Re: [Sursound] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31. March)

--On 19 March 2014 18:47 +0100 David Pickett wrote: > A bit scary that, as Paul said, Microsoft employ SRC automatically if > you get it wrong... Actually, after thinking about this, I suspect it's unavoidable in this situation, even if the data rates are "matched". Where's the master clock? M

Re: [Sursound] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31. March)

At 11:17 20-03-14, Paul Hodges wrote: I understand that the current Windows SRC is pretty good, actually. I probably know less about this than you do. But do you mean Windows 8? Windows 7, which I am using appear to have a problem, but with a secret fix that I havent tried yet: http://su

Re: [Sursound] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31. March)

Paul Hodges wrote: Or maybe I just don't understand digital audio properly, or at least the Internet aspect of it. I think it's just like playing any compressed audio file. AIUI they are just streaming 4 channel AAC, so with the buffering that is implicit in streaming you may as well be playin

Re: [Sursound] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31. March)

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:17:30AM +, Paul Hodges wrote: > But if the data is coming from the Internet, that data > cannot but be separately clocked, but it can't provide the master clock > for the interface - it just hasn't the stability, and buffering will > get in the way and so on. No

Re: [Sursound] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31. March)

--On 20 March 2014 12:02 +0100 David Pickett wrote: >> I understand that the current Windows SRC is pretty good, actually. > > I probably know less about this than you do. But do you mean Windows > 8? Windows 7, which I am using appear to have a problem, but with a > secret fix that I havent t

Re: [Sursound] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31. March)

--On 20 March 2014 11:14 + Andy Furniss wrote: > I think it's just like playing any compressed audio file. But it isn't, because a slight mismatch in clock speeds would mean that the playback could run ahead and eventually run out of buffered samples to play. Of course, this issue is the sa

[Sursound] TSL SoundField new, and free, SurroundZone2

Supported Input Formats: * A-Format (SPS200) * B-Format Supported Output Formats: * Stereo (and Mono) * 5.0, 5.1, 6.0, 6.1, 7.0, 7.1 * B-Format Especially a good news for Pro Tools users as this makes the SurroundZone2 a good, free, B-Forma

Re: [Sursound] TSL SoundField new, and free, SurroundZone2

I bought the previous version. Was a pile of crap. Took ages to get a 64bit AU version. And it was licensed with ilok which makes me shudder. And should have been free, given how little it did compared to Harpex. Why lock such a tool when its really of no use to anyone who hasn¹t got a sound field,

[Sursound] Soundfield 450 Mk2

Pity this *still* doesn¹t have a 1K tone generator at say -20dB, allowing you to properly calibrate the input levels and replay of your recorder, which almost certainly doesn¹t have ganged controls. The Sounddevices 788T can do this, but others can¹t. Missed opportunity. Jon

[Sursound] asking for help

-- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140320/22a0fbef/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/li

Re: [Sursound] asking for help

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 06:35:57PM +0530, umashankar manthravadi wrote: > We will provide a microphone specific calibration file and Brahmavolver > (windows and mac) for all who are getting this microphone. > > I would like provide a set of links as well, so people can download software > (a t

Re: [Sursound] Soundfield 450 Mk2

On 03/20/2014 01:57 PM, Jon Honeyball wrote: Pity this *still* doesn¹t have a 1K tone generator at say -20dB, allowing you to properly calibrate the input levels and replay of your recorder, which almost certainly doesn¹t have ganged controls. The Sounddevices 788T can do this, but others can¹t.

Re: [Sursound] TSL SoundField new, and free, SurroundZone2

> Note that the Windows installer puts the 32-bit VST plugin where the 64-bit one should be and vice versa. Paul -- Paul Hodges ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.musi

Re: [Sursound] TSL SoundField new, and free, SurroundZone2

Somewhat of a failure of beta testing? On 20/03/2014 14:32, "Paul Hodges" wrote: >> > >Note that the Windows installer puts the 32-bit VST plugin where the >64-bit one should be and vice versa. > >Paul > > >-- >Paul Hodges > > >

Re: [Sursound] Soundfield 450 Mk2

I align my 788T with my Prism dScope, but that’s cheating :-) Quite a few cheaper devices don’t have ganged inputs, and it would help. I asked Soundfield for this several times, but clearly they disagree On 20/03/2014 14:07, "Jörn Nettingsmeier" wrote: >On 03/20/2014 01:57 PM, Jon Honeyball wro

Re: [Sursound] TSL SoundField new, and free, SurroundZone2

SurroundZone2 is not too bad, either. Not quite as versatile as Harpex, but a definite upgrade on version 1, and you can't argue with the price. As to the Mk 2 mic, I did enquire about the cost of upgrading the existing ST450 control unit, but was quoted just under £2,000.00 exc. VAT, which is t

Re: [Sursound] TSL SoundField new, and free, SurroundZone2

I asked about upgrading my 350, or rather asked about if it was worth upgrading either the mic or the box, depending on which was the more critical. But I got nowhere ‹ they seemed to think I wanted to trade in part of the mic, which wasn¹t the case at all. Ah well. On 20/03/2014 14:40, "John Leon

Re: [Sursound] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31. March)

Paul Hodges wrote: --On 20 March 2014 11:14 + Andy Furniss wrote: I think it's just like playing any compressed audio file. But it isn't, because a slight mismatch in clock speeds would mean that the playback could run ahead and eventually run out of buffered samples to play. Of course,

Re: [Sursound] BBC Radio Three Surround Streaming Trial (15. to 31. March)

--On 20 March 2014 15:41 + Andy Furniss wrote: > Yea, I did also mention buffering, just that I assume the buffer is > normally big enough so that it doesn't run out/overflow in a > reasonable > time. This is not the kind of programming I have ever done, and it makes me uncomfortable - not t

Re: [Sursound] calibrating ambisonic system. Was Re:Sursound Digest, Vol 68, Issue 18

ent. Yes, rooms and positions in them sound different, but this is often observable when just swopping one speaker for another in the same location. Ciao, Dave -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/priv

Re: [Sursound] Soundfield 450 Mk2

Jon Honeyball wrote: Pity this *still* doesn't have a 1K tone generator at say -20dB, allowing you to properly calibrate the input levels and replay of your recorder, which almost certainly doesn't have ganged controls. The Sounddevices 788T can do this, but others can't. The Tascam DR-680 ha

Re: [Sursound] Soundfield 450 Mk2

Le 2014-03-20 08:57, Jon Honeyball a écrit : >Pity this *still* doesn¹t have a 1K tone generator at say -20dB, allowing >you to properly calibrate the input levels and replay of your recorder, >which almost certainly doesn¹t have ganged controls. The Sounddevices 788T >can do this, but others can¹

Re: [Sursound] calibrating ambisonic system. Was Re:Sursound Digest, Vol 68, Issue 18

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 06:37:48PM +, Dave Hunt wrote: > Agreed. I was just stating the prerequisite, as this seemed to have > been missed. It may not be essential. If you start with all the channels at more or less the right gain (e.g. by setting analog controls to the same position), and t