[Ian Iveson]

Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Ian

[Eeyore]

Ian Iveson wrote:

Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now?

You'd prefer an alternative to black or brushed aluminium ?

Graham

[Randy Yates]

"Ian Iveson" writes:

Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Ian

Duane Cooper did some research back in the 1980's on "transaural
processing" in which stereo sound reproduction using binaurally
recorded material was processed so that the listener would experience
the original binaural experience.

The problem with this is that the equalization that is necessary is
position-dependent, so there is only one "sweet spot."

So, in a word, no.
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Bob Woodward]

Ian Iveson wrote:
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Ian

The benefit of "digital" audio is that is is not "real-time"
as analog audio is.
Even the tiny gap between two consecutive samples is eternity
for a processor.
At the same time, samples can be hold for a short time allowing
even more processing to be done.
When sending the digital signal over a noisy connection you can
do error correction or ask to repeat a number of samples.

But most of all; audio can be compressed and stored on small
devices. This way, music is very much available.

You have to realize that 99% of music-consumers want the
availability not the quality.
So the industry will focus on that leaving high-end audio for
the "fanatics"

Ofcause will semiconductor manufacturers strive to produce
op-amps or converters with the highest quality possible.
But the main focus is to produce these at a very low cost
And when browsing the catalog of, lets say, Cyrrus ( Crystal )
you will find an increasing number of processors, 5.1 devices
and "portable" devices.

This said, i think that Stereo has become surround and several
other formats ( like those beeing used in Cinema )
There will certainly be further development in reproduction
like imaging, depth, binaural etc.
Lowering noise and distortion are no longer relevant.

The industry will concentrate on data (music) storage and
exchange and ways to to get paid for it.

Enjoy listening.

Robert

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Iveson" wrote in
message
. uk

Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now?

Sure. I've probably already experienced it, as some of my friends have some
pretty advanced stuff.

In what ways might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Better recordings, speakers, and rooms.

Not: higher sample rates, deeper bit depths, cleaner analog or digital
electronics than already exist for reasonable prices, better cables, or
anything to do with analog recordings, signal processing or amplification.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Ian Iveson" wrote in
message
. uk

Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now?

Sure. I've probably already experienced it, as some of my friends
have some pretty advanced stuff.

In what ways might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Better recordings, speakers, and rooms.

Not: higher sample rates, deeper bit depths, cleaner analog or digital
electronics than already exist for reasonable prices, better cables,

We already have cables that are wrought from a platinum, silver and gold
analgam by a 96 year old japanese samurai under a waxing moon, what could be
better?

or anything to do with analog recordings, signal processing or
amplification.

I think we will get bigger and smaller amps, from that follows smaller
loudspeakers with consequently cleaner reproduction because of less cabinet
related coloration and integrated dsp processing either in amp or in preamp.
Behringer and Lyngdorf show the way ...


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Iveson" wrote in
message
. uk

Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what
ways might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Here's a reality check on the reproduction of pre-recorded media over the
past 30 years.

Within the past two weeks I was at a friend's house, enjoying his
HDTV video and 8.2 channel multichannel sound system. He might have had
$10,000 invested in this system. Or less.

About 30 years earlier, he and I had a similar experience with the
then-current
technology.

Instead of the HDTV and Blu-ray player, a different very well-heeled host
had set
up a then-modern motion picture theatre in his basement, complete with
contemporary 35 mm prints obtained by less-than-legal means, a modern 35mm
projector with arc lamp, and theatre-sized (and purposed) speakers. The only
thing that was
down-sized was the screen.

The 30's years-ago investment was more like $100,000 in that day's dollars.
That doesn't include the media, which was essentially priceless and
generally unobtainable.

The modern system is based on off-the-shelf products, and off-the-shelf
media. Not only did it cost less than 1/10 th as much not including
inflation, but it simply worked better and was far easier to operate and
maintain.

[Ethan Winer]

Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of domestic stereo
audio is better than it is now? In what ways might it change, and what is
it waiting for?

As Arny alluded, "it" is waiting for people to understand that the room they
listen in has far more effect - detrimental effect, that is - than any other
component in their system, even including loudspeakers in most cases. The
only thing futuristic about this is that so many people are obsessed with
gear and ignore their room and the importance of room treatment and
especially bass traps. In the future everyone will understand this, and then
everyone will enjoy the vastly superior sound that I enjoy now every day.

--Ethan

[Richard Crowley]

"Ian Iveson" wrote ...
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of domestic stereo
audio is better than it is now? In what ways might it change, and what is
it waiting for?

Perhaps you need to define "better".

Does "better" mean more realilstic sounding?
As others have observerd, that is already possible, if you
have enough money to spend on equipment and room.
Whether the "software" is worthy of such high-end playback
systems seems to be in greater doubt every year, IMHO.

Dose "better" mean less expensive for equal quality/features?
Seems likely that mass-produced integration and manufacturing
in places notorious for low-wages will produce equivalent
equipment at lower sales prices.

Does "better" mean more convienent?
The wider availability and acceptance of computer-based
online libraries, wireless distribution gadgets, etc. seems
to be going in this direction. And at least you have the choice
with some systems whether to use MP3 or something of
higher quality: WAV or lossless compression, etc.

IIRC, the trends for people sitting in their parlour listening
to their sound reproduction system is a vanishing phenom.
The overwhelming majority of music these days is heard
in vehicles (including elevators/lifts :-), via personal players
with cheap ear-buds, etc. So to my way of thinking, the
future seems to be trending downward rather than up.

[Chris Morriss]

In message , Arny Krueger
writes
"Ian Iveson" wrote in
message
.uk

Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now?

Sure. I've probably already experienced it, as some of my friends have some
pretty advanced stuff.

In what ways might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Better recordings, speakers, and rooms.

Not: higher sample rates, deeper bit depths, cleaner analog or digital
electronics than already exist for reasonable prices, better cables, or
anything to do with analog recordings, signal processing or amplification.


Better recordings PLEASE. I'm sick to the teeth of technically
accomplished but compressed-to-the-hilt CDs that appear today. Now of
course, many people who transfer music to MP3 players et al want
compression, but why the hell can't the music ripping software do this?
After all, a free program like 'The Levelator' does an excellent job, so
why not build something like this into the ripper, and leave those of us
who want unclipped peaks and a decent dynamic range to have our music
back?
--
Chris Morriss

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Chris Morriss wrote:

Better recordings PLEASE. I'm sick to the teeth of technically
accomplished but compressed-to-the-hilt CDs that appear today.

we are working on it and looking forward to 4 bits being enough ... O;-)

Now of course, many people who transfer music to MP3 players et al want
compression, but why the hell can't the music ripping software do
this?

Because compression is less simple. That is also why undoing it is not a
realistic option. The issue is that there are more tools than there are
experienced people to use them and to some extent that "the customer is
right".

Compresssion is also a disease that destroys the pronounciation of
languages. Old People speak like this!, those that have listened too much to
compressed fm or tv speak like this or LIKE THIS, ie. in all caps.

After all, a free program like 'The Levelator' does an
excellent job, so why not build something like this into the ripper,
and leave those of us who want unclipped peaks and a decent dynamic
range to have our music back?

Windows media player knows exactly how You want it and fix inter track
levels when burning. Fun effect on chamber music, no more boring movements
in all ppp. The behaviour can be disabled, if you can find the place to do
it that is.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Steven Sullivan]

Ian Iveson wrote:
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?


- 2 channel -- multichannel

- better recording techniques to capture more spatial information

- better mixing to retain same

- better, more high-powered digital room correction at the playback end

- further research on speaker/room/listener interaction, resulting
in
- better, more high-powered digital room correction
- better loudspeakers
- better room treatments

- return to more natural dynamic ranges, versus the ultracompression
that is fashionable in popular recordings now

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

Chris Morriss wrote:
In message , Arny Krueger
writes
"Ian Iveson" wrote in
message
.uk

Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now?

Sure. I've probably already experienced it, as some of my friends have some
pretty advanced stuff.

In what ways might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Better recordings, speakers, and rooms.

Not: higher sample rates, deeper bit depths, cleaner analog or digital
electronics than already exist for reasonable prices, better cables, or
anything to do with analog recordings, signal processing or amplification.


Better recordings PLEASE. I'm sick to the teeth of technically
accomplished but compressed-to-the-hilt CDs that appear today. Now of
course, many people who transfer music to MP3 players et al want
compression, but why the hell can't the music ripping software do this?
After all, a free program like 'The Levelator' does an excellent job, so
why not build something like this into the ripper, and leave those of us
who want unclipped peaks and a decent dynamic range to have our music
back?

There are 'rippers' that allow you to apply normalization/gain matching
to the rips. There are mp3 encoders that can do this too. But why
hard code these things, when you can have them applied at playback?

Neither of these is equivalent to actual multiband compression/limiting
done in the studio, btw...that can actually have some 'art' to it.




___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Geoff]

Ian Iveson wrote:
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.


Why - the current trend would appear to be to DECREASE the quality of
reproduced music in the domestic scenario....?

geoff

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:13:14 -0500, "soundhaspriority"
wrote:

"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
.uk...
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of domestic stereo
audio is better than it is now? In what ways might it change, and what is
it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Ian
It will if you have more money

Bingo. Audio is a mature technology. Video is just now becoming
capable of displaying film, in home, affordably, at intregral
multiples of true frame rates, and with acceptable sound quality.

Sound can always be improved in ways known for over a century,
but interest is in video, or (very periferally) sound to
accompany video. Just do it.

I've heard Dylan in person. I've heard (you name it) in person.
But I'd never seen an Antonioni or a Tarkovsky or... film actually
projected. Would if I could, but can't. If I want THAT, here in
East Jesus Arkansas, my only choice is at home.

So I truly believe that there is a good arising from the
"home theater" cataclysm, even though it applies to my 1986
NEC bottle television, Frankensteined from two discards, not
even an S-video input, with cast-off DVD players.


To put it another way, maybe the convergence of home sound
reproduction and home video reproduction should just not be
accepted and embraced. The trends to poor quality but pervasive
audio are not enforcable. "Home theater" isn't the way of the
future for music listening, any more than cell phone ring tones
are the new wave of art. Gonna be there, yeah. Your life, no.


Babbling, sorry. Much thanks to you both, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[TBerk]

On Nov 19, 8:39 pm, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Ian


Sound processing seems to be gaining traction in the lower end
consumer market;

For example:
http://www.crutchfield.com/App/Produ...ductMenu.aspx?
g=168450&c=3&tp=84&avf=N
(not an endorsement)


I wonder if individually amped speakers and/or Dolby Surround (even if
virtualized) in things like boom-boxes and the default home stereo
will become the default.


TBerk

[Gareth Magennis]

"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
. uk...
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of domestic stereo
audio is better than it is now? In what ways might it change, and what is
it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Ian


No speakers, no wires, no headphones, no room to mess things up..... Inner
ear implants is the way to go, captain.




Gareth.

[Chronic Philharmonic]

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...

"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
. uk...
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of domestic
stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways might it change, and
what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Ian


No speakers, no wires, no headphones, no room to mess things up..... Inner
ear implants is the way to go, captain.

That's for the next generation, I guess. This cyborg stuff creeps me out.

[Randy Yates]

"Chronic Philharmonic" writes:

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...

"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
. uk...
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of domestic
stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways might it change, and
what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Ian


No speakers, no wires, no headphones, no room to mess things up..... Inner
ear implants is the way to go, captain.

That's for the next generation, I guess. This cyborg stuff creeps me out.

I'll one-up Gareth: Direct cerebral interface. (Via RF-induced
cortex stimulation). No implants required! But perhaps that's even
scarier?
--
% Randy Yates % "So now it's getting late,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and those who hesitate
%%% 919-577-9882 % got no one..."
%%%% % 'Waterfall', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Gareth Magennis]

"Chronic Philharmonic" wrote in message
news:35t1j.5984$XT.1718@trnddc01...


"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...

"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
. uk...
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of domestic
stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways might it change, and
what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Ian


No speakers, no wires, no headphones, no room to mess things up.....
Inner ear implants is the way to go, captain.

That's for the next generation, I guess. This cyborg stuff creeps me out.


Hmmm, remember when Stevenson's rocket first started service? Scientists
were predicting then that travelling much over about 40mph would mean
instant death. Bet that creeped them out too.



Gareth.

[[email protected]]

On 20 Nov., 05:39, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Ian

hi,Ian

look wikipedia wave field synthesis or www.syntheticwave.de

regards helmut

[Randy Yates]

writes:

On 20 Nov., 05:39, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Ian

hi,Ian

look wikipedia wave field synthesis or www.syntheticwave.de

Obviously this isn't simple stereo anymore as, at a minimum,
it requires many speakers.

Obviously a transport system for WFS can consist simply of each
reproduction speaker signal, but I'm wondering if there is a way
to convey the signal information in a small number of channels
and then "interpolate" the speaker array signals from those.
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Nov 25, 4:21 am, Randy Yates wrote:
writes:
On 20 Nov., 05:39, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Ian

hi,Ian

look wikipedia wave field synthesis orwww.syntheticwave.de

Obviously this isn't simple stereo anymore as, at a minimum,
it requires many speakers.

Obviously a transport system for WFS can consist simply of each
reproduction speaker signal, but I'm wondering if there is a way
to convey the signal information in a small number of channels
and then "interpolate" the speaker array signals from those.
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestrahttp://www.digitalsignallabs.com

hello randy,

it is common practice to transmit only one dry recorded audio signal
for each source and to synthesize the acoustic environement from data
regarding the recording room. Mirror sources for early reflexions and
reverberation need´nt separate audio, only position data.
Why should be transmit more? Also carruso was a mono source, the scala
of milano arond him may restored according wfs!

regards helmut
www.syntheticwave.de

[Randy Yates]

" writes:

On Nov 25, 4:21 am, Randy Yates wrote:
writes:
On 20 Nov., 05:39, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Ian

hi,Ian

look wikipedia wave field synthesis orwww.syntheticwave.de

Obviously this isn't simple stereo anymore as, at a minimum,
it requires many speakers.

Obviously a transport system for WFS can consist simply of each
reproduction speaker signal, but I'm wondering if there is a way
to convey the signal information in a small number of channels
and then "interpolate" the speaker array signals from those.
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestrahttp://www.digitalsignallabs.com

hello randy,

it is common practice to transmit only one dry recorded audio signal
for each source and to synthesize the acoustic environement from data
regarding the recording room. Mirror sources for early reflexions and
reverberation need´nt separate audio, only position data.
Why should be transmit more? Also carruso was a mono source, the scala
of milano arond him may restored according wfs!

hi helmut,

questions:

1. what about recording real acoustic source material in which the
actual sources and "model" information of the acoustic environment are
unknown?

2. What if the dry source is available, but the entire model changes
with time, e.g., when carruso walked around the stage?
--
% Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % goes floating by
%%% 919-577-9882 % but there's a teardrop in his eye..."
%%%% % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Nov 25, 2:51 pm, Randy Yates wrote:
" writes:
On Nov 25, 4:21 am, Randy Yates wrote:
writes:
On 20 Nov., 05:39, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Ian

hi,Ian

look wikipedia wave field synthesis orwww.syntheticwave.de

Obviously this isn't simple stereo anymore as, at a minimum,
it requires many speakers.

Obviously a transport system for WFS can consist simply of each
reproduction speaker signal, but I'm wondering if there is a way
to convey the signal information in a small number of channels
and then "interpolate" the speaker array signals from those.
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919... % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestrahttp://www.digitalsignallabs.com

hello randy,

it is common practice to transmit only one dry recorded audio signal
for each source and to synthesize the acoustic environement from data
regarding the recording room. Mirror sources for early reflexions and
reverberation need´nt separate audio, only position data.
Why should be transmit more? Also carruso was a mono source, the scala
of milano arond him may restored according wfs!

hi helmut,

questions:

1. what about recording real acoustic source material in which the
actual sources and "model" information of the acoustic environment are
unknown?

2. What if the dry source is available, but the entire model changes
with time, e.g., when carruso walked around the stage?
--
% Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % goes floating by
%%% 919-577-9882 % but there's a teardrop in his eye..."
%%%% % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELOhttp://www.digitalsignallabs.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hi randy,

good questions.
First: It is a problem to restore the environement, if you have no
information about. You need the impulse response of the room or the
spacing and reflection factors for the model based approach. If you
have´nt, only the way is possible to set carrouso in a appropriate
known environment, possibly in your bathroom

Second: moves carrouso, then moves the source and all dependend mirror
sources. That changes the impulse response by listener position:

See; Caruso is black, the colored points are the mirror sources:

http://www.syntheticwave.de/pictures/source_motion.swf

Turns carruso, only the levels inside the response changing, times are
constrant:

http://www.syntheticwave.de/pictures/source_turn.swf


regards helmut

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Gareth Magennis wrote:
"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
. uk...
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of domestic stereo
audio is better than it is now? In what ways might it change, and what is
it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Ian


No speakers, no wires, no headphones, no room to mess things up..... Inner
ear implants is the way to go, captain.

That's the way it will go eventually, for video as well.
However, I doubt we will see that as a viable option for about 20yrs
(though I could be wrong since there is some amazing work being done
*extracting* speech from neural implants, and inputting it is easier by
far.)

However, if you like deep bass to really hit you there is likely to be
no substitute for shifting air.

Meanwhile, cheap DSP in everything.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

[PenttiL]

Ian Iveson wrote:
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

Ian



The conception of several different exact channels will fade.

-P

[Eeyore]

PenttiL wrote:

Ian Iveson wrote:
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

The conception of several different exact channels will fade.

Several ?

Stereo has exactly TWO channels.

Graham

[[email protected][_2_]]

On 28 Nov., 10:53, Eeyore
wrote:
PenttiL wrote:
Ian Iveson wrote:
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

The conception of several different exact channels will fade.

Several ?

Stereo has exactly TWO channels.

Graham


.....ONE if you produce the acoustic environement by the rendition
side....

Helmut

[Eeyore]

" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
PenttiL wrote:
Ian Iveson wrote:
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

The conception of several different exact channels will fade.

Several ?

Stereo has exactly TWO channels.

....ONE if you produce the acoustic environement by the rendition
side....

Could you translate that into English please ?

Graham

[Randy Yates]

Eeyore writes:

" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
PenttiL wrote:
Ian Iveson wrote:
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

The conception of several different exact channels will fade.

Several ?

Stereo has exactly TWO channels.

....ONE if you produce the acoustic environement by the rendition
side....

Could you translate that into English please ?

I think what Helmut is saying is that you could use wavefield synthesis
to synthesize two channels from a single "dry" source channel along with
the (static) acoustic model information.
--
% Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % goes floating by
%%% 919-577-9882 % but there's a teardrop in his eye..."
%%%% % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:35:54 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

I think what Helmut is saying is that you could use wavefield synthesis
to synthesize two channels from a single "dry" source channel along with
the (static) acoustic model information.

Until we understand exactly how humans perceive sound in three
dimensions, it is premature to predict what information can be thrown
away and what the future of sound reproduction might be. IMO.

[Randy Yates]

Goofball_star_dot_etal writes:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:35:54 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

I think what Helmut is saying is that you could use wavefield synthesis
to synthesize two channels from a single "dry" source channel along with
the (static) acoustic model information.

Until we understand exactly how humans perceive sound in three
dimensions, it is premature to predict what information can be thrown
away and what the future of sound reproduction might be. IMO.

It's irrelevent. Wavefield synthesis isn't a perceptual system. It
synthesizes the soundfield from the source(s) and the acoustic
model. Knowledge of how we will perceive the result is irrelevent as
long as the synthesis is accurate.

And even if it were, you are mistaken regarding our understanding. It
has been known since the 80s that our perception of a soundfield is
influenced mainly by the direction-dependent response of our ears via
the pinnae. Look up HRTF, or "head-related transfer function."
--
% Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:08:42 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal writes:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:35:54 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

I think what Helmut is saying is that you could use wavefield synthesis
to synthesize two channels from a single "dry" source channel along with
the (static) acoustic model information.

Until we understand exactly how humans perceive sound in three
dimensions, it is premature to predict what information can be thrown
away and what the future of sound reproduction might be. IMO.

It's irrelevent. Wavefield synthesis isn't a perceptual system. It
synthesizes the soundfield from the source(s) and the acoustic
model. Knowledge of how we will perceive the result is irrelevent as
long as the synthesis is accurate.

The synthesis can not in practice be accurate without an almost
infinite amount of information.

And even if it were, you are mistaken regarding our understanding. It
has been known since the 80s that our perception of a soundfield is
influenced mainly by the direction-dependent response of our ears via
the pinnae. Look up HRTF, or "head-related transfer function."

Ha!

[Arny Krueger]

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in
message
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:08:42 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal writes:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:35:54 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

I think what Helmut is saying is that you could use
wavefield synthesis to synthesize two channels from a
single "dry" source channel along with the (static)
acoustic model information.

Until we understand exactly how humans perceive sound
in three dimensions, it is premature to predict what
information can be thrown away and what the future of
sound reproduction might be. IMO.

It's irrelevent. Wavefield synthesis isn't a perceptual
system. It synthesizes the soundfield from the source(s)
and the acoustic model. Knowledge of how we will
perceive the result is irrelevent as long as the
synthesis is accurate.

The synthesis can not in practice be accurate without an
almost infinite amount of information.

No, if less-than-perfect accuracy is acceptable, then only a finite amount
of information is all that is needed.

And even if it were, you are mistaken regarding our
understanding. It has been known since the 80s that our
perception of a soundfield is influenced mainly by the
direction-dependent response of our ears via the pinnae.
Look up HRTF, or "head-related transfer function."

Speaking of something that is known with less-than-perfect accuracy...

Ha!

Perfectionism cannot be rational.

[Ron Capik]

Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:

" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
PenttiL wrote:
...snip...

....ONE if you produce the acoustic environement by the rendition
side....

Could you translate that into English please ?

I think what Helmut is saying is that you could use wavefield synthesis
to synthesize two channels from a single "dry" source channel along with
the (static) acoustic model information.
--

Wouldn't the "dry" source would also need to be static?
Musicians move when they play. About the only static
single "dry" sources I can think of would be piano or organ.
....or have I missed something?


Later...

Ron Capik
--

[Randy Yates]

Ron Capik writes:

Randy Yates wrote:

Eeyore writes:

" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
PenttiL wrote:
...snip...

....ONE if you produce the acoustic environement by the rendition
side....

Could you translate that into English please ?

I think what Helmut is saying is that you could use wavefield synthesis
to synthesize two channels from a single "dry" source channel along with
the (static) acoustic model information.
--

Wouldn't the "dry" source would also need to be static?
Musicians move when they play. About the only static
single "dry" sources I can think of would be piano or organ.
...or have I missed something?

I think, in WFS, what changes is the acoustic model, not the source, but
your point is valid. I asked essentially the same question of Helmut a
few days ago.

I think it's a matter of degree.

If a horn player moves the bell of his horn 0.5 inches, is that going to
significantly change the signal at a listener 40 feet away? I wouldn't
think so.

But if a plane moves from 1 mile to the left to 1 mile to the right,
it's absolutely going to make a difference.

Due to these potential types of acoustic environments, it seems that a
dynamic model channel would be required for a practical system. This
could probably be a low-bandwidth channel, though.

But in any case, the old paradigms of "two channel" or "four channel" or
whatever is really not applicable to WFS.
--
% Randy Yates % "She has an IQ of 1001, she has a jumpsuit
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % on, and she's also a telephone."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:10:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in
message
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:08:42 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal writes:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:35:54 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

I think what Helmut is saying is that you could use
wavefield synthesis to synthesize two channels from a
single "dry" source channel along with the (static)
acoustic model information.

Until we understand exactly how humans perceive sound
in three dimensions, it is premature to predict what
information can be thrown away and what the future of
sound reproduction might be. IMO.

It's irrelevent. Wavefield synthesis isn't a perceptual
system. It synthesizes the soundfield from the source(s)
and the acoustic model. Knowledge of how we will
perceive the result is irrelevent as long as the
synthesis is accurate.

The synthesis can not in practice be accurate without an
almost infinite amount of information.

No, if less-than-perfect accuracy is acceptable, then only a finite amount
of information is all that is needed.


Gerzon knew how many channels were needed for 'accuracy' donkey's
years ago but had to settle for two or three at that time. By the time
you have thrown millions of channels away you have lost a lot of
accuracy and need to know a great deal about perception and HRTFs.


And even if it were, you are mistaken regarding our
understanding. It has been known since the 80s that our
perception of a soundfield is influenced mainly by the
direction-dependent response of our ears via the pinnae.
Look up HRTF, or "head-related transfer function."

Speaking of something that is known with less-than-perfect accuracy...

Ha!

Perfectionism cannot be rational.

There a too few people with sufficient intellect working in the field
of audio to expect much progress.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Nov 29, 10:45 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
PenttiL wrote:
Ian Iveson wrote:
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

The conception of several different exact channels will fade.

Several ?

Stereo has exactly TWO channels.

....ONE if you produce the acoustic environement by the rendition
side....

Could you translate that into English please ?

Graham- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



Hi Graham, sorry for my bad English. We old East German has only
education in Russian language and that would improve the problems
possibly.

But what I mean: Without all doubt Caruso was a mono source. Due to
alone his voice may loseless transmit by MONO channel. The spatial
information would be lost in that way of course. But this spatial
information is not caused by the voice of Caruso, yet the Scala of
Milan. A lot of mirror sources generate the reflections from no less
different directions.
If you want to reduce these directions onto a pair of STEREO channels,
you undoubtedly decrease the spatial information! Possibly it is
better by 5.1 channels, possibly even more by Dolby 32.1, but the loss
of spatial information remains.
Compared to by wave field synthesis principle you transmit only
Carousos voice. No problem. On help of the impulse response of the
Scala you can restore all mirror sources by its correct directions!

By that Way you have ONE transmmition Channal, but a huge amount of
reproduction chanals.


regards helmut

[Serge Auckland]

wrote in message
...
On Nov 29, 10:45 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
PenttiL wrote:
Ian Iveson wrote:
Does anyone envisage a future in which the presentation of
domestic stereo audio is better than it is now? In what ways
might it change, and what is it waiting for?

Thanks for any ideas.

The conception of several different exact channels will fade.

Several ?

Stereo has exactly TWO channels.

....ONE if you produce the acoustic environement by the rendition
side....

Could you translate that into English please ?

Graham- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



Hi Graham, sorry for my bad English. We old East German has only
education in Russian language and that would improve the problems
possibly.

But what I mean: Without all doubt Caruso was a mono source. Due to
alone his voice may loseless transmit by MONO channel. The spatial
information would be lost in that way of course. But this spatial
information is not caused by the voice of Caruso, yet the Scala of
Milan. A lot of mirror sources generate the reflections from no less
different directions.
If you want to reduce these directions onto a pair of STEREO channels,
you undoubtedly decrease the spatial information! Possibly it is
better by 5.1 channels, possibly even more by Dolby 32.1, but the loss
of spatial information remains.
Compared to by wave field synthesis principle you transmit only
Carousos voice. No problem. On help of the impulse response of the
Scala you can restore all mirror sources by its correct directions!

By that Way you have ONE transmmition Channal, but a huge amount of
reproduction chanals.


regards helmut

Have a look at what IOSONO http://www.iosono-sound.com/index.html are doing
with field synthesis. They are a spin-off from the Fraunhofer Institute. In
2005, just before I retired, I was the UK agent for the German audio
company LAWO. They provided a massive DSP-based router for their early
experiments. I heard a demo at the AES in 2005, and it was pretty
impressive. The audio was of a street scene, with busses, cars and trams
going by. It felt very real. The LF was particularly effective, as they used
a large number of small loudspeakers, and as LF isn't very directional, one
got a very large radiating area from the many small 'speakers.

It works, but currently it's hardly a consumer product. Firstly, who can
find a home for very many loudspeakers, then there's the cost:- The demo
system was about $1M. Nevertheless, with development, it certainly could be
"consumerised" albeit one would still need to find a home for a minimum of
20 loudspeaker enclosures if it's going to work convincingly.

S.

http://audiopages.googlepages.com