On 20/07/2011 01:07, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Dave Malham wrote:
Surround is not just about Ambisonics and maybe WFS, yet again.
True - but they are ones that work and are well established.
Dave
Ambisonics and WFS are well-established?! Depends on your view on this...
In the sens
Hi,
The next thing that you heard with CC3D was another psychoacoustic
phenomenon that we kind of discovered last year about what sounds do
when they come closer versus moving farther away. And we found
that we
were able to simulate something that normally can?t be done with
traditional surro
On 20/07/2011 09:53, Dave Malham wrote:
...
Sorry, but their blurb reads like snake oil sales talk so I called it
that. It wasn't a comment on the system - since I haven't heard it and
have no technical information to go on, I couldn't do so. It would, of
course, not be unknown for companies who
Hi all,
I think that one of the problems with all these discussions is that we
tend to think of the distance of an audio object as being the exactly the
same sort of thing as the coordinates of the object w.r.t. the listener -
but it's not because, unlike direction, we humans can't determine
Thanks for your (thoughtful) answer.
IMO it is not very efficient to (en)code 3D audio in maybe 32 audio
tracks (including some metadata, tracks maybe in 96Hz), or to
transmit/store even more "audio objects".
Therefore, they should consider or include Ambisonics (up to 3rd or 4th
order) into
Dave Hunt wrote:
It is true that 1st order ambisonics doesn't consider distance, with
all sources being reproduced at the distance of the speakers,
although Gerzon did consider distance panning. A Soundfield mic
recording contains distance information. If attempting spatial
synthesis, t
Hi,
Date: 20 Jul 2011 11:36:10 +0100
From: dave.mal...@york.ac.uk
Hi all,
I think that one of the problems with all these discussions is
that we
tend to think of the distance of an audio object as being the
exactly the
same sort of thing as the coordinates of the object w.r.t. the
list
Here is the truth!
I have spent a LOT of time at live musical events(when
the music was not too interesting , while I waited
for what I came to hear or just sat through if I had
gone for some social reason only) listening with my eyes closed
to whether one could hear the distance of things.
My a
PS FIrst line refers to Dave's message not mine
Also some words got left out--
later on in the opening of the second paragraph it
is supposed to say that one cannot expect to hear
any kind of exact distance except
if things are very near by
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Robert Greene wrote:
Here is t
> It is true that 1st order ambisonics doesn't consider distance, with all
sources being reproduced at the distance of the speakers,
.
> synthesis, the ambisonic encoding equations do not include distance,
Both of these are untrue.
For the second, see the Appendix of BLaH3 "Is my decoder Amb
On 07/20/2011 03:49 AM, Richard Dobson wrote:
>So - noisy pterodactyls and dragons are mixing it with the brass section. How
>weird
> is that likely to sound? Especially if the music track itself has been
> recorded in surround the way so many people enthuse about here"?
>
Dragons in the Brass se
On Jul 20 2011, Dave Hunt wrote:
Hi,
Date: 20 Jul 2011 11:36:10 +0100
From: dave.mal...@york.ac.uk
Hi all,
I think that one of the problems with all these discussions is
that we
tend to think of the distance of an audio object as being the
exactly the
same sort of thing as the coordina
On Jul 21 2011, "Bearcat M. Şandor" wrote:
On 07/20/2011 03:49 AM, Richard Dobson wrote:
So - noisy pterodactyls and dragons are mixing it with the brass
section. How weird is that likely to sound? Especially if the music
track itself has been recorded in surround the way so many people
enthu
13 matches
Mail list logo
