++SPAM++ another vbap request [was Re: [Csnd] vbap changes]
Date | 2012-08-02 12:41 |
From | peiman khosravi |
Subject | ++SPAM++ another vbap request [was Re: [Csnd] vbap changes] |
Attachments | Screen shot 2012-08-02 at 12.32.28.png |
Hello Now I have sort of a request please. (Although it may not be viable.) The surround panner in protools has a nice feature that allows you to control the 'leakage' of the signal into different speakers. Basically it's similar to the 'spread' variable of vbap but there are three of them: one for front/rear, one for front left/right, and one for rear left/right 'divergence'. I've attached a screenshot: you can see the rear left/right (78%) and front/rear (86%) divergences are graphically reflected in the picture by the purple frame. Is it possible to have something like this in Csound? Speakers are rarely actually symmetrically placed and in any case it doesn't really make sense to have the same spread for all directions. Thanks Peiman |
Date | 2012-08-02 14:00 |
From | peiman khosravi |
Subject | Re: ++SPAM++ another vbap request [was Re: [Csnd] vbap changes] |
Sorry, obviously this isn't a spam. I think it must be the attachment. On 2 August 2012 12:41, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> wrote: Hello |
Date | 2012-08-04 23:48 |
From | Ben Hackbarth |
Subject | Re: ++SPAM++ another vbap request [was Re: [Csnd] vbap changes] |
hi peiman, so, if i understand correctly, the purple box effectively limits the range of XY coordinates to leave a greater or lesser spread in different regions? i would think that this might be best accomplished outside the vbap opcode, treating spatialization parameters as coordinates before converting then to aziumuth&spread. i would suggest using the `limit' opcode where the low and high limits are interpolated according to the x or y positions themselves (depending on whether its F/R, L/R, etc.) best, -- ben On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:00 AM, peiman khosravi |
Date | 2012-08-05 02:29 |
From | peiman khosravi |
Subject | Re: ++SPAM++ another vbap request [was Re: [Csnd] vbap changes] |
Hi Ben, Yes I believe that's the case. I see, thinking about it, it makes sense. I supposed this is possible with the upcoming vbap opcode that gives raw krate parameters. Thanks Peiman On 4 August 2012 23:48, Ben Hackbarth <hackbarth@gmail.com> wrote: hi peiman, |
Date | 2012-08-05 15:25 |
From | Andres Cabrera |
Subject | Re: ++SPAM++ another vbap request [was Re: [Csnd] vbap changes] |
Hi, I don't think you can do this with the "normal" vbap algorithm. What vbap does is find the two speakers (or three when in 3D) where the desired direction is, and then does amplitude panning between them. So, spread is a concept completely outside the algorithm. You would have to extend the algorithm so that it looked at the "second" neighbors and then would assign a smaller amount of the signal to them. This is not too hard on 2D, but it gets complicated for 3D. However, don't forget the precedence effect! You will likely not hear the spread with most signals and directions. Cheers, Andrés On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:41 AM, peiman khosravi |
Date | 2012-08-05 15:55 |
From | peiman khosravi |
Subject | Re: ++SPAM++ another vbap request [was Re: [Csnd] vbap changes] |
Hi Andres, Thanks, that clarifies it. Infact, right now I'm dreaming about a panner similar in to that in protools where the spread is felt by giving the user some control over decorrelating the signals. I might try making a non vbap UDO panner and see if I can take it from there. In protools I use the panner with multiple copies of decorrelated files (thanks to you) but I'm on a mission to make my tools as I like them to be, rather than always hacking. I've also noticed that it's much easier to deal with numbers rather than graphic points, changing a number by a fraction can have huge perceptual repercussions and it makes sense to deal with the numbers to begin with. Thanks Peiman On 5 August 2012 15:25, Andres Cabrera <mantaraya36@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, |
Date | 2012-08-05 16:01 |
From | Andres Cabrera |
Subject | Re: ++SPAM++ another vbap request [was Re: [Csnd] vbap changes] |
Hi, Does ProTools do decorrelation when doing spread? Cheers, Andrés On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:55 AM, peiman khosravi |
Date | 2012-08-05 17:31 |
From | peiman khosravi |
Subject | Re: ++SPAM++ another vbap request [was Re: [Csnd] vbap changes] |
No definitely not. I do it manually when synthesizing the sounds. It's a nightmare! P On 5 August 2012 16:01, Andres Cabrera <mantaraya36@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, |
Date | 2012-08-05 20:33 |
From | Ben Hackbarth |
Subject | Re: ++SPAM++ another vbap request [was Re: [Csnd] vbap changes] |
hi andrés, i agree that there are many pitfalls here. it is certainly dangerous to think of spread as corresponding to `distance' in a coordinate space or as a reliable method for creating perceived width. for any of those interested in this topic, andrés' article with gary has lots of good info ("Why things don't work: What you need to know about spatial audio"). with that said, > So, spread is a concept completely outside the algorithm. You would > have to extend the algorithm so that it looked at the "second" > neighbors and then would assign a smaller amount of the signal to > them i'm not sure that i understand this. doesn't the spread portion of the algorithm already attenuate this signal in neighboring speakers to have a lower amplitude than speakers closer to the virtual source? > However, don't forget the precedence effect! You will likely not hear > the spread with most signals and directions. as someone who has worked extensively with vbap in my own work for several years, i have to say that i rarely work with sonic materials that don't yield perceptual differences with differing amounts of spread (with the only exception being very periodic signals). working a lot in lager spaces, i like using spread to aid audience coverage. in fact i usually have the opposite problem with precedence -- that higher spreads often dilute the perceptual acuity of phantom locations. as a result i sometimes add different delays to each output channel such that the channels closest to the virtual source arrive first. cheers, -- ben On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Andres Cabrera |
Date | 2012-08-06 00:18 |
From | peiman khosravi |
Subject | Re: ++SPAM++ another vbap request [was Re: [Csnd] vbap changes] |
as someone who has worked extensively with vbap in my own work for Interesting. I think in a real-world context the acoustics of the venue can makes a huge difference, and sometimes working to our advantage. I find that sounds that are prone to reflection, mostly high frequency noise-based textures tend to spread more readily, even without much of a diffusion. Even in a stereo situation some sounds seem to move beyond the stereo field, almost enveloping the listener. It all depends on the sound as well as the space. a lot in lager spaces, i like using spread to aid audience coverage. I don't know the exact context but surely more speakers would be the obvious solution. Lacking that, I would make use of the acoustics of the room and point speakers in such a way as to increase reflection. in fact i usually have the opposite problem with precedence -- that Yes. When you consider all the acoustic reflections and phasing artefacts caused by diffusing the sound. It certainly does make a difference, but the point is that it doesn't have the promised effect, which is to increase the perceived width of the acoustic image. Or more precisely it doesn't do it for everyone. One easy way to add some decorrelation when diffussion stereo pieces is simply to swap the stereo image in the back. And as you say, adding less than 20ms delay to the back also helps if you're sitting close to the back: it sort of compensates for the precedence effect so you still perceive the sound as being front-orientated. I always do these two things by default when diffusing. Best, Peiman output channel such that the channels closest to the virtual source |
Date | 2012-08-06 00:31 |
From | peiman khosravi |
Subject | Re: ++SPAM++ another vbap request [was Re: [Csnd] vbap changes] |
PS the reason why spatial audio is such a difficult subject to fathom is that our spatial experience is shaped not only by what we hear but also what we see and expect to hear (e.g. the height of the room, or the panner GUI, or the fact that you're turning a fader which is supposed to do something). How many times I've diffused in rehearsals (and seen others do) only to find out that the back speakers are not turned on? And once the buses where down on the mixer during the concert and I managed to do half the piece before realising that there is no signal in the back! So from time to time I think it's important to do some serious listening to make sure that we are hearing what we think we are hearing. P On 6 August 2012 00:18, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> wrote:
|