Augustine Leudar 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 am really quite format-neutral... Did I claim such advantages?
The only thing I wrote into this direction was that sound fields fit by
its very nature very well to 360ยบ video and AR/VR. (Isotropy, 3D capability
even at just 4 channels, SF rotation is quite easy.)
Otherwise, we came from the discussion of quadrophony (now recording
history) - and then binaural recordings.
I have recorded my own Binaural album using binaural
microphones - it doesnt work at all on speakers - and thats with my own
HRTF . Seeing as the claim has been made between "modern" binaural
recordings work on two speakers (not by you incidently) - lets hear one -
I
can guarantee you you will not hear a barber shaving the back of your head
on to loud speakers.
I believe you would need certain filtering (problem: you would damage
headphone representation - where binaural recordings are supposed to
shine!), or X-talk cancellation.
The kunstkopf concept uses some (statistically) averaged HRTF. That you
could do some good binaural recordings (just) with some simple in-ear
microphones and your/our heads is probably just a claim by your local ear
microphone producer... ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording
"For listening using conventional speaker-stereo, or mp3 players, a
pinna-less dummy head may be preferable for quasi-binaural recording, such
as the sphere microphone or Ambiophone. As a general rule, for true
binaural results, an audio recording and reproduction system chain, from
microphone to listener's brain, should contain one and only one set of
pinnae (preferably the listener's own) and one head-shadow."
Binaural stayed in the background due to the expensive, specialized
equipment required for quality recordings, and the requirement of
headphones for proper reproduction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_head_recording
"The dummy head is designed to replicate average sized human head and
depending on the manufacturer may have a nose and mouth too. "
Best,
Stefan
P.S.: No, I don't sell binaural recording equipment. O:-)
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.
In terms of one of these "modern" binaural recordings - I dont really know
what this means . ...
On 9 January 2017 at 03:49, Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt>
wrote:
Augustine Leudar wrote:
Spatial audio is as doused snakeoil as the hifi world.
I find this view a bit one-sided. At least this should not be related to
our discussion...
Sound localisation
is not a purely subjective affair -
I didn't claim this.
have there been any listening tests
which demosntrate binaural rendering is capable of creating anything
like
headphone spatialisation over two stereo loudspeakers ?
I am pretty sure that the kunstkopf proponents did some scientific
listening tests.
Anyway -- perhaps one of these "modern" inaural recording are available
online and we can judge for ourselves.
There are plenty of CDs around, so you will find some content on YT,
Spotify etc.
I have neve rnotices any problems rendering ambisonics or vbap with
dozens
of channels - or even WFS . What do you mean by "you cant record audio
objects" ?
What means "rendering vbap" at all? Vbap is "just" (3D) stereophonic
panning.
You could pan some spot mikes or audio objects into some loudspeaker
layout. But you have to pan "something".
http://legacy.spa.aalto.fi/research/cat/vbap/
What do you mean by "you cant record audio
objects" ?
I was referring to music and scene/ambiance recording.
Of course you can record some audio objects. This is not a complete
recording yet... I admit that the citing above doesn't make a lot of
sense,
but in its context there was one:
Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
capability ?
1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
complexity?
I must again ask: What does "vbap" actually means in your question.
Because it is not clear what should be "compared" at all. For me, VBAP
(=
panning technique) is always used in some specific context. Is this
context 7.1 or Dolby Atmos or DTS:X or...? You see what I mean,
hopefully.
Good night
Stefan
On 9 January 2017 at 01:05, Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt>
wrote:
Augustine Leudar wrote:
<> modern binaural recordings I've heard on speakers did not give
excellent
results they gave terrible results, aside from the fact the transfer
functions are messed up by room reflections and cross talk
Fair enough. But it seems that opinions about this seem to be vastly
different. (The quality of binaural recordings represented via
loudspeakers
is judged to be about between "terrible" and "excellent", depending on
listener....)
it doesn't even
work perfectly on headphones due to differences in individual hrtfs.
No, quite obviously not "perfectly". Listening results will depend a
lot
on the hrtf mismatch between dummy head and (individual) listener. And
the
perspective is fixed - you can't rotate some dummy head recording!
Transaural is supposed to be the the two speaker equivelant of binaural
for
speakers I know spat were due to release a new version that worked -
anyone
heard it ?
Ambiophonics could also be used - as some already established form of
X-talk cancellation.
Stefan I am curious what are the advantages you see of
ambisonics for 360 audio over say vbap aside from upmix downmix
capability ?
1. You can't record audio objects. 2. You could reduce computational
complexity?
You didn't specify any application details. (So I assume you referred
to
music recordings or VR.)
Best regards,
Stefan
On Sunday, 8 January 2017, Bob Burton <b...@audiorents.com> wrote:
1997 "The year had started and finished with Mike (Oldfield)
collaborating
with David Bedford. To finish the year Mike played on the title track
on
Bedford's 5th studio LPInstructions for Angels (V2090). Surprisingly,
the
track on which Mike appeared was recorded live at Worcester Cathedral
on
the Rolling Stones mobile recording studio. This track is quite
breathtaking, with Bedford playing the cathedrals organ and Mike
playing
guitar, the natural acoustics of the cathedral make it sound quite
awesome.
Finally, the complete LP was mixed at Mike's Througham studio in BBC
Matrix
H Quad which was also stereo compatible."
https://youtu.be/hRIadP2XMgc
