--- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20161102/cb27283f/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.e
Michael Chapman wrote:
Sebastià V. Amengual wrote:
That was one of the main cons. With the four distances that I used in my
measurements (10.44mm, 23.49mm, 48.34mm, 98.35mm)
if we wanted to cover the whole frequency range, we needed at least 3
microphones with different spacing, and then
>> Sebastià V. Amengual wrote:
>
> That was one of the main cons. With the four distances that I used in my
> measurements (10.44mm, 23.49mm, 48.34mm, 98.35mm)
> if we wanted to cover the whole frequency range, we needed at least 3
> microphones with different spacing, and then the
> signals could
No idea what this “this sender failed our fraud detection….” Thing is about?
jon
On 02/11/2016, 10:32, "Sursound on behalf of Jon Honeyball"
wrote:
This sender failed our fraud detection checks and may not be who they
appear to be. Learn about spoofing at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSpoofing
Fosterandpertners.com ?
For extra-pert audio solutions? ☺
jon
On 01/11/2016, 15:20, "Sursound on behalf of Philip Robinson"
wrote:
Dear group,
A position for an auralization specialist is coming available in my
research group. In addition to developing new auralization system
A 01.11.2016 21:58, Stefan Schreiber escrigué:
Sebastià V. Amengual wrote:
I could be wrong, but as I understand, as far as the distance between
the microphones is much smaller than
the wavelength, it is possible to obtain first-order microphones with
any kind of directional pattern. Thus,
at
>
>>
One of the presenters on the BBC's World Service's technology programme
"Click" just came out with words to the effect 'It's not 360 degrees, it's
four pi steradians' during a discussionof a (not) 360 degree video of the
construction of London's Crossrail.
Daring departure from dumbing down
