> > Dear Jörn, > > > > did you consider using Wave Field Synthesis? WFS has no > problems with > > irregular setups, as far as no large gaps (due to doors > etc.) are in > > the array. And it fully supports model-based rendering, which means > > that you can easily generate loudspeaker feeds for virtual > sources at > > arbitrary positions. You might want to give the SoundScape Renderer > > (SSR) a try http://www.tu-berlin.de/?ssr in such a setting. It > > supports real-time model-based rendering with WFS, > amplitude panning > > Ambisonics, and vector-base amplitude panning (VBAP) > (...and binaural > > synthesis/BRS). > > i haven't quite understood how very sparse WFS systems are > supposed to work (IOSONO presented one with 1m tweeter > distance at the tonmeistertagung), so i didn't consider it > for this application. > > will a circle of eight systems produce anything meaningful > when driven via WFS? and if so, why would anyone still call it WFS?
For such a setup VBAP might be a good choice. The question is disputable what technique is connected to the term WFS... > i need to get a windows box anyway, so i'll have a look at SSR asap... > sounds like it allows for easy A/B comparison between the > different rendering methods? It currenly runs only under Linux. However, we are working on a Mac OS (and perhapts also an Windows) port, which should be quite straigforward due to jack. Yes, you can do a A/B comparison of methods. However, the rendering method is choosen at the startup of the SSR. So you would have to restart the SSR for such a comparison or have two running in parallel and switch the jack connections. greetings, Sascha _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
