omichalis
Date: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:42 pm ((PDT))
I agree with that Rob.. I have no access to an ambisonics array where I am=
now, but I will later this year so I' ll try to check all these things on =
first opportunity
m
On 28 =CE=91=CF=85=CE=B3 2010, at 11:20 =CE=BC.=CE=BC., Rob Danielson wrote=
:
>
>
> At 8:52 PM +0300 8/28/10, Marinos Koutsomichalis wrote:
> >On 28 =C9=FC=C9=B3=C9=A1 2010, at 5:21 =C9 .=C9 ., Charles Veasey wrote:
> >
> >> Regarding the tightness you describe and feeling compelled to keep you
> >> head still. This is I feel is a major drawback on Ambi reproduction.
> >
> >that' s really strange.. this is exactly one of
> >the problems Ambisonics are supposed to solve...
> >
> >this is from a paper titled 'the best sounds surround' from ambisonics.n=
et
> >
> >'Ambisonics provides significant advantages in
> >that the effect does not sound significantly
> >listener- or speaker-dependent (you can even
> >walk outside the speakers and appreciate the
> >image).'
>
> Marinos--
> I've come across this reasoning as well. If its
> right, it should be an easy effect to produce for
> us to hear-- perhaps on a variety of speaker
> set-ups.
>
> I think it might be more fruitful for us to study
> recordings made under conditions that routinely
> challenge us-- very low background sound levels,
> in natural settings with landform and vegetation
> variations and using high pre gain. I don't have
> an Ambisonic array. I'd be happy to record some
> comparisons with a loaner though. Then, maybe we
> could make the files available for others to mix
> using their preferred methods. Rob D.
>
> >my limited experience with ambisonics is with 2
> >or 3dimensional speaker arrays in auditoriums,
> >confirms this advantage at least over
> >traditional surround systems (I have no
> >experience with VBap though..)
> >
> >What I have to note here is that ambisonics
> >decoding is a seriously complex task - not sure
> >how the programs you mention do the decoding - I
> >use custom software coded in supercollider or
> >C++ personally.
> >
> >This winter I did a live improvised performance
> >in a medium-sized auditorium at the 2d
> >conference of acoustic ecology in Crete (that is
> >an island in south Greece) - I used a
> >2dimensional array of 10 genelecs and I decoded
> >everything with a more advanced algorithm (one
> >that also takes into consideration the angles
> >and distances between speakers to slightly delay
> >each signal accordingly so one can compensate
> >for problems related to these factors)
> >
> >I didn' t used any surround recordings - I just
> >panned stereo/mono recordings - I nevertheless
> >experienced a very smooth soundscape throughout
> >the space I have a far greater experience
> >working with typical 5.1 systems - what I can
> >say for sure is that if you walk or move your
> >head within a 5.1 system you will hear all sorts
> >of artifacts (comb effects, phase modulations
> >etc..)
> >
> >I think ambi reproduction is more forgiving in that respect
> >
> >in a couple of months I'll have access to a
> >decent auditorium equipped with both a 40+
> >speakers 3d ambi array and a massive 5.1 genelec
> >system - I' d like to do some listening tests
> >with the same material reproduced both ways - It
> >would also be a great opportunity to listen to
> >all these subtleties Rob described ;-) -
> >unfortunately up to then I don' t have access to
> >any surround array so I can' t listen to
> >anything :-(
> >
> >greetZ
> >
> >m
>
> --
>
>
|