Peter:
Thanks. As you know, the "problem" with history is that it tends to DIE
with the people who make it . . .
Paul Klipsch, Saul Marantz, Mike Kay (along with many who first discussed
this on the Ampex list) -- plus Alan Blumlein, Michael Gerzon etc -- just
aren't available for inter
Eero:
Yes, history is fascinating. I researched this a while back (yes, which
was also why I joined this group) and can add some to your description . . .
!!
The 1930s Bell Labs "Auditory Perspective" research actually concluded that
the "minimum" required THREE speakers (for an audience
Folks:
And their follow-on album (which is when most people first heard them),
"Trinity Sessions," was (at least partly, like, "Whites Off Earth") also
recorded with a Soundfield microphone -- clearly a favorite of Peter Moore.
The opening track "Mining for Gold" still makes my hair stand-
Robert:
You (and others) speak of "science" as if it was one "thing" -- which
clearly it is not.
The history of science is filled with discussions of this matter and it
would be presumptuous to summarize them except to say that mathematics does
not equal science -- either as a philosophic
Eric:
When I first started experimenting with "localized" sound -- intended for
an acoustic interface to smart phones (and also before I "met" Ambisonics)
-- I was working with a fellow named Bo Gehring, who might be recalled for
his early contributions to video-game sonics.
He had once w
Eric:
(Side: Why am I the only person in the mountains with a mic? Normal people
have cameras.)
It's great that you're looking into McLuhan, there's a lot to ponder there!
He treats questions like yours in terms of technology "biases" (in sensory
terms), the differences between what the
Folks:
Indeed. Surround sound moved from the movie theater to the home theater
to the only thing that now keeps television alive as a medium (in the
digital age) -- FOOTBALL!!
As someone who grew up in Wisconsin and, through a friend who was the son
of the Green Bay team physician, sat o
Fons:
> I wonder what the function of the Ambiophone part of this system is.
For HSD 3D, the L/R speakers are indeed 8-degrees apart and operate
through X-talk cancellation to produce the FRONTAL component.
> If it works in the way its invertors claim it works (that is by
> crosstalk canc
Ricardo:
> Mark, please don't ignore my question about HSD 3D systems.
Sorry -- when I finished my "conversation" with Mr. Greene, I moved on to
other matters.
HSD 3D is Robin Miller's system, which expands on Ambiophonics (which lends
itself to synthesized "ambience") by adding surround
Robert:
> Who would have predicted in 1975 the current state of things?
Many did exactly that. In particular, the reality of technology
increasing the productivity of manufacturing such that labor-arbitrage would
come to
dominate global trade and that the "post-industrial" economies woul
Folks:
ALL reproduced music is a "special effect" -- if you wish to hear a
performance, as it was actually played, go to the performance.
MONO is a special effect.
STEREO is a special effect.
SURROUND is a special effect.
MP3 is a special effect.
None of them is a live performance.
Ronald:
> Wrong. They would want it, if they ever heard it.
Sorry. I've heard surround and it's just not good enough to matter -- for
MUSIC.
I've heard "Dark Side" and I've heard "Kind of Blue" . . . and most of the
rest of the SACD and DVD-A releases. Some are fabulous, some are not b
Folks:
Q: WHY would the average *music* listener want surround sound?
A: They won't and, since this has already been tried (including with some
of the best known artists of all times), no one in the MUSIC business will
*ever* try it again.
Case closed.
MOVIE-watchers wanted surround
Stefan/Robert/et al:
> Right on! Apple clearly wants to take over the world.
Not quite. Apple is in fact very pleased to be a *minority* market-share
holder -- as it is in everything except iTunes and iPads (for the moment)
-- just as long as it gets UNNATURAL margins from its products.
Peter:
> So, if that's right, stereo is predicated on quite a specialized musical
presentation.
Correct! This is the "presentation" that comes along with "perspective"
in Renaissance painting and the "linearity" of printed books, etc.
It is a product, if you will, of the Gutenberg Galaxy
Ronald:
> Whiz-bang demos won't make any difference, but
> adoption by Apple's iTunes Store, or something like
> that would make a difference.
Very interesting! Does iTunes currently support multi-channel audio
(other than on purchased movies)?
As best I can tell, they do not. Why would
Ronald:
> I tend to disagree, because there is a difference between technology and
content.
Ah but we AGREE! Sorry to be (partly) cliched here but consider the
*full* statement -- "the medium is the message . . . and the USER is the
content"!
That second part is almost always left off -
Robert:
> This sounds plausible except that it is clearly completely
> wrong. Hunger Games has grossed about one quarter billion
> dollars in a few weeks worldwide. Don't talk about small
> taking over!
But it has -- in the way that the NEW always "takes over" from the OLD by
*displacing* it
Richard:
> So, what ~is~ the point of this list, exactly?
To discuss the opportunity to PLAY with *sound* with our friends in a
DIGITAL world!
Mass-markets (i.e. "programming" large numbers of people who you will
never know) come from a different era -- the "electric" media era *before*
Robert:
> But I think that using this sort of thing as a way
> to persuade people they ought to have 16 channels
> of playback or something is wrong headed.
Of course it is but how about THREE?
Remember that the most obvious home-playback application of Michael
Gerson's mathematical work
Etienne:
> the eroticism of virtual reality ...
Good point! And now we shift from the "engineering" explanations to the
"social" and more "theoretical" ones.
Here, I would recommend a careful consideration of Marshall McLuhan.
His 1962 The Gutenberg Galaxy summarizes his views of how W
Robert:
> Music of the ordinary sort is in front . . .
Yes it is! Which is why Ambisonics makes *no* sense for the FRONT in a
musical reproduction system.
However, it still makes great sense for the REST -- the sides, back and
UP-AND-DOWN "ambience" for listening to music.
This is why
Robert:
> I think there were a number of reasons . . .
Very well said!!
As some on the list know, so I should report back on my efforts, I tried to
interest some senior people at Sony (and elsewhere) in considering a
version of Ambisonics for the "surround" component of 3D VIDEO -- includ
Eric:
As others have mentioned, a hexagon often does a better job of reproducing
the 2D "ambience," as I discovered when I started experimenting with
Ambisonics at sports-car races.
If you really want to be "surrounded" you can even get to a compelling
experience of 3D with a Tetramic --
Dave:
Sure but, as you know, acoustic analysis has long worked in the 40-50 dB
SNR territory, whereas for "audio" (i.e. playback of recorded performances)
we have gotten used to 80-100 dB -- two very different domains.
Mark Stahlman
Brooklyn NY
In a message dated 9/1/2011 6:20:35 A.M. E
Folks:
This is an INSTRUMENTATION invention -- not and AUDIO technique -- so S/N
is not the driving issue.
"Sound capture and analysis" and "compute acoustical intensity" means this
is the domain of Bruel and Kjaer, not DPA Microphones.
Mark Stahlman
Brooklyn NY
In a message dated 9/1
Folks:
Yes, the 3D3A approach is based on BACCH filters, not the RACE filters used
in Ambiophonics.
No HEIGHT -- No THREE-Dimensions!!
To achieve actual 3D audio performance reproduction -- which is *stunning*
for those who haven't heard it -- you need to "combine" Ambisonics and
Amb
Folks:
Nothing new -- apart from the fact that it might actually wind up in
people's living-rooms!
This system was originally announced in April 2010 and is presumably the
basis of SRS's efforts at the 3DAA (3D Audio Alliance).
_http://www.3daa.org/documents/3DAA-TechnicalRoadmap.pdf_
(h
Stefan:
These guys won't have anything for the public for another YEAR+ . . . so
any thought of a substantial announcement at CES 2011 was based on
"misinformation."
This is a standards group that is still figuring out who is going to PAY to
PLAY.
Which brings us back to the key questio
Jorn:
My question about how it SOUNDS wasn't merely rhetorical.
Presumably, the 3D/AA has embraced "object-oriented audio" in order to a)
abstract from speaker layouts b) reduce number of audio "channels" to 6 or 8
(i.e. fit into 5.1/7.1 distribution media like Blu-ray) and c) to make
pro
Stefan:
> Was that easy enough? :-)
Sure but how does it SOUND??
Who's the DECIDER in all this?
The STUDIOS (i.e. Sony Pictures decides)?
Or, the HTReceiver guys (i.e. Onkyo decides)?
Maybe the Cable guys (i.e Comcast decides)?
Who did I leave out?
Mark Stahlman
Brooklyn
Folks:
This is one of the "standard" approaches to technical standards nowadays.
Get everyone interested to step up and pay-to-pay, divide up the issues,
hire a professional association manager (i.e. Florencia Dazzi is with Assoc.
Mgmt. Solutions.), etc . . . and give away the specificat
Folks:
"Michael was keen to explore the possibilities of multi-channel recording.
In particular, he wanted to record faithfully the ambience of the live
performance, by capturing the sound arriving from all directions (including
from above and below) at the listener. This would help to over
33 matches
Mail list logo
