60 degrees seems excessive head movement for someone seated listening to
speakers..
Why ? It's a natural thing to do if there is any significant sound
from that direction. Why should being listening to speakers make
any difference ? I like to forget I'm listening to speakers.
And *if* I turn my
On 09/07/2011 10:03, ch...@chriswoolf.co.uk wrote:
60 degrees seems excessive head movement for someone seated
listening to
speakers..
Why ? It's a natural thing to do if there is any significant sound
from that direction. Why should being listening to speakers make
any difference ? I like to
[Hello to all - It was good 2 C some of you at ICAD Budapest - and +ve 2 C a
deal of activity in ambisonics for auditory design.]
On 09/07/2011, at 6:40 AM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:06:37PM -0600, Bearcat M. Sandor wrote:
>
>> The ear canal is just a tube, so there's
Fons Adriaensen a écrit :
> And *if* I turn my head, for whatever reason, and the illusion
> collapses, I'm not impressed...
I just tried turning my head while listening to XTC. I can turn it more
than 45 degrees in both directions without destroying the stereo image.
So if turning the head is p
On 09/07/2011 18:07, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Fons Adriaensen a écrit :
And *if* I turn my head, for whatever reason, and the illusion
collapses, I'm not impressed...
I just tried turning my head while listening to XTC. I can turn it more
than 45 degrees in both directions without destroying the
ML: "Maybe it can; is there a way to "up convert" non-ambisonics recordings to
horizontal ambisonics?"
If you down sample a 48kHz recording to 16kHz what happens? All the audio
information above 8kHz is lost right?
If you up convert back to 48kHz can you recover the bandwidth lost? No. You
ju
Neil, I used the wrong words.
Please excuse my "up-converting" nonsense, and let me ask again.
The perceived "directional bandwidth" of stereo recordings is better
than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reproduce.
So, is it possible to adapt a stereo recording to play on a horizon
--On 09 July 2011 14:04 -0400 Marc Lavallée wrote:
So, is it possible to adapt a stereo recording to play on a horizontal
ambisonics system, in order to get a better stereo image than with
conventional stereo? A kind of "restored stereo" experience that
ambisonics can provide because of its dir
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> The perceived "directional bandwidth" of stereo recordings is better
> than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reproduce.
This is again a game of words.
Most stereo recordings are made to be reproduced by two speakers
chment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110709/60383463/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:19:07PM +0100, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
> Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
>>
>>> The perceived "directional bandwidth" of stereo recordings is better
>>> than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reprodu
On 07/09/2011 10:19 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
The perceived "directional bandwidth" of stereo recordings is better
than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reproduce.
This is again a game of
Totally agree 100%.
Personally I would state that I have a totally different experience when
listening to the same recordings via loudspeakers versus headphones.
Headphones rarely give me a "the orchestra/band" is in front of me
presentation (and no it is not a function of cheap or crappy
he
On 09/07/2011 21:38, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:19:07PM +0100, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
The perceived "directional bandwidth" of stereo recordings is better
than what conventional ste
On 07/09/2011 11:13 PM, dw wrote:
Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo
recording for me to play with.
well, this kind of stand-off isn't likely to lead anywhere. "sounds
good" is very hard to define or even test.
i'm not terribly interested in applying xtc to
On 09/07/2011 22:28, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/09/2011 11:13 PM, dw wrote:
Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo
recording for me to play with.
well, this kind of stand-off isn't likely to lead anywhere. "sounds
good" is very hard to define or even test.
On 07/09/2011 11:49 PM, dw wrote:
On 09/07/2011 22:28, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
ps. I am sure M Gerzon knew that ambisonics (low order) has theoretical
sweet spot the size of a pea, but it still sounds good to some people,
His fans are still as self-righteous as ever.
i could imagine way wo
On 09/07/2011 23:10, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/09/2011 11:49 PM, dw wrote:
On 09/07/2011 22:28, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
ps. I am sure M Gerzon knew that ambisonics (low order) has
theoretical
sweet spot the size of a pea, but it still sounds good to some people,
His fans are still as
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 10:13:13PM +0100, dw wrote:
> Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo
> recording for me to play with.
If it's anything I produced myself you'd just say I engineered
it to fail with XTC :-) Which indeed I could easily do...
I've been listeni
Fons Adriaensen a écrit :
> Most stereo recordings are made to be reproduced by two speakers,
> seen by the listener at an angle of 60 to 90 degrees, and such that
> the signals from either speaker reach both ears. That is the way it
> is supposed to work. There is a solid theory behind this. Cal
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 06:58:29PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> I understand your clinical point of view, but I don't consider the act
> of listening to reproduced music as a scientific activity.
Agreed 100%. But the act of analysing and discussing the merits
of technical systems to reproduce so
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/09/2011 11:13 PM, dw wrote:
Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo
recording for me to play with.
well, this kind of stand-off isn't likely to lead anywhere. "sounds
good" is very hard to define or even test.
i'm not terribly
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 10:13:13PM +0100, dw wrote:
Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo
recording for me to play with.
If it's anything I produced myself you'd just say I engineered
it to fail with XTC :-) Which indeed I could
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/09/2011 10:19 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
The perceived "directional bandwidth" of stereo recordings is better
than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reprodu
Fons Adriaensen a écrit :
> As to material produced for conventional speaker playback, some
> of it produces a 'nice' sound, with a clear spatial effect, as
> long as you are not trying to focus your attention on individual
> sources or instruments. Which is something I can't avoid doing
> being
There was a method developed by Finsterle that worked very well
indeed, much better than Trifield(which has always seemed to me
to have a serious "center detent".
Finsterle's method had sound in the rear psychoacoustically
encoded not to sound in the rear but to solidify the front
images.
This w
26 matches
Mail list logo
