Michael Chapman wrote:
Was invited to an art gallery over the weekend.
Some of the 'installations' were sound based : Various objects covered in
nails, with (?)ceramic (well piezoelectric, anyway) discs fastened on
them.
Disappointingly though there were many hundreds of discs, for each
'installation' they were all wired in parallel.
Set me wondering though ...
There are probably some disadvanatges (flat frequency response over how
many Hz(?), (?)limited amplitude range, ..., ...).
But price(?) and place-ability seem interesting.
Anyone had experience of these?
No, unless anyone would be able to guess < where > this exhibition has
been < and > has been there. ;-)
If so I'd welcome comments.
You obviously didn't answer to my posting. Nevertheless you seem to
criticize my style. (I just wanted to share some recent and relevant
information about Auro-3D. This information was about current
developments in this area which most people on this list probably
weren't aware of before. )
It is a fact that tone masters and sound engineers are already able to
work with Auro-3D. (Cinema applications, now music recordings.)
Of course you can always put your head into the sand: It is wayyyy
easier to record in HOA, because there is AmbiX and everybody is using
this format for his/her DIY HOA mixes at home. There are dozens if not
hundreds free programs available to work with HOA in a semi-professional
environment. Sometimes the programs and libraries work actually
together, if you are lucky. (Irony off.)
My observation that few people have used the Eigenmike for music
recordings is still valid, though. (There might be more papers about the
Eigenmike than < public available > music recordings done with this
device. If so, there could be some problems both with the mike itself
and the HOA "production workflow". I know that some people don't like to
hear this, but it is better to stay honest.)
I further suggest that it would be pretty helpful if you could write in
a clearer fashion, 'cos otherwise nobody will understand what you mean,
or possibly want to say. :-D
I am not a mere critic of Ambisonics, as you should know by now. In fact
I had proposed to introduce some simple Ambisonics format combining FOA
and TOA (not all variants...), and also to define this format also in a
way which would be backward-compatible to stereo. (So, 3/4-channel UHJ,
and an "UHJ-HOA" extension which has been proposed by Jörn Nettingsmeier
and me.)
Because I actually have some experience with standards, I won't hesitate
to add that Auro-3D is a real standard, whereas HOA is a theory which
still would require some defined and accepted standard(s). And which
programmers or engineers could implement following some clear and
available standard definition, even not being Ambisonics or audio
experts. (Standards have to be clear and unambiguous. Auro-3D seems to
be well-defined, from what I have seen.)
There are probably some disadvanatges (flat frequency response over how
many Hz(?), (?)limited amplitude range, ..., ...).
But price(?) and place-ability seem interesting.
This is not intelligible, is it? Maybe I am too stupid to follow your
thoughts, but still... :-D
Best,
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit
account or options, view archives and so on.
