On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Aaron Heller wrote:
>> 22 speakers, 3rd-order is 352 parameters so some strategy
>> is needed to guide it.
>
> It wouldn't work for a 3D array of 22 speakers— but for an irregular
> layout with the same nu
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Aaron Heller wrote:
> 22 speakers, 3rd-order is 352 parameters so some strategy
> is needed to guide it.
It wouldn't work for a 3D array of 22 speakers— but for an irregular
layout with the same number of speakers as a regular one (easy in 2D,
fewer choices in 3D
The code that goes with the LAC2012 conference paper does 3D and
higher orders. In fact we used it to make a new 3rd-order Ambdec
config for CCRMA's 22 speaker array. Its written in MATLAB/Gnu
Octave, and it's not a lot of code. So plenty of opportunity for
tinkering with the goal functions.
O
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> Personally what I find a bit worrisome is that this sort of optimization
> retains the blackbox leanings of machine learning as a general discipline.
> None of the ambisonic specific, closed form optimization literature, or the
> derived spec
A 29/02/2012, às 21:24, Fons Adriaensen escreveu:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 08:55:05PM +, Miguel Negrao wrote:
>
>> Would an automated “blind" search algorithm possibly give worse
>> results then just using the equations for the symmetrical case ?
>> I know many people using ambisonics for e
Dang. Have written all that, I should add that though the code works at
higher orders, the player only supports formats up to third order (the game
engine actually goes up to fourth right now). And rather fatally for
Miguel's purposes, the decoder generator doesn't allow the coefficients to
be expo
> Bruce Wiggins's (I hope) research was what started this fray out in the first
>place
Yup. And several others. But the point is that there is a good deal more to
be
done, especially as you point out that:
> this sort of optimization retains the blackbox leanings of machine learning
> as
>a
Hi there - at the risk of performing a plug:
The irregular decoder problem has been a bit of an obsession of mine over
the years. Folk may have played with my ancient and somewhat naïve (but not
awful) "ambidec". (Not to be confused with Fons' excellent software of
course!) I dread to think how ma
On 2012-02-29, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Would an automated “blind" search algorithm possibly
Speaking of that, you probably want to search the list archives for a
thread I started in 2009 titled:
"A stupid optimizer for irregular ambisonic layouts"
In it I provide the source for a simplistic
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Miguel Negrao
wrote:
> Would an automated “blind" search algorithm possibly
Speaking of that, you probably want to search the list archives for a
thread I started in 2009 titled:
"A stupid optimizer for irregular ambisonic layouts"
In it I provide the source for
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 08:55:05PM +, Miguel Negrao wrote:
> Would an automated “blind" search algorithm possibly give worse
> results then just using the equations for the symmetrical case ?
> I know many people using ambisonics for eletroacoustic music and
> I think all of them use the equa
I think the problems of using less-than-perfect decoders are easily
overshadowed in the concert situation by the fact that almost all listeners are
sitting quite outside the sweet spot; precision in imagery just isn't going to
be there.
Using higher orders with sub optimal decoders would yield
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 08:36:45PM +0100, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> On 02/29/2012 08:16 PM, Paul Power wrote:
>> The problem
>> with the 2nd order decoder is that the final gains given do not give
>> negative phase for the diametrically opposed speaker. I have also tried
>> using a
>> regular s
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 07:16:18PM +, Paul Power wrote:
> I am a currently looking into Ambisonic periphonic systems.
> This is my first post so please go easy on me. I am currently using a 16
> speaker rig which includes a cube and an octagon set up. I understand that
> this
> is not a reg
Thanks for all the answers. Since I really looking for a method I could use
more or less blindly, I guess for the moment I will not dive more into it. I
would be interested the tools that Eric mentions when they are released.
Would an automated “blind" search algorithm possibly give worse resul
I second everything that Fons wrote, most especially that "(n)either method can
be used 'blindly', in the sense that you just
throw a set of speaker coordinates at it and get a guaranteed result"
This has been a very difficult problem for us. For regular arrays it's easy to
say that a certain r
On 02/29/2012 08:16 PM, Paul Power wrote:
The problem
with the 2nd order decoder is that the final gains given do not give
negative phase for the diametrically opposed speaker. I have also tried using a
regular shaped speaker set up, but this still does not give me negative phase
in the diametri
...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120229/3675d289/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Ah - I withdraw that about the Wigware decoders as the versions on Bruce's website are probably not
sufficiently flexible for your purposes, though the actual heuristic methodology probably is.
Dave
On 29/02/2012 14:47, Dave Malham wrote:
There's a third method - Bruce Wiggins' Heuristic al
There's a third method - Bruce Wiggins' Heuristic algorithm based methodology
(http://www2.derby.ac.uk/sparg-content/pdfs/bw_aes31_paper.pdf). This is, I believe, available in
his "Wigware" decoder plugins.There is also some work from China on genetic algorithm based design,
but I don't know wha
I think IRCAM Spat is doing that quite well.
I do not know what algorithm lies behind. Maybe Thibaut Carpentier I
sometimes see on this list could tell us something more about that...
Ciao
simonefontana
On 2/29/12 3:28 PM, "Fons Adriaensen" wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 01:15:40PM +, Migue
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 01:15:40PM +, Miguel Negrao wrote:
> I’ve been a bit disconnected from the ambisonics world. From my past reading
> on this list it is my understanding that there isn’t an explicit formula for
> decoding coefficients for non-symmetrical setups. Are there currently
>
Hi list,
I’ve been a bit disconnected from the ambisonics world. From my past reading on
this list it is my understanding that there isn’t an explicit formula for
decoding coefficients for non-symmetrical setups. Are there currently available
tools to generate decoding coefficients for non-symm
.com/soundfield/soundfield.php
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 1970 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments
24 matches
Mail list logo
