Stefan - I think we may be getting crossed wires here (pun not intended) Me: *“one channel over several speakers sounds crap”* " You: *"* *I would say your statement is just wrong. We are following normal panning rules, which are proven in millions of * *recordings."*
Stereo recordings have two channels, not one - unless you're referring to mono which of course can sound fine with one channel on two speakers - but has no panning whatsoever But perhaps you are not understanding what I am saying or perhaps you are trolling me :) You suggest "just trying VBAP - well I first "just tried VBAP" fifteen years ago and have used it in literally hundreds of installations since and much prefer it to ambisonics in 90 percent of situations.- I literally use it for work nearly every day and its cousin DBAP and other forms of amplitude panning, day in day out so I do hope you take the time to actually understand what I am trying to say otherwise I fear this may be wasted time for both of us . "*Stereo to 4 speakers: You can’t map stereo to positions which are out of the stereo front*." You can and people do - but it sounds crap - which was my point - people upmix a stereo file to 5.1 for example in post houses all the time there is a variety of ways they do this and you can read about them here : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-10546-3_28 "*It is important to see that every position is panned to 2 speakers in * *2D, and (usually) 3 speakers in 3D.*" ????? Yes and no - stereo is panned to positions in 2 speakers of course but I would think more carefully about what 2D and 3D actually mean ....... technically speaking - 3D just refers to 3 dimensions. 3D could refer to a million speakers, so could 2D actually. It's very rare for any kind of spatial audio to be rendered over 3 speakers though it happens. Whilst I know simple surround systems are referred to as 3D In reality the whole thing is a misnomer, 3D should include height and proximity. So a point source (1 speaker ) should be called 0D, Stereo should be called 1D - a line - quad/5.1 octaphonic/3 speakers you refer to should be called 2D as its just a flat surface- from then on we include height - Ambisonics when rendered with height, should, in my opinion, should be called 2.5 D as it cant really create proximity properly - aka sounds coming close to you. True 3D audio, where a sound can be anywhere in 3D space including sounds that come right up close to you can only be created by DBAP in my experience, or other amplitude panning and perhaps binaural (not heard this convincingly yet) though Matt Montags WFS with height system might be able to do it. More on the definition of dimensions : https://gadgetsthink.com/what-is-dimension-full-explained-1d-2d-3d-4d-etc/ You could argue you could add height to 3 (or even 2 or 1) speakers using psychoacoustic effects , directional bands etc making it 3D - or you could stick one speaker up a lampost for height - but that's another can of worms. Recent "developments" in 4D, 8D audio etc etc are just marketing gimmicks. Anyway, - I am not talking about ambisonics or object-based panning (and yes object-based panning systems such as Atmos use amplitude panning in a system similar to VBAP but instead of a triangle of speakers uses a rectangular tesselation : https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2016210174A1/en) . I am talking for want of a better expression amplitude panning and also the Scheoops type system at the beginning of this thread. Lets me try and explain things as clearly as possible. IF I have a stereo file in which a bird flies from one speaker to another and I simply "upmix" this stereo file by doubling it onto a quad array then the bird will be flying from the front left to the front right speaker AND the back left to the back right speaker - which willl sound crap, or at least not usually the desired effect . So in the example of the Scheops setup - you have 8 hypercardioid speakers point to the 8 corners of the cube - each one of those channels is meant to go go to ONE speaker of a cube array. Ie each one of those mics and speakers covers one corner or an eighth of the 3D sound field. Let's go back to the bird. Say I have a bird happily staying in the top right speaker of my octaphonic cube as was recorded there by my mic or positioned there by mu panner. If you suddenly get that top right corner channel of the octatonic cube and put it on two speakers instead of just the one it was originally meant to represent (aka upmixing) then the bird will no longer be an accurate point source in one place it will now be coming from two places, if those two speakers are in different trees - that bird will now be coming from two trees - aka the bird will suddenly be larger, or the imaging blurred and you might get lucky with precedence effect,this will apply to all panning in the sound scene too if you have upmixed all speakers, the further apart the speakers are the worse it will be. For me this kind of thing is crucially important as I do walkaround installations that cannot have a "sweet spot". So upmixing presents a problem for this type of 3D audio recordings - and perhaps less so for ambisonics. Now downmixing with this kind of recordings and composition actually works quite well and I have tried it many times when I've needed to send a rough mix to prospective clients and I am left with the daunting task of downmixing a 28 channel installation to a stereo file - you have to be very selective about which channels you use and the perspective of the listener. Funnily enough the stereo recordings I have downmixed from quad and octaphonic recordings sound strangely spacious. I hope this makes my point of view clear - it is quite simple and based on years of experience and research and is quite practical - things have to work or I don't get gigs and the public response is not good simple as that. Delightful as this conversation is I have to get back to work and will be offline for a bit - I bid you good day sir. On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 at 01:34, Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote: > > Stereo to 4 speakers: You can’t map stereo to positions which are out > of the stereo front. > > Octomic to 20 speakers: Should actually (and does) work, via simple > panning. > > It is important to see that every position is panned to 2 speakers in > 2D, and (usually) 3 speakers in 3D. > (If speakers should stay empty I don’t see any problem.) > > “one channel over several speakers sounds crap” > > We are following normal panning rules, which are proven in millions of > recordings. So I would say your statement is just wrong. > > You don’t spread “8 speakers over 20 speakers” in some statistical > ways, if that is what you meant. > So I just have suggested to “try” VBAP, obtaining some very reasonable > (and proven) results. > > Object and speaker panning is not very different, by the way. > (You can see the speakers also as objects. ) > > > Best, > > Stefan > > > > > > > > ----- Mensagem de Augustine Leudar <augustineleu...@gmail.com> --------- > Data: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:21:50 +0100 > De: Augustine Leudar <augustineleu...@gmail.com> > Assunto: Re: [Sursound] Recorder for ORTF-3D OUTDOOR SET > Para: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> > > > > > I refer to mapping, for example, a stereo file to 4 speakers, an > octophonic > > to 20 speakers etc - one channel over several speakers sounds crap - so, > > for example, the bird that should be a point source coming out of one > > speaker is now coming of three menaing th ebird i s no longer a point > > source etc etc - the same goes for panning so yes horribly blurred - Im > not > > talking about objects > > > > On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 13:44, Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> You < can > remap stereophonic recordings, via simple panning. > >> > >> Are audio objects “horribly blurred” if you render them? Don’t think > >> so... ;-) > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Stefan > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Mensagem de Augustine Leudar <augustineleu...@gmail.com> > --------- > >> Data: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 12:33:34 +0100 > >> De: Augustine Leudar <augustineleu...@gmail.com> > >> Assunto: Re: [Sursound] Recorder for ORTF-3D OUTDOOR SET > >> Para: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> > >> > >> > >> > >> > you can also get reasonably nice downmixes to quad and stereo by > >> combining > >> > channels as well . However, the problem with Scheops type systemsI > see is > >> > upmixing rather than downmixing. YOur basically spreadinge signal over > >> > several speakers when you do that which blurs localisation horrible- > and > >> > this is where ambisonics should, theoretically, have an advantage. > >> > > >> > < > >> > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon > >> > > >> > Virus-free. > >> > www.avast.com > >> > < > >> > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link > >> > > >> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > >> > > >> > On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 16:32, Fons Adriaensen <f...@linuxaudio.org> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:36:38PM +0100, jack reynolds wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > The only problem with using ambisonics mics is the high frequency > >> limit > >> >> > above which they stop working properly. A second order ambi mic > >> reduces > >> >> > this problem, but above about 7Khz the not quite coincident > capsules > >> >> > becomes a problem. > >> >> > >> >> First order responses from an OctoMic are near perfect up to 11 kHz > or > >> so, > >> >> and not perfect but still very usable even at 15 kHz. I doubt very > much > >> >> if there is any 'real' cardioid' doing better at that frequency and > >> above. > >> >> Certainly not if you take diffraction / reflection from the mic body > and > >> >> clamp into account. > >> >> > >> >> Anyway, have you ever considered the sort of frequency and polar > >> response > >> >> you get by combining signals from capsules spaced more than 10 cm > apart > >> ? > >> >> You'll find they look quite horrible if you care to compute or > measure > >> >> them. > >> >> > >> >> You could of course object that those should never be combined, just > >> each > >> >> one sent to its own speaker. But that would mean that such a one to > one > >> >> mapping is the only possible way to use such signals if you want to > >> >> preserve > >> >> sound quality. No downmixing or anything similar (e.g. binaural) > >> allowed. > >> >> > >> >> But we all know that this is not true, we all have heard very nice > music > >> >> recordings done with spaced mics. Even those in theory horrible > >> frequency > >> >> or polar responses resulting from spaced mics can sound quite well. > Wich > >> >> in turn means that this whole 'imperfect polar responses' debate is > >> mostly > >> >> academic if not irrelevant. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Ciao, > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> FA > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> 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. > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Artist website: www.augustineleudar.com > >> > Business website: www.magikdoor.net > >> > -------------- next part -------------- > >> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >> > URL: > >> > < > >> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20201023/17717069/attachment.htm > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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. > >> ----- Fim da mensagem de Augustine Leudar <augustineleu...@gmail.com> > >> ----- > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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. > >> > > > > > > -- > > Artist website: www.augustineleudar.com > > Business website: www.magikdoor.net > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > > < > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20201023/c1b3c891/attachment.htm > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > ----- Fim da mensagem de Augustine Leudar <augustineleu...@gmail.com> > ----- > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Artist website: www.augustineleudar.com Business website: www.magikdoor.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20201025/a7f8ecd7/attachment.htm> _______________________________________________ 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.
