Haha ! I knew I was treading on thin ice. I have used the 48 channel system at sarc on many occasions and have set up my own 32 channel one - and if I want a sound to come from a point source I would not use ambisonics- I would try and have the sound come out of only one speaker use vbap or at least ambisonics with the directivity very much reduced - this seems to work much better - after all you dont have to trick someones hrtf, recreate the wavefield , stay in the swet spot etc if the sound actually is coming from where you want it to appear to. I have heard dozens of compositions made using ambisonics and other techniques over the last few years and my conclusion is that it has its uses but there is a fair amount of academic snake oil going on with it. Maybe I just havent hear a really well made setup... Actually wavefield synthesis was turned down by several film companies attending a demonstration in France because the extremely effective holographic nature of the sound destroyed the illusion of the 2d screen. Yes film producers do use surround with some effects travelling behind the listener but you will find the majority of the audio activity goes on in front of the listener (thus the middle speaker in 5.1) with much less activity and lighter mixing behind the listener (such as an aeroplane flying overhead etc) - precisely for the reasons already given. You dont need an ambisonic microphone to create ambisonic soundfields - you can do it all in the software - there is software like Spat and ICST which will allow for HOA - all you need is enough speakers. I agree about the wife and the speakers though - it has already caused several low level marital disputes.
On 15 May 2013 17:10, Timothy Schmele <tim.schm...@barcelonamedia.org>wrote: > Be careful, merely neglecting ambisonics in general for pointsources > includes higher order ambisonics, which are *well* suited for localized > sources as of the third order and up (although I have not heard any > ambisonic decoding beyond the third) in spherical 3D sound. > > Also, unlike what you're saying, multidimensional audio should not > distract people from the screen. If that is so, then the sound engineer is > immaturely using the technology! The key is a tight interplay between the > audio and the image. A well balanced 3D mix will keep the viewer fixed on > what is happening in front (as long as the image is interesting enough in > relation, of course). Moreover, Lucasfilm, if my memory serves me right, > extensively used rear channels for cinemas to produce laser sounds among > other attention catching sounds coming from behind. Never heard that this > ever bothered anyone watching the Star Wars series. > > Concerning the problems, first of all, first order ambisonics suffer in > spatial accuracy. Another problem I see are the technical difficulties > higher order ambisonics face. One important factor is the decoding for > irregular layouts, which is still not very well solved for higher orders. > Using a regular decoding for an irregular layout could work, but also > defeats all the effort and beauty out into the mathematics involved - and > you have no quality guarantee! If you think about how many people take care > to set up their 5.1 in the exact positions as specified by the standard, > you can easily imagine how hard it will be to convince your wife to place > 20+ speakers in exactly equidistant positions in the living room. Also, > cinemas are not spherical and would require to place speakers in custom > positions. > > Also, there are no higher order microphones - aside from the eigenmike, > which does not come with a higher order ambisonic solution out of the box > (i.e. if you cannot write a higher order encoder yourself in matlab) as far > as I know. > > All in all, while first order ambisonics are not sufficiently accurate in > their spatial resolution, higher order ambisonics are still relatively > unknown outside the research community and still require much work to > mature. Too many open parameters prevent a standardization for higher order > ambisonics and everybody is implementing their own encoder. > > The industry is moving towards object oriented encoding of 3D soundtracks > anyway. This is perhaps the least elegant, but the most accurate, as every > sound is stored in isolation of the others, with exact meta information of > its spatial position. Theoretically, you could take this soundtrack and > render it over any system you, be it ambisonics, higher order ambisonics, > vbap or wave field synthesis among possibly others... > > > On 5/15/13 4:27 PM, Augustine Leudar wrote: > >> I think the thing is people think that ambisonics is some incredible magic >> spatialisation technique that surpasses all others - yet is so complicated >> that nobody can understand it except for a few mega nerds and >> mathematicians that speak in mysterious riddles whenever you ask them >> anything and therefore this feat of incredible genius is doomed to >> commercial failure. This opinion it seems to me is help by people who >> havent had a lot of hands on experience actually using it in a >> proffesional >> context (ie actually producing film, theatre, sound design etc) - in fact >> thats what I originally thought about . A lot of people seem to equate >> ambisonics with "surround sound with height " as well (hands up I was >> guilty of that too once) . Basically if I was going to design a full 360 >> degree soundtrack for a film (which will probably not happen by the way - >> the last thing film producers want is people turning away from the screen >> and looking over their shoulder because a dog barked behind them - roll on >> holospheres !) - the last thing I would use ambisonics for is point >> sources >> - ideally I would use an individual speaker in the right position as the >> point source, and failing that some sort of amplitude panning . I would >> use >> it for panning sometimes - and for some weird phase effects and a few >> other >> things , ideally you will mix ambisonics with other spatialisation >> techniques and then render your multichannel audio tracks. >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/private/sursound/** >> attachments/20130515/eca0cdeb/**attachment.html<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130515/eca0cdeb/attachment.html> >> > >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Sursound mailing list >> Sursound@music.vt.edu >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> >> > > ______________________________**_________________ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> > -- 07580951119 augustine.leudar.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130515/9cf0bb8f/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
