and of course I mean amplitude panning rather than vbap in that instance -
but I have had reasonable results doing the same for full 3D installations
as well, at least as resoble as can be expected representing a 3D audio
scene in stereo (which is never very good in any format)

On 9 January 2017 at 12:32, Augustine Leudar <augustineleu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Archontis - I mean when I make a multichannel sound installation and use
> Vbap to pan it - lets say an eight channel octophonic horizonatal array -
> when I export an 8 channel interleaved rendering of this installation later
> and play it back on say, Iplayer, it automatically renders it to stereo and
> and panning is suprising well represented in stereo.
>
> On 9 January 2017 at 12:19, Politis Archontis <archontis.poli...@aalto.fi>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sampo,
>>
>> > On 09 Jan 2017, at 06:27, Sampo Syreeni <de...@iki.fi> wrote:
>> >
>> > The critique I'd have for such panning laws is that they don't really
>> respect the ambisonic/Gerzon theory, especially at the low frequencies. In
>> essence, they work, and necessarily would *have* to work in the high
>> frequency, (ambisonically speaking) high order,sparse array limit. Which is
>> why they mostly work for common music and speech signals.
>>
>> I am a bit baffled by the idea that VBAP is not compatible with
>> Ambisonics theory (?) Thinking in terms of velocity and energy vectors, as
>> far as I understand, VBAP with the (classic) amplitude panning formulation
>> has zero angular error for the (Makita) velocity vectors for all
>> directions. If you take the energy formulation of VBAP for high frequencies
>> (solving for energies instead of amplitudes) then it results in the maximum
>> (Gerzon) energy vectors that the setup can achieve with zero directional
>> error again. Of course at low frequencies you cannot achieve the “perfect”
>> pressure reconstruction that a mode-matching decoder can achieve, but then
>> you see what are the gains that such a decoder imposes on not ideal regular
>> setups to realize that perfect reconstruction should be compromised anyway
>> with some more practical solution.
>>
>>
>> > However, they fail to work general speaker arrays fully. Especially at
>> the lower frequencies. Ambisonically speaking, where we'd go with a
>> holistic, whole array, directionally averaged velocity decode.
>>
>> Again I think it depends how you mean it - VBAP will just work for any
>> speaker array with a performance limited by the setup in a quite intuitive
>> understandable way (large spread for large triangle apertures, full
>> concentration at a speaker direction, nothing for regions outside a partial
>> setup etc..). Ambisonic decoding for any array is not designed as easily as
>> computing VBAP gains, and it seems for irregular setups, one of the most
>> straightforward and practical ways to do it is to combine the properties of
>> VBAP and Ambisonic decoding (as the work of Zotter, Batke, and Epain have
>> shown). Considering panning specifically, I think it depends on the
>> application what works best, for VR or interactive-audio stuff for example,
>> where normally sound objects would be rendered with maximum sharpness VBAP
>> would work better. If however some and more even directional spreading is
>> preferred, then ambisonic panning should be better, or some VBAP variant
>> with spreading as has been presented by Ville and others.
>>
>> So I find Augustine's comments reasonable on panning sounds, but not in
>> general: VBAP vs Ambisonics.
>>
>> > On 09 Jan 2017, at 12:33, Augustine Leudar <augustineleu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes i just mean - when making a 3D sound installation you can use
>> various
>> > types of panning round a sphere (or whatever of speaker array). You
>> seemed
>> > to be saying ambisonics had a clear advantage over other types of
>> panning
>> > for 3D audio - I was just wondering what you saw as ambisonics'
>> advantages
>> > over VBAP. I've actually found Ambisonics to be worse compared to VBAP
>> in
>> > many situations and better in others - but generally I use Vbap or Dbap
>> .
>> > The only real advantage I can see of ambisonics is having one file that
>> can
>> > be up or down mixed - but you can do that to a degree with Vbap files as
>> > well.
>>
>> (What is a VBAP file?)
>>
>> That’s if you have actually access to the sound objects with their
>> parametric information, in which case sure you can pan them however you
>> like, you can even switch between different panners on the fly and pick the
>> one you prefer. However, the generality of Ambisonics becomes clear if you
>> have real sound-scene recordings, or you don’t have access to the objects
>> due to bandwidth limitations, and it makes sense to downmix them to a
>> format that preserves their directional properties as good as possible.
>> This last case becomes especially important if decoding of some HOA
>> channels (or even FOA with parametric decoding) becomes perceptually
>> indistinguishable with respect to spatializing many of sound objects
>> separately..
>>
>> Regards,
>> Archontis
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Augustine Leudar
> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> Company Number : NI635217
> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> Belfast BT88LL
>
>


-- 
Augustine Leudar
Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
Company Number : NI635217
Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
Belfast BT88LL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20170109/e84c42cb/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.

Reply via email to