**_
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound>
>
--
http://etiennedeleflie.net
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120331/b51f6266/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
gosh!
this is like the mid-90s, when I first joined the list, and the topic "why
hasn't ambisonics taken off?" cropped up every few days, sometimes a week.
It's always hard to prove why something doesn't happen - and thus, as a basis
for a dissertation, I would be very wary of advising the diss
Hi
I wasn't going to post this on the list, I actually did sent it to Cara
directly.
But as the thread took off, here it is. Let's mourn together.
I warmly agree with Mark Stahlman about the fact that one point recording -
two speaker reproduction is a very European and especially British-Germ
an/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound>
--
http://etiennedeleflie.net
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120331/b51f6266/attachment.html>
On 31/03/2012 11:30, Eero Aro wrote:
Hi
..
- The developers didn't have a marketing background. The NRDC tried to
market the consept on a license basis, but as far as I know, didn't
spend too
much energy on the thing. The business was moved over to BTG after that,
which didn't get much more so
Richard Dobson wrote:
My own assumption when first discovering Ambsonics (public concert by
electric Phoenix, and later via CDP, from the late 80s) was that it was
purposed towards use in public diffusion
Rob Alexander describes the beginnings of Ambisonics in Gerzon's biography:
http://www.mi
One of the things that is emerging here is(dare I say so)
that Ambisonics for music at home is just not such a good idea.
Attractive though it is mathematically--and it is very much that--
it is really impractical for home music.
Perhaps it is worthwhile to think for a moment about why.
My view:
Robert - You are certainly correct in that the general public has never heard
of
Ambisonics. But then they haven't heard the names of many of the technologies
that fuel the entertainment devices that they purchase, either.
> Is there really any commercially available Ambisonic material?
Abo
The conference is now in the past and the Grand Vizier has nearly recovered
from
his hangover. Can any of the attendees describe the highlights? And where are
the papers?
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailm
I think it is useful to cover all the reasons why Ambisonics didn't
'take off' in the past and there is plenty of material here to cover that.
The interesting question is where it goes from here
I am halfway through my MA in Creative Music Practice and my original
research question was "What a
Robert Greene wrote:
it is really too bad that the one place
where Ambisonics could help out in commonplace
daily life--namely, in how to mix stereo to three
(or more) frontal channels, that there is not a cheap
easy simple standalone unit to do just that.
Oh yes, there is and has been for a l
On 03/31/2012 04:35 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
The revival of the past ten years or so is largely the result of
higher order becoming possible in practice, along with an interest
from telecom companies rather than music producers.
I am curious about
In addition to everything else that has been stated in this thread already, I
also believe we can think of consumer media technology as following two
diverging strands, in particular from the 80s onwards. One is the high fidelity
approach. High quality stereo reproduction systems, quadraphonic,
lman/listinfo/sursound
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120331/ef2bd671/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Hi,
This thread brings up several things that have been discussed
previously, and others have given good answers that cover why
ambisonics has failed to enter the mainstream.
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:23:04 +0100
From: Peter Lennox
I don't even think it has failed - it just took off in a
distinction between 'surround' ... and spatial audio. The use of our
> spatial perceptual abilities to isolate sounds (auditory stream
> segregation) is used and abused with great skill by contemporary
> 'producers'. That's why the most important plugins in DAWs are th
At 05:30 31/03/2012, Eero Aro wrote:
The Soundfield microphone didn't attract sound engineers
because it was so expensive.
In my experience, early models were also very fussy regarding output
levels: either noisy or distorted. The expense kicks in when
professionally one needs more than on
David Pickett wrote:
In my experience, early models were also very fussy regarding output
levels: either noisy or distorted.
As is common in Sursound, we are drifting out from the thread subject, but
yes, tell me news. I tried to use a SFM for dialogue recording in the
first half
of the nine
- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120331/b4c73127/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
--On 31 March 2012 19:45 +0300 Eero Aro wrote:
it is really too bad that the one place
where Ambisonics could help out in commonplace
daily life--namely, in how to mix stereo to three
(or more) frontal channels, that there is not a cheap
easy simple standalone unit to do just that.
Oh yes, th
--On 31 March 2012 12:53 -0400 newme...@aol.com wrote:
Music of the ordinary sort is in front . . .
Yes it is! Which is why Ambisonics makes *no* sense for the FRONT in a
musical reproduction system.
"Music of the ordinary sort" being the music that's in front, I guess,
making that a taut
At 14:04 31/03/2012, Eero Aro wrote:
David Pickett wrote:
In my experience, early models were also very fussy regarding output
levels: either noisy or distorted.
As is common in Sursound, we are drifting out from the thread subject
Not really drifting: this is a very good reason why the SF
At 14:33 31/03/2012, Paul Hodges wrote:
--On 31 March 2012 12:53 -0400 newme...@aol.com wrote:
Music of the ordinary sort is in front . . .
Yes it is! Which is why Ambisonics makes *no* sense for the FRONT in a
musical reproduction system.
"Music of the ordinary sort" being the music that
David Pickett wrote:
One of the most exciting recordings I have is the Tallis
Scholars' later version of the Allegri Miserere
Here is another great performance and recording:
2L29SACD Ensemble 96 IMMORTAL NYSTEDT
http://www.2l.no/
Amazing! Not Ambisonics, not SFM.
Eero
_
well!
Cara, you've had loads of responses!
I hope that the sheer volume hasn't overwhelmed you
With my dissertation supervisor head on, I'd like to offer the following:
Your dissertation question clearly touches something important, but lacks focus.
By that, I mean (in a caring way, possums)
Further to my last, Cara - can I suggest the following?
ask the members of the list here for specific criticisms of ambisonics -what
works, what doesn't work, what difficulties they encounter, how they might
improve things - both practical and fanciful. They are, after all, experts.
Such a 'sum
This is a diversion. Maybe it is part of being interested in surround
sound to believe it is really important.
Of course music exists that is not in front. But the vast bulk of
concert music is not like that. People like to look at what is happening.
They always have, and I doubt that this
I did not say it should(be played in front)! It just is.
Of course there are instances when antiphonal effects
are used, and very well they can work too.
But I think that using this sort of thing as a way
to persuade people they ought to have 16 channels
of playback or something is wrong heade
for me, ambisonics (or a soundfield microphone) is the tool to use for acoustic
measurements, to archive the sound of spaces as they exist before they get torn
down, burnt or modified into shopping malls. but then, i got into ambisonics
through attempts to measure the acoustics of ancient archa
>
> Your dissertation question clearly touches something important, but lacks
> focus.
> By that, I mean (in a caring way, possums) that framing the question this
> way makes it very difficult to elicit clear answers.
A better way to frame the question might be:
"Given ambisonic's lack of comme
30 matches
Mail list logo
