On 04/04/2012 10:09 AM, Scott Wilson wrote:
why do people still fall for the BEAST?
jörn (with apologies to the birmingham crew ;)
Ahem...
;-D
http://scottwilson.ca/scottwilson.ca/News_and_Events/Entries/2010/10/27_Rethinking_the_BEAST.html
interesting food for thought, thanks for this link.
So I'd say stereo diffusion is rather less popular than it used to
be, at least in my immediate vicinity.
Seriously though, I think stereo diffusion remains in use because it
is very pragmatic, and is surprisingly effective in creating a vivid
sonic image. It is not one which is the same for everyone in the
audience, but it is one which can be effective for a given piece of
music despite those differences. Gary Kendall has some interesting
things to say about why in his article in the same issue of OS.
i'll try to check it out if i can find it.
I think that distinction, which I'll crudely describe as (musically)
effective vs. consistent and 'realistic', is worth keeping in mind in
many cases when spatialising audio. Often the former matters a *lot*
more than the latter.
absolutely. however, i still think using the same number of speakers in
a systematic manner (or even a lot less) would ultimately yield a more
powerful and versatile instrument than ad-hoc stereo diffusion. of
course it would be a totally different instrument, and it would do a
lousy job of reproducing music for loudspeaker orchestra.
But I think the real question is why do people still fall for
ambisonics?
touché, and a very valid question. to me, ambisonics is quite elegant,
and i like the way it converges to "usable" at relatively low channel
counts.
take my word with a grain of salt, because i'm apparently one of the
millstones around the neck of ambisonics (you know, those young HOA
zealots that are working hard to undermine the grand marketing schemes
of our forefathers).
but compared to both WFS _and_ diffusion in the acousmatic tradition, i
guess HOA provides a better "return on investment" curve, i.e. a usable
instrument at lower channel counts, which i find quite elegant and
intriguing. it is of course understood that a piece conceived for either
WFS or diffusion will not work well on HOA, they are different concepts
after all. so i don't mean better in terms of "drop-in replacement".
in my mind, a loudspeaker orchestra is a huge steam engine with
glistening brass pipes, huge gear trains and the smell of oil, whereas
HOA is a neat little power tool with a lightweight Li-ION battery. it's
a great experience to see a huge engine come to life, and we can't
emulate that effect in HOA. if the purpose is just to make something
turn, however, HOA is the better approach. if a composer is after the
steam engine experience, there is nothing to discuss, and i find the
experience thoroughly enjoyable.
sometimes i just seem to find that composers just want to make something
turn, and they're too lazy to wrap their heads around HOA and the steam
engine happens to be there, so that's the default choice.
btw, you are doing a disservice to stereo with your ridiculously high
numbers of speakers. if you continue to tell people this is what they
need to create proper art, stereo will never catch on. you don't feed a
bab... oh, wait. got a bit carried away there >;->
regards,
jörn
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT
http://stackingdwarves.net
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
