If anyone cares, the proof is not too hard. Clearly one cannot have faces
that have more sides than five, because there no room angularly: three
regular hexagons at a point already fill up 360 degrees and seven or more
fill up more than 360, which is impossible(note that the solid has to be
co
Regarding 'even' distribution of points on a sphere
Most of the spherical microphone arrays use the Fliege points
http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/jf1w07/nodes/nodes.html
For numerical integration on the sphere (both for ambisonic decoder
optimization and mic array simulation), I use Lebedev-La
Robert Greene wrote :
>
...
> If you need more points, then
> there is no "canonical" choice(and no one is going to "discover"
> any more Platonic solids--there aren't any more!).
...
Sorry to start that one ... it was basically a joke (I say basically as
like perpetual motion machines I had the
Decades ago, I was working on a project to find the best
way to equidistribute a large number of points on a sphere.
We were looking for "random unit vectors".
(This had to do with choosing "random" orientations for a pot
containing a seed to see if the seed would sprout and grow
without benefi
Augustine Leudar wrote:
Im all ears (pun not intended)
Hehe, me too. :-)
Practical things and theory possibly don't meet here. Anyway, I am confused.
Possibly I should have started a topic with a different name and not
stir this
thread.
Having built several installations and demos myself I
Hi Dave,
Interesting - but we cannot comfortably tilt our heads on the side of our
neck so that the horizontal plane becomes exactly equivelant vertical plane
so even with these head movements I localisation directly above would be
less accurate other directions (I assume - I would like to see some
This is actually a good point, also against mixed order approaches (at
least if you can afford the number of speakers...).
On 7/11/13 1:40 PM, Dave Malham wrote:
Hi Augustine,
Whilst it is generally said that that our angular acuity is better
on the horizontal plane, this way of expressing
> Hi Eero,
> Al revers amigo. I dont know how it works with ambisonics and soundfield
> reconstruction but basically generally speaking your ears cant tell the
> difference if a speaker directly overhead is half a metre this way or the
> other - in effect your ears have lower resolution straight ab
Hi Augustine,
Whilst it is generally said that that our angular acuity is better
on the horizontal plane, this way of expressing things is, frankly, a
snare and a delusion since it only applies when the head is upright.
Unless your listeners are restrained using something like the infamous
Green
Hi Eero,
Al revers amigo. I dont know how it works with ambisonics and soundfield
reconstruction but basically generally speaking your ears cant tell the
difference if a speaker directly overhead is half a metre this way or the
other - in effect your ears have lower resolution straight above so ext
I must confess that I don't know much about what you are discussing
about, but I think I read in one of the posts (that I already have deleted)
that "there is no need to place a lot of speakers directly above, as our
localization is at it's worst in that direction".
However, I have always thought
Thank you for all suggestions!
I am also aware of t-design [1] for even distribution.
Does somebody have practical experience with those, except for virtual
loudspeaker arrangements?
Fons' 1+6+8+6+1 seems to be a good and easy to mount start.
Do you see a problem in increasing the number of s
For small areas, or central listeners, I do think there is a good
argument for not over egging the pudding with too many speakers for
low order material. But I am not at all convinced, based on
experience, that this is true when dealing off centre listeners in a
large area such as a concert since i
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:58:04PM -0600, Martin Leese wrote:
> Note that with only three rings, you are limited
> to second-order height. This may or may not
> be a problem. 24 speakers is almost 5
> squared, so fourth-order full-sphere could be
> attempted.
1 + 6 + 8 + 6 + 1 works very well
"Michael Chapman" wrote:
> Martin Leese wrote:
>> In general, for Ambisonics, you should
>> distribute the speakers as evenly as possible.
>> Aim for the faces of a platonic solid; visit:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid
>
> Problem is ... despite many claims to be on the verge o
You can check evenness oft he sampling of the sphere by checking the
condition number of the spherical harmonics matrix.
So create the SH matrix with some educated guess layout, define the
corresponding SH order and see what happened to cond(Y). From there you can
start designing.
If there are
> Matthias Kronlachner wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I am currently working on a 24-loudspeaker installation in an old
>> observatory of Vilnius University.
>> Maybe someone has suggestions on how to distribute those 24
>> loudspeakers.
> ...
> In general, for Ambisonics, you should
> distribute the
Matthias Kronlachner wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I am currently working on a 24-loudspeaker installation in an old
> observatory of Vilnius University.
> Maybe someone has suggestions on how to distribute those 24 loudspeakers.
...
> The installation is intended to be used for experimentation and small
Looks great - all I would say is you dont need too many speakers directly
above the head as our localisation is poor there anyway.
On 9 July 2013 15:28, Matthias Kronlachner
wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I am currently working on a 24-loudspeaker installation in an old
> observatory of Vilnius Universit
19 matches
Mail list logo
