Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
Object Oriented programming was available 1978/1980. It wasn't used until NeXT
started pushing ObjC and SUN tried to rip it off unsuccessfully with Java
(which barely qualifies because for several iterations of the language it
missed key elements of a real OOP language), and despite NeXT, and even despite
OS X, OOP languages became only truly mainstream with later iterations of the
Java language and with the success of iOS devices and the resulting surge in
ObjC programming. (And even ppl now use OOP languages, a lot of the code
written is bad, and thus doesn't count as OOP.)
It wasn't used until NeXT started pushing ObjC and SUN tried to rip it off unsuccessfully with Java
Even if I agree with some of your opinions, this is utter nonsense.
- Java is a highly successful programing language, namely for Internet
and business applications. The VM model in a "C based" language was a
major innovation, now copied by JavaScript/ECMA Script etc.
- C++ existed before NeXT.
- Windows NT is partially based on C++. Therefore Microsoft was earlier
in the application of OOP languages then most other companies, including
Apple at this time.
- NeXT lended heavily on existing stuff, such as the MACH kernel and BSD
Unix.
Mach received a major boost in visibility when the Open Software
Foundation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_Foundation>
(OSF) announced they would be hosting future versions of OSF/1
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSF/1> on Mach 2.5, and were
investigating Mach 3 as well. Mach 2.5 was also selected for the
NeXTSTEP <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP> system and a number
of commercial multiprocessor vendors. Mach 3 led to a number of
efforts to port other operating systems parts for the microkernel,
including IBM <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM>'s Workplace OS
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_OS> and several efforts by
Apple Computer <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer> to build
a cross-platform version of the Mac OS
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS>.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach-like
So we're talking about a 30 year delay, and that's with technology that's not
even targeted at end users, but at a highly technical audience one would expect
to flock to a superior technology.
You are too sure of your theories, see above.
Consumers will not ask for technical things, they will ask for a repeat of an
experience they had sometime and thought was great. That's how I got introduced
to Ambisonics: heard a UHJ Nimbus recording on a Meridian system.
Meridian is truly a high end company, hardly "consumer" stuff.
Needless to say it was the intolerably bad UHJ with the intolerably horrible
1st order Ambisonics without hight, which is so bad that according to some it
should be buried and never ever talked about again.
No, but for cinema use they want to write a standard for 3D Audio,
probably leading to a mixed approach when things will get final in
2013-2014.
Except it was so bad I never wanted to go back to Stereo again.
So I want others to have similarly horrible experiences, such that they, too,
don't want stereo anymore, either.
UHJ is good enough for a start, a binaural decoder could easily become part of
iOS and Android devices by means of a custom playback app. Instant surround
sound access for the masses.
And this is the point: IF a binaural system works, you can include 5.1
--> binaural (or HOA --> binaural) decoding. Both "source" formats are
in many senses better than UHJ surround... ;-)
I wasn't at the concert, and 99.99% of listeners weren't there either, and
nobody knows or cares if the first violin was indeed 2 feet to the left of
where we think it is.
But that is not the point or "sense" of surround. Reveals several wrong assumptions from
your part. (A surround recording can sound way more realistic than any stereo recording. The
question of "exact localization" within the recording is for musicians - I am one -
probably not the most important issue. It is still utmost important to have a credible soundstage
at all, because it helps to separate instruments/voices.)
You make my point. UHJ, at least for "traditional" music that's stage oriented,
provides a credible sound stage and realistic ambience. Could it be better, by ditching
the matrixing, by going to HOA, etc.? Of course! But that's not the point. The point is,
that the infrastructure for UHJ-stereo distribution is here RIGHT NOW, while for anything
else it may be there at some indefinite point in the future, provided there is perceived
consumer demand for it.
WHY are you so keen to hide the surround version in a AAC/UHJ file? I
already wrote a long time ago that you would have to check if the
combination of lossy compression and a matrix will work well, BTW. (You
could have artifacts trough combination of lossy compression and an
underspecified channel count. This is not FUD, somebody firstly would
have to check the results.)
Surround sound will not progress as long as the people involved refuse to be part of a
process that on the commercial side takes baby steps, and instead insist on "certain
minimal standards" that constitute too big of a leap of ever being considered by
commercial interests, both in the music industry and in consumer electronics.
As said: 5.1 is completely etablished.
Yes, for movies.
There are thousands of recordings in the market, even if this is
(mostly) not a volume market. However, the distribution of 5.1 or other
surround formats via Internet is nowadays not very difficult, in fact
they use 5.1 surround this for online movies but not music distribution.
Should record labels be embarassed? (Most probably.)
And nowadays you could distribute a file which offers a surround and stereo
version combined, provided your beloved iCompany would offer any surround
recordings at all.
It's not just a matter of the iCompany, it's also a matter of Amazon, Google,
M$, Sony, Pandora, etc. None of them do it, and that's the point: they won't,
because music listening is portable devices, car radios, etc. all of which is
stereo oriented.
Or you listen to surround via headphones. If a viable solution exists,
you don't need Apple or G. any more. Everybody could distribute surround
sound, computer programs, operating systems, browsers and so on will
translate in real-time.
UHJ fits in with that, it's stereo compatible, but it can introduce surround
through the backdoor. UHJ flags could be included in the ID3 tag, even with a
magic cookie in the Comment field, if no other option exists, and custom
playback apps could be placed in the various app stores for free. It's a
solution that doesn't require vendor cooperation.
Once the downloads of these apps start picking up, and more of the catalog is
UHJ encoded, and people start asking for more, then making a pitch for
You still have to introduce people (consumers) to the fact that a
surround recording even exists in this area, and that you need some
equipment to be able to listen to. (Decoders, loudspeaker arrays,
surround headphones etc.)
(In this sense, I don't see any real compatibility problems. You can distibute
UHJ and hope that some people by the decoders/software loudspeakers. Or you
distribute a combine surround/stereo file, which is not such an issue at all.
And even if not, a surround recording/filecan be downmixed to 2.0. In fact,
POA could be downmixed to UHJ stereo...)
Of course, but given that we're not even getting lossless compression for
stereo, what do you think the chances are we're getting 2+5.1 channel audio
files? Think of the bandwidth requirements etc. when you're talking billions of
downloads...
...not going to happen unless there's actually tangible consumer demand.
This is exactly the Apple perspective. You probably don't have created
any consumer demand yet if you distribute "hidden surround" in AAC
stereo files, so the problem would not be solved.
...
Again, you mix up what's technically possible and what's feasible in the
marketplace.
Neither you nor I make the decisions that create the commercial reality.
Sorry, no: There is explicit commercial demand for 3D surround audio in
cinemas. This is a fact. Considering this, I would not go back to a
standard which lacks compared to (conventional) 5.1 surround.
So we can either accept what is the reality right now, and see how we can get
what we want (Ambisonic surround sound) through the back-door right now, or we
can wait for some magical moment in the future when the marketplace has caught
up with our requirements for multi-channel audio distribution.
Oh my goodness, do < we > (all) want Ambisonic surround sound?!
Even if I like Ambisonics as a theory, this list is about surround sound
as a whole. In a complete picture I have to consider how cinema audio
works, how surround/stereo recordings are made etc.
Many computer games have surround or even 3D "audio engines", but it
would be odd to decode this to UHJ stereo. (Because the game user will
be able listen to real surround, or just to stereo.)
And this is the problem I was speaking of: To use UHJ stereo as a
distribution format doesn't solve the problem that the end user/listener
/client still needs some hardware/surround installation at home, or on
the move (which would be the needed headphone solution).
Best,
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
