--On 13 April 2012 03:08 +0100 Stefan Schreiber
wrote:
I am not sure that any form of surround will make it into the home,
I have quite a lot of commercial surround music recordings, on 5.1 media.
However, because of my recording activities, my surround reproduction
equipment is tied to my
On 04/13/2012 03:49 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
While the mode of expression is even more emphatic
than my own, RCFA is to my mind right all up
and down the line. Talking about 3rd order is
just castles in the air. As a theoretical mathematician,
I spend most of my life building castles in the air.
Is 5.1 better than any 2 channel can be? Surely a matter of taste and
experience. Certainly I have not heard all stereo and 5.1 recordings
ever made and, so far, no G-format material. My point is from my home
user perspective that superstereo and UHJ decoding is pretty easy
these days to in
Me for one.
Steve
On 13 Apr 2012, at 08:37, Paul Hodges wrote:
Actually, I'd be interested to know how many people on this list
listen to surround recordings on a surround system for simple
pleasure, as opposed to in the lab or as part of specific
investigations of the process.
Paul
_
On 13/04/2012 09:07, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 04/13/2012 03:49 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
While the mode of expression is even more emphatic
than my own, RCFA is to my mind right all up
and down the line. Talking about 3rd order is
just castles in the air. As a theoretical mathematician,
I sp
On 13/04/2012 03:08, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
..
If you promote G format, 99% would see and listen to this as a 5.1
surround file. (An 99% would listen to an UHJ as a "stereo file", cos
there are really very few decoders around. In fact, 5.1 seems to be way
more mainstream than decoded UHJ.)
On 13 Apr 2012, at 04:08, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
> Steven Dive wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> IMHO I can't see how FOA isn't clearly worth promoting along with up to
>> 3rd order G-format decodes for 5.1/7.1 setups for home users. Basically,
>> get UHJ and, while we are at it, superstereo into peopl
On 13 Apr 2012, at 10:07, Jörn Nettingsmeier
wrote:
> On 04/13/2012 03:49 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
>>
>> While the mode of expression is even more emphatic
>> than my own, RCFA is to my mind right all up
>> and down the line. Talking about 3rd order is
>> just castles in the air. As a theoreti
As my 'studio' is my spare room in our flat, I have decent set up where I can
use the surround set-up, which Ronald will be pleased to know uses five matched
loudspeakers, an LFE unit and has proper bass management, to listen for both
work and pleasure. I play my SACD recordings on an inexpensiv
At 02:37 13/04/2012, Paul Hodges wrote:
Actually, I'd be interested to know how many people on this list
listen to surround recordings on a surround system for simple
pleasure, as opposed to in the lab or as part of specific
investigations of the process.
I try to do this; but it is not alwa
closed.)
Mark Stahlman
Brooklyn NY
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120413/613c1fc5/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursou
On 13 Apr 2012, at 13:57, John Leonard wrote:
> A long time ago, I asked how many people on this list actually had any sort
> of surround systems, let alone properly set-up home-cinema 5.1 systems, in
> their homes and I think about three people said they did. I wonder how many
> there are no
On 13 Apr 2012, at 15:31, newme...@aol.com wrote:
> Folks:
>
> Q: WHY would the average *music* listener want surround sound?
>
> A: They won't and, since this has already been tried (including with some
> of the best known artists of all times), no one in the MUSIC business will
> *ever*
Apple also figured that out.
I also know many people in the music *business* and they also heard it
(indeed, spent a lot of money on it) and have universally come to the same
conclusion.
Case closed.
Mark Stahlman
Brooklyn NY
-- next part --
An HTML attachment w
I was not objecting to high order for production.
But it is never going to fly in playback terms.
Everyone takes for granted (I assume) that
people can and often do things to make recordings
that do not happen at the playback end.
(How many consumers know Protools?)
That was hardly the point.
Wh
--
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120413/bb8fc69a/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursou
gt; bad business decisions -- it doesn't *improve* the listening to MUSIC enough
> > for people to care. Seems that Apple also figured that out.
> >
> > I also know many people in the music *business* and they also heard it
> > (indeed, spent a lot of money on it) and have univ
.
Mark Stahlman
Brooklyn NY
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120413/bb8fc69a/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.
Could you explain to me this phrase:
> Amibsonics (i.e. FOA) is fabulous for AMBIENCE but, alas, not for MUSIC
> (due to the lack of frontal emphasis) and c'mon . . . we all know it.
For one, why would I want frontal emphasis? The whole point of Ambisonics is
that it does NOT have any emphasi
I think that the idea that surround is not good enough
for music , good enough to matter, really does
not make sense. This is more or less like restricting
the idea of music to what works well enough in stereo
to be all right. But that is not all music, and indeed
for example it does not include
he wants. It will not create a new mass-market for a new special
effect.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120413/10ced087/attachment.html>
onic special effects. Lou Reed can play
around all he wants. It will not create a new mass-market for a new special
effect.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120413/10
imsi.fr>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120413/1012fd98/attachment.html>
-- next part --
___
Surso
dicting these things
-- however, I can only hope that I have at least stimulated some thinking
and perhaps even a little entertainment!
Mark Stahlman
Brooklyn NY
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mai
On 13 Apr 2012, at 18:38, newme...@aol.com wrote:
> Beginning in the 1990s, the music industry tried to promote the *surround*
> (i.e. 5.1 style) special effect -- driven by the installed base of home
> theaters and DVD players, along with a preceived need to recapture the
> revenues being
I do. I have two classic Ambisonic decoders, a old Meridian in the
sitting room, decoding to 5.1 speakers (the TV shares the speakers), and
an ancient Minim AD10-based system in my office with 4 good speakers
(soon to be extended to a 6-speaker hexagon array).
Both are horizontal-only, obviously;
- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120413/3117c477/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
t is. this is what ambisonics is all about: scalability. you get
> to keep your meridians and your four quad speakers, and everyone can
> just live happily ever after.
>
> [1] the only thing that's probably even cheaper is opinions.
-- next part --
An HTML
> I've recorded with Tetramics and I've set up an HSD 3D system
Mark, what is this HSD 3D system?
Can it play Aaron's B-format recordings?
If you have been following the BLaH series, what we've found is that hardly any
software decoders do plain FOA properly.
___
I tend to agree wi
that is a question i had been meaning to ask. can a tetrahedral mic be used to
create a room (correction) impulse response in B format? and how? umashankar
i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
> From: rica...@justnet.com.au
> To: sursound@music.vt.edu
>
t of the home system.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120413/084cdc8b/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https:/
scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120413/362564fd/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
32 matches
Mail list logo
