Haha fair play lad - remember we have had long conversations about VBAP
already in private  years ago .....
anyway take care and shame you are not the same Stefan, I really must get
away from this dreadful internet

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 at 14:05, Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt>
wrote:

>
>
>
> Ok, Augustine, I think we have come a lot closer. And there is
> actually no language barrier...
>
>
> I tried to explain that you can use VBAP for (stereophonic)
> formatconversion.
>
> Steinberg: I have no relationship whatsoever with this company.
> However, you are not the only one who thinks that I am working for
> them...
>
> (https://de.linkedin.com/in/schreiberstefan
>
> is NOT me. AFAIK.... 🤷‍♂️ )
>
>
> I think it would be a great idea to integrate DPAP into their products.
> Best to directly write to them, I guess.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Stefan (the guy who is NOT Steinberg)
>
>
> P.S.: This doesn’t go on like this. Either he or me has to change the
> name now... 🧐
>
>
> - - -
>
>
>
> > I think perhaps Stefan there is a language barrier or problem with
> > communication here ?
> >
> > Your exact words were ""*It is important to see that every position is
> > panned to 2 speakers in *
> > *2D, and (usually) 3 speakers in 3D.*"
> > You didn't refer to mono - but I did refer to "one" channel being spread
> > over several speakers sounding crap (or blurring spatialisation) to which
> > you replied this was wrong because its how millions of records were made
> -
> > - of course I believe you know what were stereo is and were referring to
> > panning one sound source (eg a trumpet)  across two speakers as in
> > stereophonic panning -  "one soundsource" being different to "one
> channel"
> > - thus the confusion?
> > Yes I know what VBAP is - I literally said it uses triangles in my last
> > post and that I've used it for 15 years, VBAP is great - I do mix it with
> > ambisonics sometimes though.
> > As for upmixing stereo to 5.1 - I agree with you about leaving the front
> > left and right intact if you *HAVE* to do it - all I was saying is
> upmixing
> > stereo to 5.1 is never going to be as good as actually having a 5.1 mix
> to
> > start with all six discrete channels created from the beginning uising a
> > surround sound panner .(yes I know about the LFE).
> > By the way - you work for Steinbergs marketing department right? If you
> are
> > the same Stefan - will you PLEASE try and get them to incorporate some
> kind
> > of DBAP (Distance Based Amplitude Panning)  or similar into Nuendo?
> > Basically, it would be great if you could draw speaker maps/position the
> > speakers in the panner by dragging and dropping them to different
> positions
> > (so then you could use really irregular arrays). For example, if I wanted
> > to pan sounds corridors in a labyrinth or maze (which I have done
> before),
> > or have a circle within a circle etc etc this would be a great feature
> and
> > would definitely give it an edge over competitors like reaper. Ive been
> > told you can do this in Pyramix but never seen it - but I have to do it
> in
> > Max MSP at the moment or use Nuendos panners in ways they werent meant to
> > be used. It would also be handy to adjust the directivity of
> soundsources.
> >
> > On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 at 11:53, Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > I should add diffusion can use one channel successfully over several
> >> > speakers for creative effect - but her eIm talking about the accuracy
> of
> >> > panning, point sources etc
> >>
> >> So I tried to accurately describe how panning is done... 😇
> >>
> >> Stefan
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 at 09:32, Augustine Leudar <
> >> augustineleu...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 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>
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/20201025/83a343a0/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/da5a86dc/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.

Reply via email to