Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-24-2019, 02:23 PM   #1
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,251
Default 3D audio formats: Atmos, Aura, DTS-X - Any examples to lure me in?

I'm interested.

I mean, the only thing better than more channels is even more channels!

I want to be positive about this. I need some kind of example to lure me in though.

I need to find some title to filch somewhere that has all the discrete channels available. (So... need to get setup with the decoder codec.)
Not just something with some polite wiggles and warbles and ambience either. (Hmmm... Wonder what the Flaming Lips guys are up to these days.)
Then it has to be alluring enough to make me hang speakers from the ceiling and all that to hear the full mix in 3D from 60 some speakers. (I'd be soloing sets of channels on a 5.1 array initially.)
The encoder and decoder codecs have to be reasonably available. I don't just expect freeware (but would appreciate it!) but if this is another $12,000 software suite thing... you know where to shove that.
I'd need to be taken in enough to want to mix in the format. (I'll be easiest to sell on this one. I already think that sounds like fun in fact!)
I'd be nice to know that maybe 5 or 6 people might ever hear any mix I make in the full format.
Right now maybe dozens of people have heard some of my surround mixes. And that's OK. I have dozens of clients. Maybe 4 or 5 of them have actually ever requested surround mixes to begin with. Pretty small time here!

I've heard comments like Atmos will only be making a reduced version available to consumers. Don't like the sound of that! (My knee jerk reaction when someone dangles something in front of me and then says "No, only I get this one! YOU can have this lesser version.")

My blunt concern is seeing this advertised with "Atmos" as a buzzword with shitbar fake speakers in Worst Purchase.
Yeah... Market this to people that can't even listen to stereo properly (because of the shitbar).
Makes me think this whole format will devolve into a movie soundtrack format and only have the occasional audio mix. And that with just a lot of ambient wiggles.


With that rant out of the way...
What software is available that has the encoder and decoder codecs? (For any of the 3 formats.)
Any recommendations for a mix that will lure me in? (Something wild. See above rant.)

Just to be clear, all the stuff where things scale down for lesser speaker arrays (even just basic 5.1) is all well and good! However, for a demo for myself, I kind of need to start with a full 60 something channel mix that's fully discrete and be able to decode it to discrete wav files.

Thanks!
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2019, 02:48 PM   #2
DVDdoug
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 1,940
Default

Quote:
but if this is another $12,000 software suite thing... you know where to shove that.
I don't know anything about it but the Dolby Atmos Production Suite is $300 USD.


You may need Pro Tools or Nuendo

Quote:
Then it has to be alluring enough to make me hang speakers from the ceiling and all that to hear the full mix in 3D from 60 some speakers.
That probably costs $12,000, plus whatever hardware you need to decode it, plus 60 miles of wire!
DVDdoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2019, 03:09 PM   #3
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DVDdoug View Post
I don't know anything about it but the Dolby Atmos Production Suite is $300 USD.
OK, maybe I'm listening again.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DVDdoug View Post
You may need Pro Tools or Nuendo
How would they restrict it to only work in those DAW apps?
(I fired Protools HD when I upgraded to Reaper. And for good reason!)
I actually still have a HD2 system in a dual core G5 with v7 and v8. Should have tried to sell it when it was still worth something. Kinda blew it there!

Quote:
Originally Posted by DVDdoug View Post
That probably costs $12,000, plus whatever hardware you need to decode it, plus 60 miles of wire!
Well shit, you're not wrong there!
But that kind of illustrates my point. It WOULD be silly expensive to make a setup like this. Full blown outrageous in fact! Which is why something has to impress me first.

I really need to hear the raw channels of someone's wild 3D mix that I can solo different groups of. Then it needs to hit some nerve where insanity takes control.

Meanwhile, I'm sure I have plenty of room to improve my 2.0 and 5.1 mixes with current equipment here.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2019, 03:20 PM   #4
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,750
Default

Try the ambisonics sub forum? In that regard, you mix for as many speakers as you want and it can fold down to anything, including binaural - but it can/will get complicated quickly. That said, I use Ambix 4-channel 3D audio since my 360 video camera records in it by default and I have a Zoom H3-VR ambisonic recorder.

My take on it... For 360 video, no one really cares to have to move/look around the space themselves. The really big thing now is doing that for the user which I did an extreme version of here - extreme meaning I spent most of the time geeking out on the effect rather than pointing the viewers eyes for them in an expected space, but nevertheless that's where things are going video wise - I added video to the equation because that's where lots of 360/3D audio lives right now. Back to audio...

Look into ambisonics as it seems to be where things are headed. Waves has a suite for this FWIW.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2019, 03:58 PM   #5
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,251
Default

We're really in a format kerfuffle right now with surround apparently.

There's standard 5.1 (which evolved from 4.0 which is still compatible on a 5.1 array - those channels are used the same way).

Then there's this ambisonic rivalry on the scene now.

The scaling to different speaker arrays (including binaural) as well as to be expected is a great idea. Even if it ruins a few mixes scaling down... it still sounds like a great idea!

Everything commercial in my collection is 5.1, 5.0, 4.1, or 4.0. So... basically 5.1 system oriented. There's a decent amount of released music out there. Never enough but still thousands of titles. And sure, some mixes are treated like a novelty and pale next to the stereo mix, but there's full blown stuff that can only be appreciated in surround too. Not just Pink Floyd albums and concerts!


How many ambisonic album releases are there now? Is someone intending for this to take over and replace standard 5.1?

Sorry... I need to google that for myself.

Now we have 3 new players on the scene apparently with the 3D formats.


I still need to start with a multichannel mix I can preview and take apart (meaning preview groups of a silly number of channels on a 5.1 array).


The other thing with mixes...

Everyone still does old school tricks. Like centering a kick drum in the front stereo pair to couple the speakers for better bass handling. Keeping some mix elements discretely in a single channel for clarity. That kind of stuff.
5.1 falls right into line with all this.

Where is ambisonic on that? Is that a fair question?
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2019, 04:01 PM   #6
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,750
Default

IIUC when mixing in ambisonics, you can just fold to 5.1, 7.1, binaurl, stereo, whatever. It sort of doesn't know or care what the final output will be (you decide) and that is the beauty of it, again IIUC and could be missing some details.

Knowing what I think I know you like, I'd be surprised if you didn't get addicted to it.

Quote:
Ambisonics does not send audio signal to any particular number of speakers; it is “speaker-agnostic.” Instead, Ambisonics can be decoded to any speaker array (more on which below). Ambisonic audio represents a full, uninterrupted sphere of sound, without being restricted by the limitations of any specific playback system.

https://www.waves.com/ambisonics-exp...ound-engineers
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2019, 04:21 PM   #7
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Knowing what I think I know you like, I'd be surprised if you didn't get addicted to it.
Well, right!

The wishy washy part with the scaling though...
Again, not arguing with the idea. It's a good idea! But...
The mix starts with the full mix as originally intended. Some mixes might need lesser channels - or thinking about it like that may be a moot point. But some things will start life as say, a full 60 something channel mix with isolated discrete elements and all that.

Scaling down for the plebes is all well and good but I need my starting point reference which is the lossless original discrete mix.

If some of that comment doesn't line up...
At least you maybe understand what I'm trying to say? Fair question right?

That's always the answer I've seen so far. "It sort of doesn't know or care what the final output will be"
OK. Understood even! I like the idea too. But there's still the original mix made listening on the full array. That feels defined to me. Reductions are still a compromise. Maybe a well done compromise and better than ever before...
That's been a disconnect for me.


I'm very much addicted to 5.1 right now. (Or 4.0 or any in-between)
Anyone can release an album in stereo...
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2019, 05:10 PM   #8
cyrano
Human being with feelings
 
cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,584
Default

With ambisonics, you record in First order (4 mics), or HOA (Higher order, >4 mics). The rest is math...

Look at ATK (Ambisonics Tool Kit) for starters. It's made for Reaper and it's free. In the ambi scene, most are using Reaper.

http://www.ambisonictoolkit.net/documentation/reaper/

I've wandered away from 8 speakers personally, because of practical restrictions of my room. But I won't even pretend I know what I'm doing

I'm still experimenting with my first ambisonic mic. It's DIY and isn't calibrated. I'm trying to figure out that part. It is however, nice to have around, as it saved my ass recently, when my main pair sounded dreadful.
__________________
“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity” Albert Einstein
cyrano is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2019, 05:17 PM   #9
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrano View Post
With ambisonics, you record in First order (4 mics), or HOA (Higher order, >4 mics). The rest is math...

Look at ATK (Ambisonics Tool Kit) for starters. It's made for Reaper and it's free. In the ambi scene, most are using Reaper.

http://www.ambisonictoolkit.net/documentation/reaper/

I've wandered away from 8 speakers personally, because of practical restrictions of my room. But I won't even pretend I know what I'm doing

I'm still experimenting with my first ambisonic mic. It's DIY and isn't calibrated. I'm trying to figure out that part. It is however, nice to have around, as it saved my ass recently, when my main pair sounded dreadful.
See, that's the problem or disconnect I have when I try to look into this.
That explanation makes it sound like a format for capturing naturally occurring 3D sound and then with the ability to scale that down to lesser speaker arrays when necessary. Which is all truly well and good. Scaling that to binaural stereo for headphones is truly all well and good. But that sounds like a wholly inappropriate format for a surround music mix!

I could say that another way...

Right now, there are always some old school things you do in a mix. Placing an element in a discrete channel for example. It sounds like the statement is "Stop doing that!" In ambisonic you sit in whatever array you have and use your joysticks and just mix. Which is still what you do now with 5.1 when you break it down. Except that throws away the attention to specific speakers with discrete elements and that whole bag of tricks.

Let's I want to go so far to say that would be an improvement? Some of those tricks come about to make mixes translate better to lesser systems. That leads to now everyone would need a reference quality speaker array to hear a mix properly. In the same way that you need good quality stereo speakers properly aligned and calibrated to hear a phantom center clearly. Otherwise it gets wishy washy.

Last edited by serr; 06-24-2019 at 05:29 PM.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2019, 05:32 PM   #10
semiquaver
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,913
Default

the main advantage to Ambisonics is that you can use a headtracker with it... and you can do cool things like rotating the soundfield (on any axis).

Also nice for ambiences etc.

For composing a mix for a fixed set of speakers maybe skip.
semiquaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2019, 05:36 PM   #11
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,750
Default

IIRC you could mix a 3D audio production monitoring as binaural on headphones and that can be played back on a 24 speaker array (or any other array) and be spatially correct even though you never monitored beyond binaural. There is nothing lost in this process other than limitations of the array the end-user listens on. I'd imagine you need a decoder on the listening end (or you fold it to something permanent) but you get the idea.

I think I'm wrong on some of that since there are various orders (1st, 3rd etc) that use more channels but I think the overall is the same, the sufficient decoder does the same job but higher orders have higher spatial resolution - talking directly out my butt at this point, ReaDave would know better.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.

Last edited by karbomusic; 06-24-2019 at 05:46 PM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2019, 06:59 PM   #12
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,251
Default

You both mention some cool things there semiquaver and karbomusic.

I guess my disconnect is that - for a music mix anyway - this would force you to a system that requires high accuracy with removing what I'm calling the old-school tricks. Which I almost want to respond to like "Hurray! It's about time!". But that follows with "And everybody will have accurate dialed in speaker arrays to enjoy this."

<record scratch sound>

I guess I've been trained to do some of that stuff as it makes for better results on garbage speakers. But then there's the part where it also sounds better on the big system. Because it's a more efficient mix. This stuff didn't come from nowhere. I'm talking like I think I know how to make good mixes or something... Maybe not "trained". Seemed to make sense though. Like the phantom center example I mentioned. You can rely on a discrete sound placed in a speaker but not so much on a phantom center image.

Or panning for example. Even in stereo. Does anyone actually try to put the pan knobs in unique spots as though you are creating a sound stage in front of you? That doesn't really work very well right? You actually kind of want to stick to L C R most of the time with a lot of mix elements. Sometimes sound in motion pans rely more on other elements or stuff like Haas tricks.

You're not actually creating a sound stage. It's more like placing the raw elements of sound in a way that the system becomes the band in the room. (Not sure if that thought came out right...)
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2019, 07:11 PM   #13
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,750
Default

I'd let someone who knows more (than I at least) to chime in. I'm probably miles off.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2019, 08:35 PM   #14
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,921
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
I guess my disconnect is that - for a music mix anyway - this would force you to a system that requires high accuracy with removing what I'm calling the old-school tricks. Which I almost want to respond to like "Hurray! It's about time!". But that follows with "And everybody will have accurate dialed in speaker arrays to enjoy this."
As long as you use the same 73 channel audio system with identical speaker placement, Isao Tomita's version of Planets will sound just like it did in the studio!
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 02:54 AM   #15
cyrano
Human being with feelings
 
cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
I'd let someone who knows more (than I at least) to chime in. I'm probably miles off.
Nope. You're pretty much on the point. At least, I think

Ambi isn't new. It's been around like forever. But it's been limited to academic circles mostly. Nobody had the means to do much with it, until digital became cheap enough. Now anybody can use it.

It is astounding how many audio engineers heven't even heard the word "ambisonics"...
__________________
“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity” Albert Einstein
cyrano is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 07:57 AM   #16
jm duchenne
Human being with feelings
 
jm duchenne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: France
Posts: 733
Default

Interesting discussion indeed ;-)

In the first part of the question, you seem to be focused on Atmos, Auro-3D en DTS which are indeed spatial formats, but above all are "industrial" formats. If you do a movie, or whish to distribute a BluRay they may be unavoidable...

But if on the contrary you want to do some original work, you can go beyond their software and hardware limitations, with better tools and free !

Of course, you will not benefit from (closed) standards, that means that you may have to adapt you work to different situations. But if I have well understood, you whish to start with HiRes discreet multichannel that will have enough spatial details to support various downscalings ?

It is the way I work for years, actually with a 62 channels setup.
The productions can then be reduced to reasonably LowRes "3D" formats, even in some cases with the use of ambisonics, that is rather correct when used with a higher order coding.
http://sonsdanslair.free.fr/l.acousmonef-eng.htm

There is some really excellent tools to reduce from 64 channels to lower spatial formats, like the free GRM-Tools SpaceMaster :
https://inagrm.com/en/showcase/news/598/nouveaux-spaces
It has the advantage not to be limited to spherical speakers arrangements.

There is also a very nice documentary (from my point of view) about the Spatial Sound Insitute and the 4D-Sound system :
https://vimeo.com/340861350?fbclid=I...k4N9hOm1FJ53Cc
It uses a proprietary software, but anybody can do the same with standard ones, as soon as they can deal with this kind of amount of speakers (the ReaSurround for instance...).

About the Object Based principle that Dolby uses in Atmos, there is also some alternatives, like the IRCAM's ADMix software suite :
https://forumnet.ircam.fr/fr/produit/spat/admix-fr/
Since it can use and mix channel based and scene based techniques, it may be a very good solution for contents delivery in the future...
jm duchenne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 08:52 AM   #17
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,251
Default

Thanks jm duchenne! I'll look up those links.

I wasn't looking to change up anything. Expand perhaps. I like the 5.1 format and I feel it still has some maturing to do and more homes to enter. And I still have a long way to go with my mixing prowess!

Assuming that idea from some of the above conversion lines up re: old school techniques... I don't think average consumers are ever going to have highly accurate imaged systems. Shit, most people still don't even have 5.1 and don't know surround sound is for music! Then there's the shitbar business. No ambisonic-style mix that requires imaging to resolve phantom image content is going to sound right on a shitbar, I don't care how well the scaling down stuff works. Volume war CD lovers are still out in full force. I think mixes still need some old school bang if you want anyone to hear them.

However...
60-some speaker system with height channels, object channels, etc and someone was crazy enough to make it?
Well yeah, you've got my attention! And there are a handful of albums now apparently? Maybe one or two with an actual ambitious mix? Alright! Got to ask questions then. Maybe I'm just wrong on all of that above bs and need to catch up to the 3D systems everyone is installing?

If someone were able to recommend a 3D mixed album that will give me an instant addiction to the system and make me start hanging speakers from the ceiling that would be cool. I'd actually be willing to risk as much as $300 on software to decode the stupid thing for myself - and then moving forward, produce content too if this is seriously actually going to be a format.

That's where I'm at.

I'm not going to say I don't like more ambient surround (like the style of many classical recordings or some live albums). Anything is better in surround. I do prefer the wilder discrete stuff though. Huge Pink Floyd fan here. I'm a big fan of Steven Wilson's mixing work in more recent times too. Bob Clearmountain. Alan Parsons. Tony Visconti. name drop name drop name drop... Just some of the stuff I think sounds pretty great and gives me goals.

I'd like to use standard enough formats that I might have dozens of people maybe hear a couple of my mixes instead of say, just 3.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 10:45 AM   #18
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,921
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
Shit, most people still don't even have 5.1 and don't know surround sound is for music!
Another facet to embrace are people like me who used to buy the latest bleeding edge surround stuff, moving from the best Dolby Pro Logic receiver to a better Class A receiver with Dolby Digital 5.1, but then as newer formats like Atmos arrive and as other things are discovered like you now need HDMI inputs on your receiver to get 5.1 out of one of those Roku sticks because the TV won't pass it over TosLink because that is NOT a DRM capable method of transfer . . .

The more of this kind of stuff that happens, the less and less I care about surround. I'm not replacing my receiver a third time just to get a handful of GEE WOW moments out of a new one. I also had 5.1 surround setup in my studio and took it all down to plain old stereo about six months ago.

I have Steely Dan's DVD "Two Against Nature" and in DTS it sounds like you are in the middle of the band with the chick singers to the back left and the horn section on the back right, with the rest of the band in stereo, and vocals and solos in the center.

While there is certainly some gee wow factor happening there, and it is an almost flawless live performance, I listen to the stereo CD thousands of times more than I listen to the 5.1 version.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 12:06 PM   #19
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,251
Default

A rule of thumb nowadays is to avoid HDMI whenever possible.
The shenanigans you mention can happen more often than not. Makes for a pretty frustrating user experience! I'm certain many people do in fact just give up and assume it must just not work.

Another rule of thumb: If Worst Purchase sells it, you don't want it!

All this pisses me off! Here we are trying to make something interesting to listen to for people while some of the industry is busy looking for ways to lock out content/formats with this copy protection gone wild shit.
Buyer beware x1000 nowadays!

One tip:
If you have a computer with a HDMI port, try the thunderbolt port with a TB to HDMI adapter instead.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 01:19 PM   #20
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,921
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
A rule of thumb nowadays is to avoid HDMI whenever possible.
The shenanigans you mention can happen more often than not. Makes for a pretty frustrating user experience! I'm certain many people do in fact just give up and assume it must just not work.

Another rule of thumb: If Worst Purchase sells it, you don't want it!

All this pisses me off! Here we are trying to make something interesting to listen to for people while some of the industry is busy looking for ways to lock out content/formats with this copy protection gone wild shit.
Buyer beware x1000 nowadays!

One tip:
If you have a computer with a HDMI port, try the thunderbolt port with a TB to HDMI adapter instead.
When the stars align, and something is playing that is accidentally encoded in a format that my receiver can decode, AND it isn't on HDMI plugged directly into my TV, sound magically comes out my back speakers and I go "wow . . . back speakers".

I've looked at the current batch of receivers and even thought for almost one full minute about upgrading, but then I remembered that it will be intentionally obsoleted as quickly as possible so they can sell me another one. Not falling for that again. Screw surround sound and the double d's it rode in on.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 01:30 PM   #21
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,251
Default

There are just some scammy products out there. Receivers with restricted HDMI inputs and that kind of thing. Return that shit when you get nicked!

Better to use an audio interface and your own amps or powered speakers IMHO. Makes for a happiness and light user experience. Surround always comes out the correct channels even if you mix channel formats in a playlist. Just works. Oh, and usually less than half the price and twice the quality gear.

Avoid HDMI.
Avoid surround receivers.

If you DO want that equipment format...
Vet the living hell out of the product first! Don't be shy about turning on customer from hell mode!
Surround does NOT suck.

Jackasses that decide a device not playing someone's purchased content is their idea of copy protection suck! (If they can't even play it, they can't copy it! Woohoo!)

Return that shit!
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 01:30 PM   #22
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glennbo View Post
Screw surround sound and the double d's it rode in on.
Until something massively changes, I think more than stereo (for music) isn't going anywhere anytime soon as far as consumer uptake - and the idea that the big players can't let go of trying to get you in their seats to experience it. I was there when prosumer quadraphonic had it's short rage in the mid-70s - Listened to Dark Side of the Moon in quad back then. The idea that someone beyond minority is going to go to their "special place" in 2019 to listen to music, which was somewhat popular in the 70s, is over forever.

I have an quad setup at home because I have 4 monitors setup that way, but the only person who will ever hear it that way is me which has always been the case - there is a gleam of light which is I could potentially mix quad and encode to binaural allowing listeners to get a similar experience without any decoders or additional equipment other than headphones. That's really the silver lining with binaural, the only way you can represent something other than stereo without additional complexity or gear.

If additional gear or setup is required, one is in the wrong decade at this point.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 01:49 PM   #23
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,251
Default

And this example right here of some of the scam products available illustrates exactly why we need 5.1 to mature a bit more and settle in before trying to sell consumers on dozens of speakers and 3D surround!
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 01:50 PM   #24
Dr Bob
Human being with feelings
 
Dr Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,095
Default

I remember going to some quad concerts too!

But … a concert with a full ambisonic rig is incredible! But, Karbo is right, most user experience will be stereo.

dB
Dr Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 01:54 PM   #25
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Bob View Post
I remember going to some quad concerts too!


dB
My Dark Side of the Moon experience was at my cousin's house in 1974, he had it in quad, pretty cool and likely one of the experiences that steered me into audio.

That said, I did see YES in 1993/4 and that was in quad live; I have not heard a live ambisonic show though!
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 02:00 PM   #26
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
And this example right here of some of the scam products available illustrates exactly why we need 5.1 to mature a bit more and settle in before trying to sell consumers on dozens of speakers and 3D surround!
Going to have a hard time selling them on more than headphones in this day and age. I do think home user multi-speaker setups have pretty much peaked until there is some massive game changer. You have your basic 5.1 for home theater and I don't really see it maturing beyond that simply because we don't live in a let's gather in the living room world any longer.

IOW, I don't know a single person who maintains a listening system for music (beyond stereo) that isn't just a byproduct of their home theater movie-watching setup and even then, it's just for movie watching. I'm sure they exist but it appears minimal - not trying to be pessimistic, just sayin'.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.

Last edited by karbomusic; 06-25-2019 at 02:05 PM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 02:14 PM   #27
Dr Bob
Human being with feelings
 
Dr Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,095
Default

Live ambisonic was amazing! It was actually 2 ambisonic rings with a slight delay on the outer ring! Running just the inner ring was pretty fantastic, but when the out ring was also switched on, the room boundaries just seemed to disappear, weird and amazing!

Saw Hatfield and the North using a portable Manor Mobile quad rig. The nice thing was our band were allowed to use the kit, and I got to use the quad desk! Shame WE weren't geared up to do quad <cries>!

On the stereo note, I remember going to my first stereo gig! It was Curved Air, and that was amazing after all the years of MONO gigs! Mind you, who needs fancy kit when you get to hear Muddy Waters etc!

dB
Dr Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 03:03 PM   #28
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,921
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Until something massively changes, I think more than stereo (for music) isn't going anywhere anytime soon as far as consumer uptake - and the idea that the big players can't let go of trying to get you in their seats to experience it. I was there when prosumer quadraphonic had it's short rage in the mid-70s - Listened to Dark Side of the Moon in quad back then. The idea that someone beyond minority is going to go to their "special place" in 2019 to listen to music, which was somewhat popular in the 70s, is over forever.

I have an quad setup at home because I have 4 monitors setup that way, but the only person who will ever hear it that way is me which has always been the case - there is a gleam of light which is I could potentially mix quad and encode to binaural allowing listeners to get a similar experience without any decoders or additional equipment other than headphones. That's really the silver lining with binaural, the only way you can represent something other than stereo without additional complexity or gear.

If additional gear or setup is required, one is in the wrong decade at this point.
In 1974 I saw ELP and then YES in "Quadrophic Surround". It was actually kind of cool, and later I bought one of the very first Craig PowerPlay quad car audio systems. The handful of media available for it was cool (Dark Side was one of them), but there wasn't the full selection like there was stereo. When I was still using Sonar and they added surround capabilities I thought it might be cool to try and do something 5.1, but then found out I would need to purchase for a premium price the encoder software to package it up.

Living room and bedroom are the only rooms with surround, one with a now obsolete Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS decoder, and the other with an even more obsolete Dolby Pro Logic decoder.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 03:04 PM   #29
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,251
Default

I still don't want to just dismiss ambisonic and/or the 3D stuff...

A mix really needs to be made from the ground up with that format though.
Converting a standard 5.1 or 4.0 surround mix runs into reverb conflict issues.

The ambisonic mix needs at least some reverb elements to help differentiate the ambiguous spots to the sides between front and back. If you don't dial that up naturally with a mix, you'd have to add something after the fact in the 5.1 to ambisonic conversion and now we have problems.

Or... I was reading some bs a few years ago and playing with some software tools that were limited in that way and I'm out to lunch!

I'd start including binaural versions of the 5.1 mix if that worked out actually. I don't want to exclude any audience. Not making tons of extra effort for headphone listeners but if it turns out it's possible to convert a standard 5.1 mix to binaural that turns out not so bad... why not.

The earbud people have their Beyonce and their Kanye West and all their karaoke autotune robot groups and that's not something I'll ever get involved in.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 03:38 PM   #30
cyrano
Human being with feelings
 
cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,584
Default

You can't convert 5.1 to ambi. At least not AFAIK.

You can convert ambi to most anything. That's why I mentioned it as a recording format. But it isn't really suited for rock bands, as their sources are too loud, and some/most have no natural position information.

It works very well for acoustic music and ambiences.

And of course, the consumer output format is headphones. That's were it offers more possibilities for making sound appear from the back, or from over your head. Don't ask me how that works, I've only heard demo's and the math is beyond me.
__________________
“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity” Albert Einstein
cyrano is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2019, 04:52 PM   #31
ChristopherT
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: South
Posts: 564
Default

I'm right into multispeaker playgrounds.
Just opened a 230 speaker work in a major art gallery - all built underground.
I avoided ambisonics etc, and just used a combo of binaural plus lots of mixing tricks.
(So I use 3D sparingly - when I need it for maximum effect and 3D movement)

In my studio I currently have a 15.0 set-up.
None of my work is designed to ever fold down, as it is never for home systems, or stereo playback - so I am free of those many constraints.
ChristopherT is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.