Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
"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 |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
"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. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
"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. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
"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. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
"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. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
"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. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
"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 |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
"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. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
" 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 |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
" 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 |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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! |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
"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. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 -- |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will stereo get better?
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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: 360 Systems Model 2800 Programmable stereo Parametric EQ for stereo bus or mastering | Pro Audio | |||
FA: Stereo 10 band Equalizer, IMX Stereo Expander & Manual | Marketplace | |||
Escort '97 - Can I add Stereo RCA input plugs to my factory stereo? | Car Audio | |||
"Lost" left channel into stereo headphones through 3.0 / 3.5 mm stereo jack socket / plug | General | |||
Mazda Tribute - Stereo upgrades/mods, 7 speaker cd and cassette stereo - upgrd | Car Audio |