Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|