On 2010-11-15, [email protected] wrote:
Basically it's the equivalent of adding an AMB decoder to each panner instead of keeping this factored out to the playback environment.
With all of these so called "new spatial techniques/formats" coming out as people gain access to cheap technology, do we have any hard classification criteria out there which might help us, as the acoustics community, to separate the wheat from the chaff? I mean, tell trivial elaboration upon a well-known theme from genuine innovation?
To my ear most of these new papers rehash the same, basic analysis: amplitude panning, delay panning, and a number of different low order approximations towards full field reconstruction (HOA, WFS, and also the multipole, arbitrary alignment L^2 norm stuff within the IEEE circuit). To my hindbrain, there is more commonality and obvious mathematical unity to this sort of work than genuine, groundbreaking innovation, here. And I'm rather sure that if I think that way, as an amateur and even math-wise a wannabe, many empirically experienced and also theoretically well-versed, real authorities on-list *must* think the same. It just can't be good for the science or the industry that people spin up new words for old technology, or try to establish themselves as the guardian of the newest buzz-word, without genuine innovation. Not economically, nor especially academically.
As such I think we should try to catalogue and put into concrete writing all of the approaches to spatial sound recording, transmission and reproduction that we have. In a casual format. But still in a way that is enough to throw at a patent inspector as prior art, and to a journal editor, so that all of these new acronyms can be stemmed at the root even within the academia.
While it's a valid approach, I can't see *why* anyone would want to do this. You can always use an AMB decoder on the mixed signal.
And I repeat: I'm seeing this sort of comment more and more on-list, and even in the literature. In my mind this simply has to stop. Otherwise we're going to end with two very wasteful things in the long run: a) much new, genuine acoustical talent running off with their own, reinvented stuff, reduplicating what is already known, and b) much spurious patenting and other intellectual property mayhem, which not only hinders the progress on our field, but could in fact close already known and once-freed technology from wide-spread recognition and utilization.
As a follow-by, wannabe, theretics-only kinda fellow, I can't do anything about this sort of stuff directly. I can only rally up support, and perhaps facilitate the movement a little bit. So how about all of you doctors, producers, engineers, chairs, whathaveyou on this list? Do you not also think that something should be done to curtail the proliferation of null results and all too many "minimum publishable units" within the spatial audio field?
-- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - [email protected], http://decoy.iki.fi/front +358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2 _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
