R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down

Author Topic: 3D audio?  (Read 11243 times)

d gauss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
3D audio?
« on: October 05, 2010, 11:19:38 am »

nothing to do with lynn fuston btw Smile

 http://videos.nj.com/star-ledger/2010/09/princeton_universit y_rocket_sc.html
Logged

pete andrews

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 491
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2010, 12:20:50 pm »

fascinating.

thanks!


-pete

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2010, 01:13:07 pm »

Without knowing more it seems he is using "holography".  By that I mean he is putting left channel audio in the right-hand speaker (and vice-versa) to cancel out any speaker bleed between ears.  It's an old technique that he has either revived or improved...

And it would only work well in that one listening position.

Logged

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2010, 01:39:50 pm »

Falls under the general category of 'transaural' processing, which is essentially a parlor trick. -This just appears to be a more complicated version.

-As Barry says, -neither new or particularly useful, in the real world. -with one of the biggest downfalls being the need to have your head ANCHORED to within a fraction of an inch, else it all collapses. -Also, any reflective paths cause dramatic image collapse.

So -all in all- pretty exciting for those of us who don't mind being held in a straitjacket in the center of a padded room.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Berolzheimer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2709
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2010, 01:56:16 pm »

Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 05 October 2010 10:13

Without knowing more it seems he is using "holography".  By that I mean he is putting left channel audio in the right-hand speaker (and vice-versa) to cancel out any speaker bleed between ears.  It's an old technique that he has either revived or improved...

And it would only work well in that one listening position.




I think there's a lot more going on with what he's doing than that.
Logged
The film sound side of my life:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0077235/

A bunch of songs I've recorded and/or mixed are here:
http://www.zget.me/billionaires/

Nicky D

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2010, 03:20:19 pm »

my guess is also some form of parlour trick...the fact that it has to be in a chamber and the distance between the speakers is relatively small...and the he spoke of building a wall between left and right....

probably some kind of M/S processing...widening...phase shifting...centre cancelling bullshit with one side delayed differently than the other to give the impression of forward movement...

or even perhaps simply delaying certain freq bands to give the illusion (or would that be reality) that something is hitting you first or later...

Logged

Bill Mueller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4502
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2010, 03:54:02 pm »

I'm not at all saying this is what is going on here, but it just reminded me about once when a very well respected engineer came to me exclaiming about his new speakers. He said they don't sound like anything I have ever heard before, the sound seems like it's coming right out of the middle of your head!

Sure enough.....his speakers were wired backwards.

Bill
Logged
"Don't take it personally. But this shit is a science." J.J.Blair

“The Internet is only a means of communication,” he wrote. “It is not an amorphous extraterrestrial body with an entitlement to norms that run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights. There is nothing in the criminal or civil law which legalizes that which is otherwise illegal simply because the transaction takes place over the Internet.” Irish judge, Peter Charleton

CWHumphrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 914
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2010, 05:29:26 pm »

In the 80's, it was called "Q Sound".

Nothing to see here.

Cheers,
Logged
Carter William Humphrey

"Indeed...oh three named one!" -Terry Manning
"Or you can just have Carter do the recording, because he's Humphrey."-J.J. Blair

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2010, 06:33:34 pm »

"I think there's a lot more going on with what he's doing than that."

Can you elaborate?

Barry

Logged

Nick Sevilla

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 853
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2010, 06:54:48 pm »

Too bad the report was so superficial... it really did not give any further information other than a scientist having a hobby with audio, and making it "better" in some unknown way.

AS usual, TERRIBLE reporter with no real questions, no real answers, and no real information to be gotten from the "report".

If I was a news media teacher, this reporter would have gotten an F.

Cheers
Logged
-------------------------------------------------
It is quite possible, captain, that they find us grotesque and ugly and many people fear beings different from themselves.

www.nicksevilla.com

Berolzheimer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2709
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2010, 07:09:27 pm »

Haven't any of you ever heard of HRTF's, etc?
No parlor tricks, we're talking about serious psychoacoustic science.  Sure it's always had it's limitations but research marches forward.  I don't get why you're all so quick to poo-poo it.
Logged
The film sound side of my life:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0077235/

A bunch of songs I've recorded and/or mixed are here:
http://www.zget.me/billionaires/

Berolzheimer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2709
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2010, 07:14:02 pm »

Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 05 October 2010 15:33

"I think there's a lot more going on with what he's doing than that."

Can you elaborate?

Barry




I'm guessing he's doing some combination of HRTF, Haas delay, doppler, etc. analysis & modeling.  This stuff of course becomes more & more feasable as DSP speeds & modeling algos improve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function
Logged
The film sound side of my life:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0077235/

A bunch of songs I've recorded and/or mixed are here:
http://www.zget.me/billionaires/

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2010, 08:05:26 pm »

I used HRTF's all the time on the Studer D950S and vista consoles, but -and this is important- he's just starting with 2-channel stereo, and delivering to a 2-channel receiving device (the human head).

That means that the only 'processing' info from which anything can be derived is from comparison between the two channels.

HRTF in multitrack mix applications is one thing (and a thing of beauty, at that) but not really applicable to or in any way flexible for stereo-source-only, other than accommodating (extremely fixed) room circumstance. -Since he's obviously gone to great lengths to control the room acoustics (not feasible in real life) and the listener's position (again, not typically feasible unless you're something like an F-16 pilot) then I agree that this is all wankery.

I also agree that the reporter didn't sound able to think their way through what they were reporting on.

This IS transaural processing, it IS a parlour trick, and it's not very useful in the real world.

Also, let's not overlook that since different techniques are used to assemble stereo recordings, (spaced-pair, coincident mic placement, Pan-pot-multichannel, etc) then the inter-channel differences (timing dominant in spaced pair, amplitude-exclusive in coincident and panpot recordings) dictate that there is NO way to generate reliable "3D" from stereo. No more than you can generate reliable stereo from mono.

Nor -incidentally- is this Three dimensions. -This is a peeve of mine, sorry in advance for the rant.

A theoretical 'point' has no dimensions. A 'line' has one dimension. A 'Square' has two dimensions, and a 'cube' has three.

Similarly, Mono is non-dimensional because it resembles a point.. Stereo is actually ONE dimensional, because it resembles a line, where sounds can be placed along a single dimensional range between the two speakers. Quad/surround is TWO dimensional, because there is an added axis of control, as illustrated by the 'square' panning grid which you often see manufacturers use. "Three-Dee" requires an additional VERTICAL component for spatial 3D.

I really wish people would use the terminology correctly. Only things like Periphonic (a type of Ambisonic playback) and true Imax (where the sixth full-range channel is the 'voice-of-god' overhead speaker) can really be called "three-dimensional".

Anything else is marketing hyperbole, and utterly inaccurate. deriving a stable, position-and-reflection-tolerant controllable delivery from two speakers is bovine excrement. Nothing else.

BOSE advertise 'surround from two speakers'. That's a similarly fertilizer-laden claim.

You CAN perform some parlour tricks with two-channel stereo source, and DSP can be used to 'steer' between channels...

But then delivering through two speakers re-limits what you can do, and if you split it through MORE channels, -while you overcome some of the delivery/reception difficulties- you cannot be assured that your decoding is accurate, because of the randomized possible stereo picture assembly techniques.

-What of the Decca Tree now?

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Nicky D

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2010, 08:23:06 pm »

but the man listening was an AUDIOPHILE..
Logged

Bill Mueller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4502
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2010, 08:33:42 pm »

ssltech wrote on Tue, 05 October 2010 20:05

I used HRTF's all the time on the Studer D950S and vista consoles, but -and this is important- he's just starting with 2-channel stereo, and delivering to a 2-channel receiving device (the human head).

That means that the only 'processing' info from which anything can be derived is from comparison between the two channels.

HRTF in multitrack mix applications is one thing (and a thing of beauty, at that) but not really applicable to or in any way flexible for stereo-source-only, other than accommodating (extremely fixed) room circumstance. -Since he's obviously gone to great lengths to control the room acoustics (not feasible in real life) and the listener's position (again, not typically feasible unless you're something like an F-16 pilot) then I agree that this is all wankery.

I also agree that the reporter didn't sound able to think their way through what they were reporting on.

This IS transaural processing, it IS a parlour trick, and it's not very useful in the real world.

Also, let's not overlook that since different techniques are used to assemble stereo recordings, (spaced-pair, coincident mic placement, Pan-pot-multichannel, etc) then the inter-channel differences (timing dominant in spaced pair, amplitude-exclusive in coincident and panpot recordings) dictate that there is NO way to generate reliable "3D" from stereo. No more than you can generate reliable stereo from mono.

Nor -incidentally- is this Three dimensions. -This is a peeve of mine, sorry in advance for the rant.

A theoretical 'point' has no dimensions. A 'line' has one dimension. A 'Square' has two dimensions, and a 'cube' has three.

Similarly, Mono is non-dimensional because it resembles a point.. Stereo is actually ONE dimensional, because it resembles a line, where sounds can be placed along a single dimensional range between the two speakers. Quad/surround is TWO dimensional, because there is an added axis of control, as illustrated by the 'square' panning grid which you often see manufacturers use. "Three-Dee" requires an additional VERTICAL component for spatial 3D.

I really wish people would use the terminology correctly. Only things like Periphonic (a type of Ambisonic playback) and true Imax (where the sixth full-range channel is the 'voice-of-god' overhead speaker) can really be called "three-dimensional".

Anything else is marketing hyperbole, and utterly inaccurate. deriving a stable, position-and-reflection-tolerant controllable delivery from two speakers is bovine excrement. Nothing else.

BOSE advertise 'surround from two speakers'. That's a similarly fertilizer-laden claim.

You CAN perform some parlour tricks with two-channel stereo source, and DSP can be used to 'steer' between channels...

But then delivering through two speakers re-limits what you can do, and if you split it through MORE channels, -while you overcome some of the delivery/reception difficulties- you cannot be assured that your decoding is accurate, because of the randomized possible stereo picture assembly techniques.

-What of the Decca Tree now?

Keith

I just love this guy. Mind like a steel trap. What he said.

In 1975 a producer, I believe it was Adrian Barber, came to Sheffield with a tape and put it on the two track. In our little control room, you could clearly hear sources coming out the the SIDES of the room, where there happened to be a door on one side and a Scully on the other. I was amazed. We all later heard that same effect on boom boxes as the "width" control.

Bill
Logged
"Don't take it personally. But this shit is a science." J.J.Blair

“The Internet is only a means of communication,” he wrote. “It is not an amorphous extraterrestrial body with an entitlement to norms that run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights. There is nothing in the criminal or civil law which legalizes that which is otherwise illegal simply because the transaction takes place over the Internet.” Irish judge, Peter Charleton

Les Ismore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2010, 02:11:12 am »

Q Sound, Spatializer, Roland RSS 3D, etc. They do sound very 3D in the sweet spot, but somewhat ethereal, like looking at a hologram. You definitely don't want to put your kick and snare thru one of these, but very neat for some stuff. Tends to be very funky in mono. The Roland Sound Space unit cost something like $50k I think. (they didn't sell many) It had up and down as well around.
I read that Ed Cherney used to use the Spatializer a lot. Maybe some other guys here used these. It had little joy sticks you could fly stuff around with. I liked the Spatializer the best of the ones I used.
Like SSLtech said, "Transaural". I would disagree with the parlour trick term though, it can be quite useful on some sounds in a mix.
To my (limited) understanding, the programing for these effects came from studying why binaural recording would be perceived as 3D thru headphones and how we process 3D positioning from only 2 ears in general. I'm sure there are people here who know a lot more about it than I do, but I believe it has to do with the effects of our shoulders, spacing and timing delays between L/R, shape of the ears themselves and many other elements that somehow our brain interprets into a 3D positioning system. They then simulated some of these elements into the program to fool our brains into interpreting the soundfield in a different way.
Logged
Pete Honychurch - Fluid Sound
http://www.myspace.com/PeteHonychurch

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2010, 09:15:54 am »

M/S processing is transaural I suppose, and that's not without it's uses; but once something is fully panned to one channel or the other, it no longer contains any inter-channel information, in terms of amplitude, phase, or delay.

As a result, the approach really 'works best' only when things occur in BOTH channels to SOME degree, either from being "panned in from the edges" or acoustic crosstalk between microphones, whether in coincident or spaced arrays...

Which explains why with the old 'stereo widening' controls, mixes which were BLENDED a little too 'mono' tended to benefit, while mixes which were full-wide tended to become 'artificial' sounding.

There's also a lot of other factors; suggestion being one of them. For example; when the brain begins to have difficulty accurately localizing a source, it falls back on a simple assumption: The horizontal-plane 'circle of awareness' around the head, (which it builds up through a combination of sight and perceived angle of arrival) has a sighted side (the front) and a blind side (the back). -Since we are sight-dominant, it over-rides any angular vagueness of things it can SEE, using sight for confirmation/correction. -However, for things it cannot see, it assumes that things which it can be fairly sure of must be in FRONT, and things it cannot be so sure of may be BEHIND.

This -believe it or not- is a strong survival-linked instinct. If caveman heard a tiger roar, -but couldn't be sure if it was before or behind- positional vagueness or uncertainty prompts a head-turn to the side. -By this mechanism, anything which SEEMED 'central' (equal amplitude and/or arrival times at both ears) could of course be that way because it's front-and-center, OR rear-and-center... With a nearby saber-toothed tiger, knowing the direction would be VERY important!!!

So by turning the head, -for example to the left- anything behind would now be much louder in the left ear, anything to the front would now appear louder in the right ear.

Interestingly, any of you who have a pet dog can observe a related head-shift, but I'll come back to that later, if I remember...

So... here's where 2-speaker transaural stuff ALWAYS falls down: when you turn your head to try and pinpoint where things come from, your mind's 'circle-of-awareness' image 'collapses', because the confirmation cues aren't there.

Head tracking is thus the ONLY way to make surround work on headphones. Any devices which try to offer 'surround on headphones' without head tracking are utterly pointless.

VERTICAL position can be strongly suggested. -For example, -even though there is NO playback mechanism to direct signals upward or downward, people will ALWAYS hear birdsong as being 'up'. -Try as hard as you like, on a stereo system  with your eyes closed, you can't MAKE birdsong appear as coming from down by your ankles... It's a mental conditioning, and just one simple example of how mental conditioning provides a fertile ground for psychoacoustic 'suggestion'.

Oh, and just declaring something as 'psychoacoustic' doesn't make it clever or mean that attempts to analyse, describe or explain what is happening or why should be abandoned, yet I note that many people seem to take the introduction of the word as an opportunity to drop some line of reasoning... it's most curious.

Okay... the dog thing. I've just been house-sitting and pet-sitting for my mom-in-law, who has a Cocker Spaniel, which actually used to belong to my wife and I.

Anyhow, if you watch what a dog does when it's very curious or interested in something and wants to know more, it will often cock its head to one side and raise its ears.

There are times when a dog (which like us is sight-dominant) is unsighted but can LOCATE things through listening. Take the example the other day of my wife going into my mom-in-law's garage to get something from the garage...

She was talking on the phone, as she walked to, through and back from the garage, but she left the door open a small amount, rather than fully closing it behind her. -The dog -who was very curious as to where she was going and what she was doing- followed her to the door, where it waited, with its head cocked to one side, listening to her voice as she walked away from and back to the door. -You could tell from the position of the dog's head that he knew EXACTLY how far away she was, on the other side of the door.

With the head TILTED, a dog can locate things along a DIAGONAL plane, instead of merely a horizontal plane. -With the door cracked open, this allows him to approximately determine how far away something which given that the source of the voice is around
five-feet-four above the ground. -the footsteps at ground level are also another clue.

The dog of course does this instinctively, rather than thinking it through consciously. -It's tied to food location and threat location, so -again- grows from survival over many generations.

Bear in mind that while my short 'parlour trick' description before does SUM UP my overall feeling of where this usually goes and what the practical applications are, I am actually a little more 'nuanced' in what I really think... It's hard to be accurate without getting VERY lengthy on the subject (as shown by this post!) though.  -I'm still being fairly 'short' in my replies, so I'm still simplifying somewhat, though trying to be a little more thorough.

I've been interested in this since the earlier 1980's when I had some inspiration and tried to build a box to make FX returns etc. more 'spatial' without the usual drawbacks... I looked into it, I built a few prototypes, nothing really worked for ALL purposes, and I learned why. Since then, I've revisited the subject while working with location recording, while studying, designing and building B-format microphones, Ambisonic encoders and decoders (B-format and UHJ) and some other applications.

The one useful thing which I have been able to come up with -and which a few dubbing mixers now use- is a stereo-to-surround 'unwrap' technique, which gives something of the 'illusion' of surround, but is fully LT/RT compatible, so doesn't upset Dolby pro-logic... but apart from that, my investigations have led me to the view that there are -and always will be- drawbacks to any 2-channel-source 'surround' processing techniques, which render them useless in terms of being universal. -We make records too many different ways for anything to work universally.

The video has so many tell-tale signs which appear to support my notion that this approach cannot work universally either... the 'locked' listener head position (I have access to THREE of those Neumann heads here, and a fourth somewhat inferior head which I made myself for 'rough-testing) and the near-anechoic requirement for the listening environment being two big ones.

-But I'm not an 'audiophile', so what do I know!

Twisted Evil

I AM fascinated by the subject though.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

jimlongo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2010, 02:56:35 pm »

Co-incidently, Ihad an interesting visit this morning from a French company, Longcat, that is demoing a new 3D audio programming environment for use in your favourite DAW.

It allows you to design a 3d space visually (consisting of size, wall materials, openings, etc., ), insert your source audio within the environment(s) you've created - and then move about within the audio spaces you've created.  It utilizes a plug-in on each track you want to effect, as well as a stand-alone application where you design the space and moves.

Very interesting for film . . . demo plug-in will be available soon . . .

http://www.longcat.fr/web/index.php/en/audiostage
Logged

YZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2010, 03:28:50 pm »

I remember a stand-alone PC app called "3daudio.exe"  Smile  from 1992 that did exactly that.

Took ages to process a short clip on my trusty 386/25 with 2 megs of RAM.

Sounded way cool.
Logged
regards,

YZ

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #19 on: October 06, 2010, 04:19:11 pm »

That sounds something like a furtherance of the Studer VSP from the late 1990's...

http://www.studer.ch/news/fetchfile.aspx?cat_id=swiss_sound& amp;id=1913

It was pretty nice, and included choices of HRTF algorithms. -In the end though, fold-down compatibility has to be considered...

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Fig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1186
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2010, 04:39:20 pm »

ssltech wrote on Tue, 05 October 2010 12:39



...those of us who don't mind being held in a straitjacket in the center of a padded room.



Is that not the definition of recording engineer?
Logged
The easiest thing to do is the thing most easily forgotten.

Longcat Audio

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2010, 11:23:41 am »

jimlongo wrote on Wed, 06 October 2010 20:56

Co-incidently, Ihad an interesting visit this morning from a French company, Longcat, that is demoing a new 3D audio programming environment for use in your favourite DAW.

It allows you to design a 3d space visually (consisting of size, wall materials, openings, etc., ), insert your source audio within the environment(s) you've created - and then move about within the audio spaces you've created.  It utilizes a plug-in on each track you want to effect, as well as a stand-alone application where you design the space and moves.

Very interesting for film . . . demo plug-in will be available soon . . .



Thanks Jim!

We're happy to announce AudioStage LITE edition, a free limited stereo version of our full-fledged AudioStage.

AudioStage LITE is freely downloadable on our website.

Best,

-Benjamin

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2010, 12:53:04 pm »

I accept that my reputation as a listener is highly suspect in this forum as I'm an unashamed audiophile with "magic" speakers. Except of course with a few of you who have actually been here and listened.

BUT - in support of what Bill wrote - there is a record any one can go buy that will, from two speakers, very clearly demonstrate sounds wrapping around your head and wandering outside the walls of your room, assuming your system and your acoustics are up to it. If it doesn't happen don't blame the record. Its "Summer" from Wendy Carlos' 1971 record Sonic Seasonings. In my old place, where I had massive speakers that weren't quite as fantasy-based as my current ones but my acoustics were far better (lath and plaster, elevated floor and curved wall/ceiling join - the 30s!), it was jaw dropping. Not to be believed. Now, where my living room is much prettier and has a view of a lake instead of an alley but the walls are sheetrock, stone and glass (the 50s!), its still very dramatic. The LP beats the hell out of the CD, but the CD files played in the MP are still pretty danged shocking.

Conventional 2 channel audio. Conventional being a questionable term in this case.
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

Les Ismore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2010, 06:16:57 pm »

Longcat Audio wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 08:23



Thanks Jim!

We're happy to announce AudioStage LITE edition, a free limited stereo version of our full-fledged AudioStage.

AudioStage LITE is freely downloadable on our website.

Best,

-Benjamin



Lite no worky....

osx 10.6.2 logic, protools etc. program won't run. too bad looks interesting.
Logged
Pete Honychurch - Fluid Sound
http://www.myspace.com/PeteHonychurch

Longcat Audio

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2010, 10:23:45 am »

Les Ismore wrote on Sun, 12 December 2010 00:16



Lite no worky....

osx 10.6.2 logic, protools etc. program won't run. too bad looks interesting.



Thanks for the report: Mac package was damaged and would not run on some systems.

We just published an updated image, it should run OK now on Leopard and Snow Leopard.

Sorry for the delay,

-Benjamin

Longcat Audio

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2010, 06:33:06 am »

Hello prosounders,

We just published a short video to introduce AudioStage LITE.

I hope it shows what you can achieve with object-based mixing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq0NfpMlgPw

As you may see looking at the sometimes jerky mouse cursor ( Rolling Eyes ), everything is handled in real-time, with a plain stereo rendering. And a (terrible) lot of reverb, too.

We plan to put some other videos online soon, showing features available in other AudioStage editions, such as binaural and automations.

Don't hesitate to tell us what you think.

Best,

--Benjamin

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #26 on: December 15, 2010, 04:00:43 pm »

keith wrote:

" ...you can't MAKE birdsong appear as coming from down by your ankles... It's a mental conditioning, and just one simple example of how mental conditioning provides a fertile ground for psychoacoustic 'suggestion'."

fantastic!!!

beautifully put!



".... used to belong to my wife and I."

ahem.....


(noone can escape the grammar police)


benjamin wrote:

"it shows what you can achieve with object-based mixing"

to be honest, i prefer subject-based art practice

the suspension of disbelief is hard enough to maintain, and trompe l'oeils and parlour tricks, usually, only highlight that lack of objectivity

Logged

Longcat Audio

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #27 on: December 16, 2010, 08:38:10 am »

maxim wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 22:00


to be honest, i prefer subject-based art practice

the suspension of disbelief is hard enough to maintain, and trompe l'oeils and parlour tricks, usually, only highlight that lack of objectivity




The subject being one of the objects, a visual representation of the whole scene shouldn't be a problem...

...unless you're versed into complete audio subjectivism, and denounce any possibility of true-knowledge in that field?

Moreover, object-based mixing is not about tricks and trompe l'oeils, but more about having a tool to help the artist-engineer visually construct the scene. This is what you already do with a mixing desk, yet a bit less visually.

Binaural-transaural rendering is an option then, not a prerequisite.

Anyway, you're right: presenting some mixed sound to an audience is an artistic act, and should stay as it stands, whatever tools you use : a window to one's mind, a subjective point of view.

--Benjamin

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2010, 09:38:00 am »

maxim wrote

".... used to belong to my wife and I."

ahem.....


(noone can escape the grammar police)



Good catch!

-I MEANT to write "what we used to 'ave as a pet"!

Laughing
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2010, 09:43:24 am »

Longcat Audio wrote

The subject being one of the objects...



I object; -that's highly subjective. It's objectionably less subject to objectivity, but that's a different subject.

Sorry if anyone objects to being subject to being the object of my subjectivity, but it's better than being subject to my objectivity.
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #30 on: December 18, 2010, 10:47:13 am »

ssltech wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 09:43

I object; -that's highly subjective. It's objectionably less subject to objectivity, but that's a different subject.

Sorry if anyone objects to being subject to being the object of my subjectivity, but it's better than being subject to my objectivity.


Keith!!!!
Logged

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #31 on: December 18, 2010, 11:14:09 am »

...I knew that you'd object!

Laughing
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Bill Mueller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4502
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #32 on: December 18, 2010, 12:05:33 pm »

ssltech wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 09:43

Longcat Audio wrote

The subject being one of the objects...



I object; -that's highly subjective. It's objectionably less subject to objectivity, but that's a different subject.

Sorry if anyone objects to being subject to being the object of my subjectivity, but it's better than being subject to my objectivity.

And we have a winner!

I need a nap now.

Bill
Logged
"Don't take it personally. But this shit is a science." J.J.Blair

“The Internet is only a means of communication,” he wrote. “It is not an amorphous extraterrestrial body with an entitlement to norms that run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights. There is nothing in the criminal or civil law which legalizes that which is otherwise illegal simply because the transaction takes place over the Internet.” Irish judge, Peter Charleton

Bill Mueller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4502
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #33 on: December 18, 2010, 12:29:24 pm »

Longcat Audio wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 08:38

maxim wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 22:00


to be honest, i prefer subject-based art practice

the suspension of disbelief is hard enough to maintain, and trompe l'oeils and parlour tricks, usually, only highlight that lack of objectivity




The subject being one of the objects, a visual representation of the whole scene shouldn't be a problem...

...unless you're versed into complete audio subjectivism, and denounce any possibility of true-knowledge in that field?

Moreover, object-based mixing is not about tricks and trompe l'oeils, but more about having a tool to help the artist-engineer visually construct the scene. This is what you already do with a mixing desk, yet a bit less visually.

Binaural-transaural rendering is an option then, not a prerequisite.

Anyway, you're right: presenting some mixed sound to an audience is an artistic act, and should stay as it stands, whatever tools you use : a window to one's mind, a subjective point of view.

--Benjamin


Banjamin,

Can you attach your objects to 3D graphic objects in a game engine?

(Sorry Keith, in game design I don't have another term because even though we are viewing on a flat screen, we do build our worlds in in-game 3D space.)

Benjamin, the reason I ask is because this is pretty doable in video game engines. I did it once with the Renderware Audio library.

So for games it kind of makes sense to create this object related tool, but for audio-audio it is counter productive IMHO because as Keith so eloquently states, we are a visual animal and the objects on the screen actually reinforce what we are hearing while we are doing it, but are lacking when the listener is listening. This is like mixing songs on great speakers. It only exists in it's best form on the great speakers and for everyone else is inferior to that. Not good for your career.

I suggest the "object oriented audio programming" unless supported by "the object" (as in a video game or movie), in the listeners experience will detract from the final result by tricking the creator to accept something less than if he did not have the object oriented tool in the first place. This is the exact same thing as when you hear us old farts telling the young studs to not look at their Pro Tools monitor when mixing. Use your ears!

Unless of course you are doing something with your objects that cannot be done without them. Spinning the listener's perspective for example is really useful (again in a game or movie), but even that can be done with an automated console or DAW. You just need to make all the returns panable.

Bill

Logged
"Don't take it personally. But this shit is a science." J.J.Blair

“The Internet is only a means of communication,” he wrote. “It is not an amorphous extraterrestrial body with an entitlement to norms that run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights. There is nothing in the criminal or civil law which legalizes that which is otherwise illegal simply because the transaction takes place over the Internet.” Irish judge, Peter Charleton

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #34 on: December 19, 2010, 10:06:44 am »

With gaming (and other processes such as CAD) the term '3D' is entirely and appropriately applicable, because you're involved in manipulation on the OTHER side of the screen... so as you rotate or manipulate a virtual position or axial arrangement, the resultant 2D display reflects or mimics a real multi-axial 3D position.

In audio, it's also possible to recreate '3D' as meets my pedantic objections. -A display by Thomas Dolby some ~15 years ago springs to mind, where people donned a VR stereoscopic headset and headphones, with both positional (within the room) and head-angle tracking. -The virtual space was populated with instruments which made virtual sound, and as the observer moved through the room, both the images and sounds were generated stereoscopically and stereophonically, with tracking for BOTH based on both positional AND axial data from the headset.

-So as you walked around a virtual cello (for example) you heard the appropriate sound components originating and reflecting from believable angles and at realistic amplitudes, etc.

For mixing, this curiosity is a little too cerebral, methinks. -None the less, it's good to stretch the grey muscle once in a while, to establish what the possibilities of reasonable use of technology allow, but also along the way, to revisit where the limitations of creation AND delivery lie, at any given instance.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Longcat Audio

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #35 on: December 19, 2010, 10:31:36 am »

Bill Mueller wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 18:29


Banjamin,

Can you attach your objects to 3D graphic objects in a game engine?



There are great audio game engines on the market (Wwise, Fmod, Rapture, and in-house middlewares developed by studios). Most of them are designed so that they won't eat up more than 1-5% of the processing time, because visuals stay the most important modality in games.

We wanted to address something else, so our mixing engine wasn't designed with the "game industry" in mind.

One of our goals was to be able to mix different panning techniques into one single mix (eg stereo+transaural+ambisonics+surround amplitude panning+...), along with serious acoustics modeling. The dreaded object approach was almost inevitable...

So we didn't want to write another game audio engine, and it's definitely not what AudioStage is about.

Anyway, if you are in some sound design work for 3D animation movies, AudioStage can import 3D trajectories from Maya or 3DS max and use them while building up your project, instead of making endless adjustments to panning automation.

Quote:


(Sorry Keith, in game design I don't have another term because even though we are viewing on a flat screen, we do build our worlds in in-game 3D space.)



We could use the term "track". That's so more subjective I can barely size it up, being object-based myself now!


Quote:


I suggest the "object oriented audio programming" unless supported by "the object" (as in a video game or movie), in the listeners experience will detract from the final result by tricking the creator to accept something less than if he did not have the object oriented tool in the first place. This is the exact same thing as when you hear us old farts telling the young studs to not look at their Pro Tools monitor when mixing. Use your ears!



Think again: what are you really doing when mixing some music-only content, without any image support? Aren't you constructing a (warped, subjective... whatever) scene or soundscape?

And what kind of tools are you using for that? your ears of course, but also electrical levels and components, gold capsules, wires, sliders or rotating buttons... I don't think audio gear is more "subjective" than a 3D scene you probably already have in mind, consciously or not...

Regarding the use of 3D sound, just remember what Hugh Padgham did on Sting's Soul Cages back in 1991, using QSound to widen the stereo image on some (err) tracks. I'm not a fan of the music, but it resulted in a crisp, open, stereo mix, because there was more space to put a lot of details between the speakers. That 60

Tomas Danko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #36 on: December 21, 2010, 01:10:51 pm »

Longcat Audio wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 15:31

Anyway, if you are in some sound design work for 3D animation movies, AudioStage can import 3D trajectories from Maya or 3DS max and use them while building up your project, instead of making endless adjustments to panning automation.


I work at DICE making audio for computer games (games such as Mirror's Edge, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Medal of Honor etc), and our in-house engine FrostBite gives us all this 3D stuff for free.

However, there are a lot of cut-scenes in games. Most of the time, they are being streamed from disc. This forces us to prerender a stereo- or 5.1 audio file timed with the video. A lot of it is motion-captured and/or animated by hand, it all ends up as a Maya animation anyway.

Using AudioStage to get the panning from all objects (i.e. say there are five characters plus a "first person" camera in the scene that move around) for free through a plug-in in Vegas or Pro Tools sounds like heaven to me. Especially since I'm sitting here working late on exactly these things for a new game (Battlefield 3) as I type.

Is there some kind of trial/demo version to test this functionality?

Cheers,

Danko
Logged
http://www.danko.se/site-design/dankologo4s.gif
"T(Z)= (n1+n2*Z^-1+n2*Z^-2)/(1+d1*z^-1+d2*z^-2)" - Mr. Dan Lavry
"Shaw baa laa raaw, sidle' yaa doot in dee splaa" . Mr Shooby Taylor

Longcat Audio

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #37 on: December 21, 2010, 06:53:09 pm »

Tomas, you got a PM.

And by the way, AudioStage was published today. Now available to all objectivists and subjectivists out there!

Best,

--Benjamin

mcsnare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 958
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #38 on: December 25, 2010, 04:04:06 pm »

A friend of mine heard the demo and interviewed the guy for a CNET blog. He told me it basically makes speakers sound like you're listening to headphones.

Dave

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #39 on: December 25, 2010, 07:26:15 pm »

mcsnare wrote

He told me it basically makes speakers sound like you're listening to headphones.



My instinctive reply is: Poppycock.

Unless you can 100% eliminate acoustic crosstalk, this is -and shall ever remain- impossible.

It may well be 'different' and suggest an experience reminiscent of wearing headphones, as listening to an ordinary stereo system under anechoic conditions can do, for example.

However, UNLESS inter-channel acoustic bleed is eliminated, any suggestion that it is 'the same as listening in headphones', I have to treat with significant suspicion (that it may be a little flippant or simplistic, as opposed to being completely thought-through) I'm afraid.

Now, interchannel acoustic crosstalk CAN indeed be effectively eliminated, but only by prediction -and for the prediction to work the distance MUST be controlled to a ludicrous degree- the position would have to be preposterously restrictive.

Which leaves me with the supposition that the comment is either 'wrong', or the system is -to all intents and purposes- quite useless, beyond the limits of a highly controlled 'parlor trick'.

Incidentally, I notice that Mr. Bongiovi is still selling his brand of similar parlor trickery... 'making tiny speakers sound massive'... I came across one of his branded items in Best Buy while I was Christmas shopping, a couple of days ago. -I remain underwhelmed. -Again, an overly enthusiastic commentator said that his mystical process can make a tiny, low-powered 4" speaker "thump you in the chest".

Unfortunately with physics the laws can be 'concealed' by trickery... but I've yet to see them bypassed.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #40 on: January 01, 2011, 07:08:18 am »

ssltech wrote on Sun, 26 December 2010 00:26

mcsnare wrote

He told me it basically makes speakers sound like you're listening to headphones.



My instinctive reply is: Poppycock.

Unless you can 100% eliminate acoustic crosstalk, this is -and shall ever remain- impossible.

It may well be 'different' and suggest an experience reminiscent of wearing headphones, as listening to an ordinary stereo system under anechoic conditions can do, for example.


Well, that's actually what the word "like" means, it doesn't mean "exactly the same", though of course degree of similarity is somewhat subjective.

Crosstalk cancellation is a fundamental part of 3d audio systems on speakers, perfect it isn't, but it is effective, certainly in the gaming environment.
Logged

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #41 on: January 01, 2011, 10:04:57 am »

IN the gaming environment, certainly.

-Where the attention is distracted far from the exactness of the audio. Humans are visually-dominant where direction sensing is concerned, and the brain is used to over-riding the ear's suggestion in the presence of visual information.

'Like' is a troublesome word. It can mean 'a little like', or 'exactly like'... -On it's own, it can most often be taken to mean 'just like', which is why it troubles me so much.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

syntheticwave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #42 on: February 02, 2011, 02:26:43 pm »

Jon Hodgson wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:08

Crosstalk cancellation is a fundamental part of 3d audio systems on speakers, perfect it isn't, but it is effective, certainly in the gaming environment.



...but unfortunately, crosstalk cancellation cannot produce the elevation level, which should be essential, if we calling about 3D audio.

Really 3D in my view only possible at dummy head recordings, Ambisonics, Vector based amplitude panning or Holophony. Traditional audio contains no information regarding the elevation of the source, or whats more important, his first reflections in the recording room. Thus, 3D audio is not possible at  traditional way.

Regards H.
Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #43 on: February 09, 2011, 12:00:14 pm »

syntheticwave wrote on Wed, 02 February 2011 19:26

Jon Hodgson wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:08

Crosstalk cancellation is a fundamental part of 3d audio systems on speakers, perfect it isn't, but it is effective, certainly in the gaming environment.



...but unfortunately, crosstalk cancellation cannot produce the elevation level, which should be essential, if we calling about 3D audio.


What makes you say that?

I don't recall any specific issue with elevation on speakers at Sensaura.
Logged

syntheticwave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Re: 3D audio?
« Reply #44 on: February 24, 2011, 09:04:55 am »

Longcat Audio wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 09:31


One of our goals was to be able to mix different panning techniques into one single mix (eg stereo+transaural+ambisonics+surround amplitude panning+...), along with serious acoustics modeling. The dreaded object approach was almost inevitable...


I am absolutely agree, thats the only possible way for true spatial audio. However, you have forgot the wave field synthesis as one of the object based approaches. The Holophony solution would provide feasible 3D solution for that principle, especially in combination with Vector Based Amplitude Panning and Ambisonics.

Besides, we should no longer dread the object approach. A lot of problems which are unavoidably in traditional audio may become solved at this approach.


Regards H.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up