Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-06-07 Thread Dave Hunt
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/

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-06-02 Thread Augustine Leudar
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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-06-01 Thread umashankar mantravadi
> 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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-06-01 Thread Augustine Leudar
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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-06-01 Thread etienne deleflie
> > > 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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-06-01 Thread etienne deleflie
> > >> 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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-05-31 Thread Jörn Nettingsmeier
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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-05-31 Thread Peter Lennox
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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-05-31 Thread Peter Lennox
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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-05-31 Thread Dave Malham
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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-05-31 Thread Dave Malham
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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-05-31 Thread Richard Dobson
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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-05-31 Thread Peter Lennox
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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-05-31 Thread Peter Lennox
> 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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-05-31 Thread Dave Malham
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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-05-31 Thread Dave Malham
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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-05-31 Thread Richard Dobson
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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-05-31 Thread Dave Malham
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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-05-31 Thread Dave Malham
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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-05-31 Thread Richard Dobson
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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-05-31 Thread Bo-Erik Sandholm
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

Re: [Sursound] Catching the same fly twice (and a curious question)

2012-05-30 Thread etienne deleflie
> > 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