[[email protected][_2_]]

On 30 Nov., 18:56, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:
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 IOSONOhttp://www.iosono-sound.com/index.htmlare 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- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -


Hi Serge,

20 speakers seems my insufficeent by far because of the resulting
spatial aliasing. Still 840 works in Berlin:
http://www.ak.tu-berlin.de/menue/for...ynthese_h0104/

We should not overrating the effort, your 4GB USB Stick 5 Years cost
also a million. The single speakers only needs low membran elevation
and the structure is repeating, good conditions for automatic
production. Why not two thouseand for one dollar per unit?

regards helmut
www.syntheticwave.de

[Serge Auckland]

wrote in message
...
On 30 Nov., 18:56, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:
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 IOSONOhttp://www.iosono-sound.com/index.htmlare 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- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -


Hi Serge,

20 speakers seems my insufficeent by far because of the resulting
spatial aliasing. Still 840 works in Berlin:
http://www.ak.tu-berlin.de/menue/for...ynthese_h0104/

We should not overrating the effort, your 4GB USB Stick 5 Years cost
also a million. The single speakers only needs low membran elevation
and the structure is repeating, good conditions for automatic
production. Why not two thouseand for one dollar per unit?

regards helmut
www.syntheticwave.de


My comment about 20 'speakers was as a minimum for domestic use, based on a
typical 4mx5m room. I agree that ideally, a lot more would be needed,
perhaps 200 for such a room. I also agree with you that this could be a very
good system for low-cost automated production, perhaps not at $1 each, but
certainly low. I forsee the main problem will be domestic acceptability
unless a room is dedicated to the audio. It's hard enough to get the lady of
the house to accept decent stereo 'speakers, 5.1 is even more difficult. 200
anyone?

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[[email protected][_2_]]

On 30 Nov., 19:44, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:
wrote in message

...



On 30 Nov., 18:56, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:
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 IOSONOhttp://www.iosono-sound.com/index.htmlaredoing
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-Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -

Hi Serge,

20 speakers seems my insufficeent by far because of the resulting
spatial aliasing. Still 840 works in Berlin:
http://www.ak.tu-berlin.de/menue/for...ojekte/wellenf...

We should not overrating the effort, your 4GB USB Stick 5 Years cost
also a million. The single speakers only needs low membran elevation
and the structure is repeating, good conditions for automatic
production. Why not two thouseand for one dollar per unit?

regards helmut
www.syntheticwave.de

My comment about 20 'speakers was as a minimum for domestic use, based on a
typical 4mx5m room. I agree that ideally, a lot more would be needed,
perhaps 200 for such a room. I also agree with you that this could be a very
good system for low-cost automated production, perhaps not at $1 each, but
certainly low. I forsee the main problem will be domestic acceptability
unless a room is dedicated to the audio. It's hard enough to get the lady of
the house to accept decent stereo 'speakers, 5.1 is even more difficult. 200
anyone?

S.

--http://audiopages.googlepages.com- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -



Hello Serge,

the accepance problem ist the main problem for WFS. To archieve a good
spoose acceptance factor for speaker rows around the listener, in
addittion the necessity to damping the living room to avoid its
unwanted reflectons, wich overlay the correct signal seems to be
impossibly. And the spouses determining the limits of progress .

That also the agree by the WFS workshop in Ilmenau.
http://www.tu-ilmenau.de/fakei/Works...ld.7919.0.html among
all participants.

Possibly would by my patented approach a solution:
http://www.syntheticwave.de/sound-fi...nstruction.htm That
procedure needs no speakers around and feasible acoustic treatment of
the rendition room.

regards helmut