ing deemed superfluous is weeded out, creating a sort of
hyper-reality.
Ciao,
Dave Hunt
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:37:14 +0200
From: J?rn Nettingsmeier
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious
question)
On 05/31/2012 11:38 AM, Richard Dobson wrote:
On 31/
Interesting - must be an aspect of the cocktail effect ...
On 2 June 2012 04:13, umashankar mantravadi wrote:
>
> as a location sound mixer, i exploited the visual reinforcement of sound
> in many situations. if you are recording half a dozen people speaking, and
> the camera focus on one - prov
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)
>
> I once had a piece played atspatial audio concert and some people came to
> visit. Afterwards one guy came up to me and said - the sound was right
> there - right there in front of my face ! Was it am
I once had a piece played atspatial audio concert and some people came to
visit. Afterwards one guy came up to me and said - the sound was right
there - right there in front of my face ! Was it ambionics ? Im pretty sure
he just heard what he expected or hoped to hear - simply because he
thought
>
>
> The only reason it seems to me that the "hypothesis" has any meaning is
> that (one presumes) the environment being represented is one that is
> captivating but variously impossible, inaccessible or unaffordable; in
> which case neither the condition nor the assertion is testable. Chances
> a
>
>
>> Here, to any extent, I depart from Gibson. With sufficiently advanced
> technology there comes a point at which the effort required to suspend
> disbelief is so small as to be negligible. I was reading a report on a
> paper a few months ago (I think in New Scientist) where the authors wer
On 05/31/2012 11:38 AM, Richard Dobson wrote:
On 31/05/2012 10:03, Dave Malham wrote:
..
Here, to any extent, I depart from Gibson. With sufficiently advanced
technology there comes a point at which the effort required to suspend
disbelief is so small as to be negligible. I was reading a report
y 2012 13:31
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)
On 31/05/2012 12:45, Peter Lennox wrote:
>
>
sensation, inevitably a poor
> copy of reality. Whilst philosophers are entirely comfortable with
> such thought e
2012 13:46
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)
On 31 May 2012 12:52, Peter Lennox wrote:
> Actually, there is something here, though I do wonder if it is pathological.
> I've met people who told me that such-and-s
On 31 May 2012 12:52, Peter Lennox wrote:
> Actually, there is something here, though I do wonder if it is pathological.
> I've met people who told me that such-and-such a driving game was
> fantastically realistic. I found it stilted, leaden and profoundly
> unrealistic. I've even met people w
On 31 May 2012 12:45, Peter Lennox wrote:
>
>
>
> This is The Matrix, anything written by Philip K Dick, and before that, Plato
> in his Cave metaphor.
>
> It is essentially unprovable:
>
Aren't we having fun here? Of course, in one (very important) sense,
nothing other than a logical statement
On 31/05/2012 12:45, Peter Lennox wrote:
sensation, inevitably a poor
copy of reality. Whilst philosophers are entirely comfortable with
such thought experiments, there is no obvious pragmatic way to
investigate such speculations. By definition, if an artificial
environment is detectable as
edu] On
Behalf Of Dave Malham
Sent: 31 May 2012 11:19
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)
As I understand itt the researchers were saying was that this was not really
the case, however, as
I'm not a psychologis
> Dave said:
"Here, to any extent, I depart from Gibson. With sufficiently advanced
technology there comes a point at which the effort required to suspend
disbelief is so small as to be negligible. I was reading a report on a paper a
few months ago (I think in New Scientist) where the author
Just come across this, which is interesting in context
http://www8.informatik.umu.se/~jwworth/4_01RIVA.pdf
--
These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
/*/
/* Dave Malham http://music.york.ac.uk/staf
As I understand itt the researchers were saying was that this was not really the case, however, as
I'm not a psychologist, I may well be wrong. For me, the point was that nobody (except perhaps those
with some pre-existing mental problem) would have had this problem when playing Dungeon via a
te
On 31/05/2012 10:03, Dave Malham wrote:
..
Here, to any extent, I depart from Gibson. With sufficiently advanced
technology there comes a point at which the effort required to suspend
disbelief is so small as to be negligible. I was reading a report on a
paper a few months ago (I think in New Sci
On 30/05/2012 21:49, Eric Carmichel wrote:
So how good is Ambisonics in reproducing the original auditory 'scene'? If the
reconstructed wavefield is close to the original, then what happens when you
record the Ambisonics system itself? Will the playback of this recording yield
the same spati
On 31/05/2012 01:27, etienne deleflie wrote:
Although I don’t ascribe to a single 'school' of psychology, I do buy into
James Gibson's idea that man (and animals) and their environments are
inseparable (this is at the heart of Ecological Psychology).
I think (or at least hope) that James Gibs
On 31/05/2012 01:27, etienne deleflie wrote:
..
perception. I wonder if perhaps direction is *not* that important to
spatial audio. Ofcourse, it is a part, but is it central? This view leads
to the questioning of the value of higher order ambisonics.
I don't think people are actually allowed
to build a
anechoic room :-)
- Bo-Erik
-Original Message-
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On
Behalf Of etienne deleflie
Sent: den 31 maj 2012 02:28
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a
>
> Although I don’t ascribe to a single 'school' of psychology, I do buy into
> James Gibson's idea that man (and animals) and their environments are
> inseparable (this is at the heart of Ecological Psychology).
I think (or at least hope) that James Gibson's ideas are slowly making
their way in
22 matches
Mail list logo