will be fused
> together irrevocably. you won't be able to separate them with the h
se some of the problems we have at
> LF with e.g. the eigenmike. But it requires 64 channels...
>
> Ciao,
>
> --
> FA
>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailma
On 10/07/2011 11:02, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:10:49AM +0100, dw wrote:
Any microphone capable of separating two sound sources MUST be large in
terms of wavelengths (similar to the diffraction limit for telescopes)
The soundfield microphone cannot separate two or more
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:10:49AM +0100, dw wrote:
> Any microphone capable of separating two sound sources MUST be large in
> terms of wavelengths (similar to the diffraction limit for telescopes)
> The soundfield microphone cannot separate two or more sound sources at
> _any_ frequency for
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 08:26:03AM -, Michael Chapman wrote:
> "Fons Adriaensen" wrote
> on Sat, July 9, 2011 at 10:55 pm
>
> >> ppps How are higher-order microphones coming aloing these days, or are
> >> we still happy truncating the infinite series at one order above an
> >> omni?
> >
> > T
On 10/07/2011 09:00, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/10/2011 12:32 AM, dw wrote:
I was thinking more of recording in mono, computing the vectors in
various bands from the output of some large microphone array and then
encoding (the mono sound) into the required number of spherical
harmonics.
i
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:41:04PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> If you could help me understand spherical harmonics, I'd be a "MAG
> fanboy" in no time. The best didactic resource I found is a very
> strange article titled "Notes on Basic Ideas of Spherical Harmonics".
> It's so good that I bare
On 07/10/2011 03:41 AM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
I'm waiting for a pair of
very directional speakers that should (hopefully) help me enjoy
conventional stereo.
then the manger might be for you: http://manger-msw.de/index.php?language=en
this is a speaker that has been optimized for very good impul
"Fons Adriaensen" wrote
on Sat, July 9, 2011 at 10:55 pm
>> ppps How are higher-order microphones coming aloing these days, or are
>> we still happy truncating the infinite series at one order above an
>> omni?
>
> There are none ATM that can produce full frequency range higher order,
> and I dou
On 07/10/2011 12:32 AM, dw wrote:
I was thinking more of recording in mono, computing the vectors in
various bands from the output of some large microphone array and then
encoding (the mono sound) into the required number of spherical
harmonics.
i don't think that's possible. imagine two simila
Rober Greene wrote:
> There was a method developed by Finsterle
Tell us more about it. Is the method described elsewhere? Is it embodied in a
device, or software? Who is Finsterle?
Eric
- Original Message
From: Robert Greene
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Sent: Sat, July 9
37 matches
Mail list logo
