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 archaeological sites. (i have been a sound recordist for 40 years, been recording ambisonically - usually as a second recording - for about four.) umashankar
i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:45:41 -0700 > From: gre...@math.ucla.edu > To: sursound@music.vt.edu > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Can anyone help with my dissertation please? > > > 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 headed. It won't > work, I think. > > Only someone who was a little unhinged > on the subject would go to the trouble to set > up high order Ambisonics in order to hear the tiny > fraction of the repertoire where actual sources are > behind or to the sides. > Surround is great--because it creates (when done right) > the concert hall--and that really is all around you. > But direct sources that are totally nonfrontal-- > not important. > > I think the big mistake of Ambisonics in practical terms > is that it emphasized homogeneity--a mathematical nicety > but a nonstarter as a musical matter. And it makes it complicated > and ineffective except with great effort at relatively simple > things, or things that should be relatively simple. > > I suppose many of you know the classic men in a balloon joke > popular among mathematicians(who do not mind laughing at themselves): > > Two men are flying in a balloon and they are lost. As they sail > over a man standing in a field they call out "Where are we?" > The man in the field says nothing until finally as the balloon > is almost out of earshot , the man in the field calls out > "You are in a balloon". > One of the men in the balloon says to the other, "That fellow > in the field must be a mathematician". > "Why do you say that?" > "We asked him a simple question , > he thought for a very long > time about the answer, his answer was absolutely correct, > and his answer was completely useless." > > I would not say that Ambisonics was useless and it is surely > intriguing as an application of mathematics. But I do think > only a truly impractical person would have decided that in > practice homogeneity was a vital criterion for reproducing music > as it is. > > Robert > > > > > > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, David Pickett wrote: > > > 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's in front, I guess, > >> making that a tautology. > >> > >> I frequently listen to, and record, music in churches (commonly with an > >> organ behind or to one side), and concerts with music surrounding the > >> audience in the round (in places as varied as Walthamstow Town Hall, The > >> Union Chapel Islington, and the Royal Festival Hall). > > > > I shall never buy into the concept that music should come only from the > > front. One of the most exciting recordings I have is the Tallis Scholars' > > later version of the Allegri Miserere, which is available as a 5.1 high > > definition download. The distant choir in the rear is magical. Of course, > > the > > performance is also magical, but the physical disposition of the performers > > makes it feel much more like a live event to me. All to whom I have played > > this have also been impressed. > > > > I dont think this particular recording was made with the SF mic, but my > > point > > is that there is much music that benefits from direct sound in the rear. I > > have many Tacet.de recordings that use the rear channels for direct sound, > > also to great musical effect in my opinion. The same repertoire is > > available > > in 2-channel stereo if that is the listener's preference, so why not do > > something different? > > > > David > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sursound mailing list > > Sursound@music.vt.edu > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > > > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120401/63dbb954/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
