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.... đ¤ˇââď¸ ) > > > 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 doesnât go on like this. Either he or me has to change the > name now... đ§ > > > - - - > > > > > 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... đ > >> > >> 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: *âone channel over several speakers sounds crapâ* > >> >> " > >> >> 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 canât 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 canât 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 donât see any problem.) > >> >>> > >> >>> âone channel over several speakers sounds crapâ > >> >>> > >> >>> We are following normal panning rules, which are proven in millions > of > >> >>> recordings. So I would say your statement is just wrong. > >> >>> > >> >>> You donât spread â8 speakers over 20 speakersâ in some statistical > >> >>> ways, if that is what you meant. > >> >>> So I just have suggested to âtryâ 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.
