I used it in an installation with other effects that were not mono - but part of the installation consisted of lots of people sitting listening to a narration in different open topped cubicles - we wanted then to think the narration part was only in their cubicle - it worked perfectly.
On 10 December 2015 at 15:38, Peter Lennox <p.len...@derby.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi - it's one of the reasons I forbid my students from using multichannel > mono, unless they have highly articulate reasons for doing so. Basically, > multichannel mono (eg announcements coming over a load of ceiling speakers) > always sounds like it comes from the nearest speaker, since that's the > earliest arriving example. The rest are just 'reflections' - or at least, > are treated as such by human precedence effects. > > Given that there's an interaction between amplitude and time, > (Time-Intensity_Trading), you'd have to do quite a bit with amplitude to > persuade the cognitive mechanisms responsible for precedence effects to > relinquish the conclusion that the first-arriving sound is the actual > source. > > Of course, it's the principle used in delay towers at big stadium events - > and it's also a handy way to make 1st order ambisonics sound like higher > order (i.e with fewer reversals or image skewing) when used in a large > space (material dependent, of course) > Cheers > ppl > > Dr. Peter Lennox > Senior Lecturer in Perception > College of Arts > University of Derby, UK > e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk > t: 01332 593155 > https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of > Augustine Leudar > Sent: 10 December 2015 15:29 > To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] vertical precedence and summing localisation > (wallis and lee 2015) > > Gary Kendall gave us a fantastic demo of this phenomena at Sarc when I was > doing my masters. He sat us down in a circle within in a massive ring of > speakers. There were sound effects all over the place but there was a > narration over the top. I was completely astonished when I found out that > the narration was coming out of all speakers at the same time. Everyone > thought the speaker nearest to them was the only one the narration was > coming out of. Ive since used the effect in a sound installation. > I'm trying to think what sort of situation where such a scenario might > naturally occur and why our brain has evolved to do this ? Im guessing its > something to do with cancelling early reflections so we can more precisely > locate a threat ? > > On 10 December 2015 at 12:26, Peter Lennox <p.len...@derby.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Thanks - that's clarified things. -I've always taken precedence to be > > the "shift towards" rather than the measure that stipulates " > > localised at the exact direction of the leading sound in the presence of > lagging sound (e.g. > > full phantom image shift to one loudspeaker position), if the delay > > time exceeds a certain limit" - hence my confusion about the apparent > > contradiction. > > In this, I've followed Litovsky et al (abstract below) and Barbara > > Shinn-Cunningham: " Definition: The precedence effect is a > > well-studied phenomenon in spatial hearing that is related to how we > > localize sounds accurately in everyday settings. Specifically, when > > two sound sources reach a listener close together in time, listeners > often hear a single "fused" > > image whose perceived direction is near the location of the > > first-arriving sound" (Encyclopedia of Computational Neuroscience DOI > > 10.1007/978-1-4614-7320-6_101-5) Notably, Shinn-Cunningham also > > describes the disproportionate weighting of onsets in precedence > > effects : " Perceptually, judgments of the direction of a sound source > > depend strongly on spatial information in the onset of sound and > > relatively weakly on spatial information in later-arriving portions of > > sound (e.g., see Brown and Stecker 2010)" - whereas in your tests, > > the onset transients were attenuated - is that right? > > cheers > > > > > > The precedence effect > > Ruth Y. Litovskya) and H. Steven Colburn Hearing Research Center and > > Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, > > Massachusetts 02215 William A. Yost and Sandra J. Guzman Parmly > > Hearing Institute, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois > > 60201 > > ~Received 20 April 1998; revised 9 April 1999; accepted 23 June 1999 > > In a reverberant environment, sounds reach the ears through several > paths. > > Although the direct > > sound is followed by multiple reflections, which would be audible in > > isolation, the first-arriving wavefront dominates many aspects of > > perception. The ''precedence effect'' > > refers to a group of > > phenomena that are thought to be involved in resolving competition for > > perception and localization between a direct sound and a reflection. > > This article is divided into five major sections. First, it begins > > with a review of recent work on psychoacoustics, which divides the > > phenomena into measurements of fusion, localization dominance, and > > discrimination suppression. Second, buildup of precedence and > > breakdown of precedence are discussed. Third measurements in several > > animal species, developmental changes in humans, and animal studies > > are described. Fourth, recent physiological measurements that might be > > helpful in providing a fuller understanding of precedence effects are > > reviewed. Fifth, a number of psychophysical models are described which > > illustrate fundamentally different approaches and have distinct > > advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of this review is to provide > > a framework within which to describe the effects of precedence and to > > help in the integration of data from both psychophysical and > > physiological experiments. It is probably only through the combined > > efforts of these fields that a full theory of precedence will evolve > > and useful models will be developed. > > > > Dr. Peter Lennox > > Senior Lecturer in Perception > > College of Arts > > University of Derby, UK > > e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk > > t: 01332 593155 > > https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox > > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of > > Hyunkook Lee > > Sent: 10 December 2015 00:00 > > To: sursound@music.vt.edu > > Subject: Re: [Sursound] vertical precedence and summing localisation > > (wallis and lee 2015) > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > I am writing in response to the question raised regarding our recent > > JAES paper on vertical precedence effect (Wallis and Lee). > > > > Firstly, on the debate about whether the precedence effect works > > vertically or not, we first need to clarify the original definition of > > the precedence effect. In a strict sense, the precedence effect means > > that sound is localised at the exact direction of the leading sound in > > the presence of lagging sound (e.g. full phantom image shift to one > > loudspeaker position), if the delay time exceeds a certain limit (e.g. > > 1ms). Here the lagging sound is not required to be reduced in level > > (e.g.the leading and lagging sounds have the same level. The Haas > > effect suggest lagging sound could even be louder than leading sound > > within a certain delay range, but this is only the case for horizontal > > stereo). As Peter initially pointed out in this discussion, Litovsky > > et al 1997 claim that the precedence effect is still valid in the > > median plane, however, what they investigated was actually > > "localisation dominance" rather than the strict precedence effect. > > That is, they concluded that the precedence eff ect was still evident > > when the perceived sound image was shifted "towards" the leading > > source position, even though the perceived position was not exactly at > > the position of the leading source. In fact the subjects' responses > > were collected as percentages for whether image was perceived closer > > to leading or lagging source rather than actually perceived position, > > so it's unclear where the image was localised. Another difference is > > that we used speakers at 0 and 30deg elevation angles, whereas Litovsky > et al speakers at front, overhead, and behind. > > > > The definition used in our study, on the other hand, is close to the > > strict definition for the precedence effect: perceived phantom image > > created from lower and upper loudspeakers (30degree elevation) has to > > be perceived at the "same" position as the perceived position of the > > leading loudspeaker (lower speaker). The reason why we compared > > phantom image position with the "perceived" position of the leading > > loudspeaker rather than the "physical" position was due to the fact > > that vertical localisation is governed by the pitch height effect, which > means that the physical > > speaker position is not necessarily same as the perceived position. > What > > we found was that no time delay between 0 and 10ms gave rise to a > > shift of image position fully to the perceived position of lower > > loudspeaker. Rather the perceived position was random with time delay > > change, which we explains in the paper based on comb filtering resulting > at the ear. > > > > The results of our previous studies support this further. For two > > speakers with 30degree elevation in the median plane, with various > > musical sources, we found that at least 6-7dB level reduction needed > > to be applied to delayed upper speaker signal (lagging) in order to > > localise resulting image at the perceived position of the lower > > loudspeaker (Lee 2011). Similar results were obtained for diagonally > > arranged loudspeaker pair (Stenzel et al 2014). For octave band noise > > stimuli, the amount of level reduction required for delayed upper > > speaker signal varies significantly depending on the band, but for > > broadband noise the required level reduction was about 12dB (Wallis > > and Lee 2014). If the precedence effect had operated, non of this > > level reduction would have been required. Below are the references for > these studies. > > > > Lee, H. (2011) 'The Relationship Between Interchannel Time and Level > > Differences in Vertical Sound Localization and Masking', In: 131st > > Audio Engineering Society Convention, Preprint 8556. > > > > Stenzel, H., Scuda, U. and Lee, H. (2014) 'Localization and Masking > > Thresholds of Diagonally Positioned Sound Sources and Their > > Relationship to Interchannel Time and Level Differences'. In: > > Proceedings of International Conference on Spatial Audio 2014. > > Erlangen, Germany: Verband Deutscher Tonmeister. . ISBN 978-3-98 > > 12830-4-4 > > > > Wallis, R. and Lee, H. (2014) 'Investigation into Vertical > > Stereophonic Localisation in the Presence of Interchannel Crosstalk'. > > In: 136th Audio Engineering Society Convention, Preprint 9026. > > > > I hope this helps clarify the discrepancy between our result and > > Litovsky's. Basically it is due to how we define the precedence > > effect, and if we use the more strict definition, there are enough > > evidences showing that the effect doesn't work vertically. If we just > > mean localisation dominance by the precedence effect, I guess it is a > > bit risky in that it can be confused with summing localisation. > > > > Best regards, > > Hyunkook > > ========================================= > > Dr Hyunkook Lee, BMus(Tonmeister), PhD, MAES, FHEA Senior Lecturer in > > Music Technology Leader of the Applied Psychoacoustics Laboratory > > (APL) > > http://www.hud.ac.uk/research/researchcentres/mtprg/projects/apl/ > > School of Computing and Engineering > > University of Huddersfield > > Huddersfield > > HD1 3DH > > United Kingdom > > Phone: +44 (0)1484 471893 > > Email: h....@hud.ac.uk > > Office: CE 2 /14a > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Sursound [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] on behalf of > > sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu [sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu] > > Sent: 09 December 2015 17:00 > > To: sursound@music.vt.edu > > Subject: Sursound Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9 > > > > Send Sursound mailing list submissions to > > sursound@music.vt.edu > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > sursound-ow...@music.vt.edu > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than > > "Re: Contents of Sursound digest..." > > > > > > WHEN REPLYING EDIT THE SUBJECT LINE AND THE MESSAGE BODY > > > > You are receiving the digest so when replying, please remember to edit > > your Subject line to that of the original message you are replying to, > > so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Sursound-list digest?" > > the subject should match the post you are replying to. > > > > Also, please EDIT the quoted post so that it is not the entire digest, > > but just the post you are replying to - this will keep the archive > > useful and not polluted with extraneous posts. > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: OZO? (Fons Adriaensen) > > 2. Re: Visual monitoring of surround sound (D Ryan) > > 3. Re: OZO? vertical precedence (Augustine Leudar) > > 4. Re: Dolby Atmos audio recording on sale... (Augustine Leudar) > > 5. Re: Dolby Atmos audio recording on sale... (Augustine Leudar) > > 6. Re: OZO? vertical precedence (Peter Lennox) > > 7. vertical precendence and summing localisation (wallis and lee > > 2015) (J?rn Nettingsmeier) > > 8. Re: vertical precendence and summing localisation (wallis and > > lee 2015) (Peter Lennox) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 17:12:44 +0000 > > From: Fons Adriaensen <f...@linuxaudio.org> > > To: sursound@music.vt.edu > > Subject: Re: [Sursound] OZO? > > Message-ID: <20151208171244.ga6...@linuxaudio.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 01:55:36AM +0000, Stefan Schreiber wrote: > > > > > But your plots surely don't apply directly to the Ozo sphere, which > > > is packed with electronics inside? (s. Nokia's videos.) The word "case" > > > includes the interior of the sphere, which is not hollow. > > > Your plots refer to an empty sphere, don't they? > > > > A solid (i.e. acoustically not transparent) sphere. It doesn't matter > > what is inside. > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 17:30:15 +0000 > > From: D Ryan <digima...@gmail.com> > > To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> > > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Visual monitoring of surround sound > > Message-ID: > > < > > caoyhszzdauc4mgttarrtzfypkzerc3pqlbmr_f44ntay7jh...@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > see: http://www.fluxhome.com/products/analyzer_modules/pas_surround > > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:13 PM, David Pickett <d...@fugato.com> wrote: > > > > > Apart from the obvious measurement of the amplitude and phase of the > > > individual signals, which I do, I only have access to two ways of > > > visually monitoring surround signals. > > > > > > I have always found a phase meter very informative in stereo. There > > > is the centre zero "correlation" meter type, either analog or with > > > LED bars, and the oscilloscope L/R or M/S method which I find less > useful. > > > Having written that, I must say that I find the "Vector scope" in > > > RME's Digicheck works well. This is an oscilloscope display but > > > there is the option of AGC, and the rise and fall times are adjustable. > > > > > > Digicheck's surround visualisation includes phase meters between all > > > the channels of the "correlation" type and a synthesized two > > > dimensional display which assumes five channels in the directions of > > > 5.1. If there is sound on one channel, one sees a line pointing in > > > the direction of the relevant loudspeaker. Two adjacent channel > > > produce a triangle, one apex at the centre, four a quadrilateral, etc. > > > Thus the space between the channels is filled in, although to me > > > this conveys no real information. One can read the individual phase > > > meters, which are mostly of use with tones, or read the position of > > > the corners of the display to see the relative magnitude of the > > > levels in each channel. (There are also separate level meters on > > > the same > > > panel.) > > > > > > The other surorund display that I have is in Samplitude, and also > > > assumes 5.1. This produces cigar shaped signals for individual > > > channels, coming to a point at the origin, but very rounded at the > > > outer end. Two front signals will fill in the space between the L&R > > > cigars, etc. Other than that, I have been uinable to discover how > > > it works. With this display, one can see if a single channel is low > > > or high in level, and gauge the relative levels of F and B. But > > > there is no indication of the coherence, or lack of it, between > channels. > > > > > > On a stereo phase display, such as that in Digicheck, one can > > > readily see if a mono signal has been placed in the stereo by means > > > of a panpot; but this cannot be seen in either of the surround > > > visualizations > > that I have. > > > > > > What might work would be the Digicheck stereo display modified such > > > that signals in the front half on the soundfield are placed in the > > > top half of the display, while the rear half is in the lower part. > > > Then it might be possible to distinguish between panpotted signals > > > and > > coherent pairs. > > > > > > I'd be very interested to know about other methods of visualizing > > > surround > > > -- in the horizontal plane, at least to start with. In my > > > experience I can tell a lot about a stereo signal by watching the > > > level and phase meters, and I would like to be able to do also in > surround. > > > > > > David > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > > scrubbed... > > URL: < > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2015120 > > 8/cd552afe/attachment.html > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 19:57:47 +0000 > > From: Augustine Leudar <augustineleu...@gmail.com> > > To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> > > Subject: Re: [Sursound] OZO? vertical precedence > > Message-ID: > > < > > cabx2juorvyxvgld2tbjljm01y48jx-jypcgxf7t+4vted7n...@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Very interesting paper. I would love to read it properly - can you > > just tell me - does precedence work as well vertically as it does > horizontally ? > > > > On 8 December 2015 at 13:30, J?rn Nettingsmeier < > > netti...@stackingdwarves.net> wrote: > > > > > On 12/08/2015 01:47 PM, Peter Lennox wrote: > > > > > >> Couldn't find the full paper again - but there's this one in full: > > >> https://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/litovsky.pdf > > >> > > >> The abstract ends "...models that attribute the precedecence effect > > >> entirely to processes that involve binaural differences are no > > >> longer viable" > > >> > > >> The researchers are known as excellent contributors to the corpus > > >> of psychophysics (Ruth Litovsky did the defninitive review of > > >> precedence effects). > > >> > > >> So I would be interested to examine the differences in their > > >> findings and Huddersfield's > > >> > > > > > > thanks, very interesting! a quick glance makes me very curious, i'm > > > looking forward to reading this tonight. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > J?rn Nettingsmeier > > > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 > > > > > > Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio) Tonmeister VDT > > > > > > http://stackingdwarves.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > www.augustineleudar.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > > scrubbed... > > URL: < > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2015120 > > 8/2be0465c/attachment.html > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:01:37 +0000 > > From: Augustine Leudar <augustineleu...@gmail.com> > > To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> > > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Dolby Atmos audio recording on sale... > > Message-ID: > > <CABx2juoGumx+KVNJHmdTSKWZjika5YEDV00naD1= > > rkrqgra...@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > The problem with protoos is it only does 7.1 ? I was speaking to one > > of the DTS guys and they have to mix hight using only a horizontal > > monitoring environment - obviously not ideal ! > > > > On 8 December 2015 at 07:10, Douglas Murray <dmur...@well.com> wrote: > > > > > Atmos has a 9.1 ?bed" (7.1 with two ceiling arrays), and more > > > objects than speakers. Therefore each speaker could have an object > > > dedicated to it. Each playback space is different though, so Atmos > > > interpolates objects between available speakers to ?render" desired > > > pan location to actual monitor speaker locations. > > > > > > I suspect that if you wanted to you could set an object at each > > > speaker?s location and send a ?holistic? recording to each of those > > > speakers. They may not be in the optimum locations for ambisonic > > > decoders but it might not be entirely incompatible. That could be > > > made to work with some success in a particular auditorium for which > > > the > > objects match the speaker locations. > > > The sound field might not translate so well to other Atmos rooms. > > > Which makes me wonder: how would an ambisonic sound field would pay > > > back in other sized and equipped Atmos rooms? > > > > > > I can?t answer any of Spencer?s questions properly. I do know that > > > the Atmos RMU (renderer) takes each mono or stereo object audio > > > channel and places or pans it around the room based on XYZ and size > metadata. > > > These positions are mapped to the available speakers based on a > > > stored "room configuration" file in the RMU of the number and > > > location of speakers in the particular room. These objects can > > > coexist with a conventional ?bed? of > > > 7.1 L, C, R, Lss, Rss, Lsr, Rsr, LFE arrangement with the addition > > > of the "overhead" two arrays of ceiling speakers, 1 running down the > > > left center of the ceiling, and one on the right center of the > > > ceiling (called Lts and Rts). > > > > > > There is practical documentation for cinema mixers at > > > http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/authoring-for-do > > > lb > > > y-atmos-cinema-sound-manual.pdf > > > < > > > http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/authoring-for-do > > > lb y-atmos-cinema-sound-manual.pdf> which contains specific > > > instructions on how to use current technology, primarily Pro Tools, > > > to prepare Atmos masters correctly. They don?t address HOA at all. > > > Cinemas have RMU hardware in their projection booths, but there is > > > also a software only renderer available for sound design rooms, > > > which often have a minimal surround and overhead allotment of > > > speakers. > > > > > > Doug Murray > > > Film sound editor > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Ben Bloomberg <b...@mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > I think the default configuration is 118 objects and two 9.1 beds. > > > > > > > > :/ not ideal. > > > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Spencer Russell > > > > <s...@media.mit.edu> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Is there any technical info available about how Atmos content is > > > >> encoded? I've seen reference to "128 channels" so does that mean > > > >> things are encoded as up to 128 simultaneous channels coming from > > > >> different virtual locations? How do they get re-panned for the > > > >> client-side speaker configuration? If so are the locations > > > >> movable or hard-coded in the format? Are there any shoot-outs out > > > >> there between Atmos and HOA? It's hard to find technical info > > > >> among all the > > marketing. > > > >> > > > >> -s > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote: > > > >>> Peter Lennox wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Yes, the thinking is that a speaker-layout-agnostic format file > > > >>>> can be > > > >> transmitted and decoded at the client end of things, so it could > > > >> end up being mono, stereo, surround, surround with height, > > > >> large-scale surround (eg cinema) and so on, depending on the > > > >> technical competence of the > > > client > > > >> machine. > > > >>>> Of course, a lot could go wrong... > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> With the limitation that audio objects alone don't define a real > > > >>> acoustic space/environment. (You would have to render this.) > > > >>> > > > >>> It is good to have options. But audio objects are not very > > > >>> compatible with holistic = real recordings? > > > >>> > > > >>> (Audio objects have been used for ages in game audio, > > > >>> including rendering of reflections and simulated acoustics.) > > > >>> > > > >>> Dolby Atmos is actually a hybrid (C/O) format. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Best, > > > >>> > > > >>> Stefan > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Dr. Peter Lennox > > > >>>> Senior Lecturer in Perception > > > >>>> College of Arts > > > >>>> University of Derby, UK > > > >>>> e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk > > > >>>> t: 01332 593155 > > > >>>> https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox > > > >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> 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. > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> 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. > > > >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > > > > scrubbed... > > > > URL: < > > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151 > > > 20 > > > 7/d05105f0/attachment.html > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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. > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > > > scrubbed... > > > URL: < > > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151 > > > 20 > > > 7/4f1fdabb/attachment.html > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > www.augustineleudar.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > > scrubbed... > > URL: < > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2015120 > > 8/1c77676c/attachment.html > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:06:40 +0000 > > From: Augustine Leudar <augustineleu...@gmail.com> > > To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> > > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Dolby Atmos audio recording on sale... > > Message-ID: > > < > > cabx2jur6r-h5zjfcu4o974pvcejodesajwxghvoxmcur+gg...@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Stefan - > > what software is used to render/design these audio objects ? > > best > > Gus > > > > On 7 December 2015 at 17:37, Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt> > > wrote: > > > > > Peter Lennox wrote: > > > > > > Yes, the thinking is that a speaker-layout-agnostic format file can > > > be > > >> transmitted and decoded at the client end of things, so it could > > >> end up being mono, stereo, surround, surround with height, > > >> large-scale surround (eg cinema) and so on, depending on the > > >> technical competence of the client machine. > > >> Of course, a lot could go wrong... > > >> > > >> > > > > > > With the limitation that audio objects alone don't define a real > > > acoustic space/environment. (You would have to render this.) > > > > > > It is good to have options. But audio objects are not very > > > compatible with holistic = real recordings? > > > > > > (Audio objects have been used for ages in game audio, including > > > rendering of reflections and simulated acoustics.) > > > > > > Dolby Atmos is actually a hybrid (C/O) format. > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr. Peter Lennox > > >> Senior Lecturer in Perception > > >> College of Arts > > >> University of Derby, UK > > >> e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk t: 01332 593155 > > >> https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox > > >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > www.augustineleudar.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > > scrubbed... > > URL: < > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2015120 > > 8/61fdebf5/attachment.html > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:07:59 +0000 > > From: Peter Lennox <p.len...@derby.ac.uk> > > To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> > > Subject: Re: [Sursound] OZO? vertical precedence > > Message-ID: > > < > > 28f33490c302424e98cc6dc2531b2048010969e41...@mkt-mbx01.university.ds.d > > erby.ac.uk > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > no -percedence effects include a range of phenomena. But precedence in > > the median plane isn't quite as effective as in the azimuthal plane, > > according to Litovsky, Rakerd, Hartmann et al, but is still quite > > effective and so not negligible. So I'd like to understand what Lee > > (Huddersfield) was saying, to compare. > > > > Certainly, in respect of producing phantom imagery in the vertical, > > I've found this to be quite effective (though often slightly more > > vague than in > > horizontal) which would explain why periphonic ambisonics works at all > > - and this seems to be a related issue to the precedence one cheers ppl > Dr. > > Peter Lennox Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy Senior > > Lecturer in Perception College of Arts University of Derby > > > > Tel: 01332 593155 > > ________________________________________ > > From: Sursound [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Augustine > > Leudar [augustineleu...@gmail.com] > > Sent: 08 December 2015 19:57 > > To: Surround Sound discussion group > > Subject: Re: [Sursound] OZO? vertical precedence > > > > Very interesting paper. I would love to read it properly - can you > > just tell me - does precedence work as well vertically as it does > horizontally ? > > > > On 8 December 2015 at 13:30, J?rn Nettingsmeier < > > netti...@stackingdwarves.net> wrote: > > > > > On 12/08/2015 01:47 PM, Peter Lennox wrote: > > > > > >> Couldn't find the full paper again - but there's this one in full: > > >> https://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/litovsky.pdf > > >> > > >> The abstract ends "...models that attribute the precedecence effect > > >> entirely to processes that involve binaural differences are no > > >> longer viable" > > >> > > >> The researchers are known as excellent contributors to the corpus > > >> of psychophysics (Ruth Litovsky did the defninitive review of > > >> precedence effects). > > >> > > >> So I would be interested to examine the differences in their > > >> findings and Huddersfield's > > >> > > > > > > thanks, very interesting! a quick glance makes me very curious, i'm > > > looking forward to reading this tonight. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > J?rn Nettingsmeier > > > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 > > > > > > Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio) Tonmeister VDT > > > > > > http://stackingdwarves.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > www.augustineleudar.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > > scrubbed... > > URL: < > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2015120 > > 8/2be0465c/attachment.html > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > > > The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and > > reserves the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this was > > sent to you in error, please select unsubscribe. > > > > Unsubscribe and Security information contact: info...@derby.ac.uk > > For all FOI requests please contact: f...@derby.ac.uk > > All other Contacts are at http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/ > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 15:00:10 +0100 > > From: J?rn Nettingsmeier <netti...@stackingdwarves.net> > > To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> > > Subject: [Sursound] vertical precendence and summing localisation > > (wallis and lee 2015) > > Message-ID: <566833ea.5000...@stackingdwarves.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" > > > > On 12/08/2015 09:07 PM, Peter Lennox wrote: > > > no -percedence effects include a range of phenomena. But precedence > > > in the median plane isn't quite as effective as in the azimuthal > > > plane, according to Litovsky, Rakerd, Hartmann et al, but is still > > > quite effective and so not negligible. So I'd like to understand > > > what Lee > > > (Huddersfield) was saying, to compare. > > > > i've attached the paper, since it is open access. > > i guess i misrepresented it a bit, because i was being sloppy about > > distinguishing between precedence effect and summing localisation. > > > > however, wallis and lee conclude: > > > > "Additionally, no evidence could be found to support the operation of > > the precedence effect in median plane stereophony. In the present > > study the only occasions whereby stimuli were localized at the > > position of the ear- lier emitting loudspeaker were due to the pitch > > height ef- fect. There was also no consistent effect of time panning > > observed, with localization judgments for the broadband source > > becoming more biased towards the upper > > loud- speaker as ICTD increased, as opposed to the lower." > > > > [the upper speaker was always lagging behind the lower in this > > experiment.] > > > > in comparing the results with litovsky et al, it should be pointed out > > that while both were conducted under anechoic conditions, the stimuli > > used by wallis and lee were long noise snippets with 1s fade-ins and > > fade-outs rather than clicks, with no transient information at all > > (which seem designed to test the presence of summing localisation), so > > i guess they are not in direct contradiction. > > it just shows that the musical reality will be somewhere in between... > > > > > Certainly, in respect of producing phantom imagery in the vertical, > > > I've found this to be quite effective (though often slightly more > > > vague than in horizontal) which would explain why periphonic > > > ambisonics works at all - and this seems to be a related issue to > > > the precedence one > > > > i found that vbap/stereophonic vertical localisation is excellent on > > speaker positions (because it gets the spectral cues right), and > > unusable anywhere else. > > 3rd-order ambisonic vertical localisation seems uniformly so-so > > throughout the elevation range, which to me is preferrable... > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > J?rn Nettingsmeier > > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 > > > > Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio) Tonmeister VDT > > > > http://stackingdwarves.net > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was > > scrubbed... > > Name: 18040.pdf > > Type: application/pdf > > Size: 299653 bytes > > Desc: not available > > URL: < > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2015120 > > 9/d9d9ec4c/attachment.pdf > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 14:30:57 +0000 > > From: Peter Lennox <p.len...@derby.ac.uk> > > To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> > > Subject: Re: [Sursound] vertical precendence and summing localisation > > (wallis and lee 2015) > > Message-ID: > > < > > 28f33490c302424e98cc6dc2531b204801096adf3...@mkt-mbx01.university.ds.d > > erby.ac.uk > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > Ah, that's becoming clearer, thanks. > > > > In respect of trying to measure precedence, then naturally, I'd say > > that without transients, one has something which would not appeal well > > to precedence effects anyway - (in the Franssen effect, which uses > > sinewaves as stimuli, I believe, it was shown that no re-localisation > > occurred even when panned through 180 degrees - until a transient is put > in). > > > > But in respect of summing localisation (which, strictly, comes under > > the heading of Precedence effects) - I still think you need the > > transient content, otherwise, what is it that one is summing? - noise > > with a temporal offset is becoming decorrelated (I'm not talking about > > how it might generate lower interaural cross-correlation, obviously) > > but essentially has no source direction because it's not a source, if > > you see what I mean I'll look the paper up cheers > > > > Dr. Peter Lennox > > Senior Lecturer in Perception > > College of Arts > > University of Derby, UK > > e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk > > t: 01332 593155 > > https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox > > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of > > J?rn Nettingsmeier > > Sent: 09 December 2015 14:00 > > To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> > > Subject: [Sursound] vertical precendence and summing localisation > > (wallis and lee 2015) > > > > On 12/08/2015 09:07 PM, Peter Lennox wrote: > > > no -percedence effects include a range of phenomena. But precedence > > > in the median plane isn't quite as effective as in the azimuthal > > > plane, according to Litovsky, Rakerd, Hartmann et al, but is still > > > quite effective and so not negligible. So I'd like to understand > > > what Lee > > > (Huddersfield) was saying, to compare. > > > > i've attached the paper, since it is open access. > > i guess i misrepresented it a bit, because i was being sloppy about > > distinguishing between precedence effect and summing localisation. > > > > however, wallis and lee conclude: > > > > "Additionally, no evidence could be found to support the operation of > > the precedence effect in median plane stereophony. In the present > > study the only occasions whereby stimuli were localized at the > > position of the ear- lier emitting loudspeaker were due to the pitch > > height ef- fect. There was also no consistent effect of time panning > > observed, with localization judgments for the broadband source > > becoming more biased towards the upper > > loud- speaker as ICTD increased, as opposed to the lower." > > > > [the upper speaker was always lagging behind the lower in this > > experiment.] > > > > in comparing the results with litovsky et al, it should be pointed out > > that while both were conducted under anechoic conditions, the stimuli > > used by wallis and lee were long noise snippets with 1s fade-ins and > > fade-outs rather than clicks, with no transient information at all > > (which seem designed to test the presence of summing localisation), so > > i guess they are not in direct contradiction. > > it just shows that the musical reality will be somewhere in between... > > > > > Certainly, in respect of producing phantom imagery in the vertical, > > > I've found this to be quite effective (though often slightly more > > > vague than in horizontal) which would explain why periphonic > > > ambisonics works at all - and this seems to be a related issue to > > > the precedence one > > > > i found that vbap/stereophonic vertical localisation is excellent on > > speaker positions (because it gets the spectral cues right), and > > unusable anywhere else. > > 3rd-order ambisonic vertical localisation seems uniformly so-so > > throughout the elevation range, which to me is preferrable... > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > J?rn Nettingsmeier > > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 > > > > Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio) Tonmeister VDT > > > > http://stackingdwarves.net > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was > > scrubbed... > > Name: 18040.pdf > > Type: application/pdf > > Size: 299653 bytes > > Desc: not available > > URL: < > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2015120 > > 9/d9d9ec4c/attachment.pdf > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > > > The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and > > reserves the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this was > > sent to you in error, please select unsubscribe. > > > > Unsubscribe and Security information contact: info...@derby.ac.uk > > For all FOI requests please contact: f...@derby.ac.uk > > All other Contacts are at http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/ > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sursound mailing list > > Sursound@music.vt.edu > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > > > > WHEN REPLYING EDIT THE SUBJECT LINE AND THE MESSAGE BODY > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Sursound Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9 > > *************************************** > > University of Huddersfield inspiring tomorrow's professionals. > > [http://marketing.hud.ac.uk/_HOSTED/EmailSig2014/EmailSigFooter.jpg] > > > > This transmission is confidential and may be legally privileged. If > > you receive it in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and > > remove it from your system. If the content of this e-mail does not > > relate to the business of the University of Huddersfield, then we do > > not endorse it and will accept no liability. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > > > The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and > > reserves the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this was > > sent to you in error, please select unsubscribe. > > > > Unsubscribe and Security information contact: info...@derby.ac.uk > > For all FOI requests please contact: f...@derby.ac.uk > > All other Contacts are at http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > > > > > > -- > www.augustineleudar.com > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151210/618aad83/attachment.html > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and > reserves the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this was sent > to you in error, please select unsubscribe. > > Unsubscribe and Security information contact: info...@derby.ac.uk > For all FOI requests please contact: f...@derby.ac.uk > All other Contacts are at http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > -- www.augustineleudar.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151210/98a4a3bb/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ 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.
