Steven Dive wrote:
IMHO I can't see how FOA isn't clearly worth promoting along with up
to 3rd order G-format decodes for 5.1/7.1 setups for home users.
Basically, get UHJ and, while we are at it, superstereo into people's
homes, then get on with full 1st and higher orders.
Steve
Steve, Anthony:
In which sense is UHJ and "superstereo" a viable alternative to 5.1
surround, if 5.1 is clearly better than any 2-channel system can be?
You should introduce something which exceeds the existing solutions, not
going back to something which fits into the "stereo distribution chain".
We already had this.
I have written that you could decode a 3rd order .AMB file on a 4 or 6
speaker home installation, for example ignoring the 2nd and 3rd order
components. 8 speakers would be even better, but less is still possible.
(You can watch a 1080p movie on an "underspecified" SD television, or a
720 line TV. The loudspeaker number above is just the equivalent.
Downsizing a format to a device with lower resolution is mostly not an
issue. You also can watch a photo on a computer screen, even if the
resolution of a current digital camera is certainly much higher than any
computer monitor can show.)
Anthony: You should read what people (this means: me! :-) ) say, not
what you would like to read. For example, I never said anywhere that
music should be distributed on BD discs. (Have been here a long time
before. This is probably just history. IMO the distribution of surround
music via UHJ stereo tracks belongs into the same category. Listen to
UHJ if available and if you can decode this, but don't promote this for
the "future practical distribution of surround", because 5.1 already
exists.)
I said that Apple doesn't support BD < movies > on any Mac OS version.
I don't buy into the excuse that the Blu-ray DRM (AACA/BD+ support)
would "break" the Mac OS architecture, which would be a longer
discussion. But I have actually more important things to do than to
discuss these issues here, honestly. (Historically: Apple had pretended
they would "finally" support Blu-Ray, in 2005/2006. They didn't tell it
would not be possible. The "bag of hurt" story was invented way later. )
I don't have to promote Ambisonics, specifically I don't have any plans
to replace 5.1 with FOA. What is the huge deal about? (Both formats have
advantages and disadvantages, compared to each other. You also have to
consider that 5.1 can be mixed or recorded in very different ways, and
some or actually pretty convincing. For film, 5.1 is probably superior.
You could say that FOA has been unfaily neglected which is probably right.)
If you promote G format, 99% would see and listen to this as a 5.1
surround file. (An 99% would listen to an UHJ as a "stereo file", cos
there are really very few decoders around. In fact, 5.1 seems to be way
more mainstream than decoded UHJ.)
Therefore, don't push for stereo-matrixed (UHJ) or "pre-encoded" (G
format, 5.1) Ambisonics variants in 2012. In fact, Apple (or Microsoft,
"Google Music" (?), Sony Music Unlimited or whoever sells movies/music)
should firstly offer 5.1 surround files.
It doesn't cost anything to offer another surround format in an online
shop, if music/audio is available in this format. The consumer could
chose. But if you offer something beside 5.1 surround, I believe this
should be something better. Not something reduced. Try to find solutions
which are viable for the next 10 or 20 years, and don't go back 20
years. (Sorry for being slightly polemic, but I think this is a valid
argument.)
Surround tracks are sold via the Internet, there are plenty of existing
online shops. The problem is that you would have to sell 5.1 (or FOA...)
tracks of well-known music, which means "the hits". The Majors are
missing this opportunity. (Plenty of recordings ae available, which
means many thousands.)
As a musician, I am participating in plenty recordings which are done
also in 5.1. In this sense, don't call me "elitist", or whatever.
But FOA probably won't make it. The time of UHJ has been.
I am not sure that any form of surround will make it into the home, but
I think there is still a real chance that it will happen. The iTunes
shop is currently irrelevant for surround music, and there are more
companies around than Apple.
Best,
Stefan Schreiber
On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:05, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:47:04PM +0200, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
On 12 Apr 2012, at 22:27, Fons Adriaensen <f...@linuxaudio.org> wrote:
First order definitely isn't good enough. As long a you insist that
one can't go up in order, just forget about it all.
Tell that Meridian, and all their customers who have enjoyed
immensely not only listening to horizontal-only 1st order
Ambisonics, but also to 1st order horizontal-only Ambisonics
crippled by UHJ matrix-encoding constraints.
First order is certainly fine for classical orchestral music,
and I enjoy that as well even without Meridian's help.
But that will reach a minoriy classical music lovers audience
only. And first order fails rather miserably for anything else
compared to 5.1 which is what people already have and can compare
with. It won't produce a stable front channel for movie sound,
nor has it the the required spatial definition for effects that
work outside a very small sweet spot. And what's the problem with
five or seven channels anyway ?
This has nothing to do with 'elitism'. Try selling 256-color
computer displays to today's consumers. Won't work even if they
would do fine for 99% of all practical computer applications.
It's too late for that. Technology has moved on, and people
know it.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
_______________________________________________
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/20120413/975a5896/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
