Hi All,

I saw this interesting thread on Slashdot today about Dolby Atmos:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/14/08/16/212214/is-dolby-atmos-a-flop-for-home-theater-like-3dtv-was

The comments by iluvcapra were particularly interesting to me. The
idea of Atmos vs. Ambisonics seems to have similar arguments of VBAP
vs. Ambisonics.  I haven't followed Atmos much at all though; would
anyone here have comments on all this?

Thanks!
steven

Hi Steven,

What's described there sounds like a VBAP system wrapped up in some
proprietary performance system. Its interesting though given those
arguments about being able to extract the individual channels for
whatever purpose; I think an ambisonic encoding would make this much
harder and make the decoding less intensive.

Regards,
 Joel

On 17 August 2014 15:23, Steven Yi  wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I saw this interesting thread on Slashdot today about Dolby Atmos:
>
> http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/14/08/16/212214/is-dolby-atmos-a-flop-for-home-theater-like-3dtv-was
>
> The comments by iluvcapra were particularly interesting to me. The
> idea of Atmos vs. Ambisonics seems to have similar arguments of VBAP
> vs. Ambisonics.  I haven't followed Atmos much at all though; would
> anyone here have comments on all this?
>
> Thanks!
> steven
>
>
> Send bugs reports to
>         https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>
>

It's sort of interesting to me as a system that's not really pure, if
that makes sense?  It seems to try cover all bases by mixing different
strategies, the 9.1 setups for discrete speaker targeting and the
VBAP-like stuff for other motion.  I seem to remember some piece or
discussion here about mixing VBAP and Ambisonics. I haven't worked
much with either, let alone mixing the two, but it seems like it could
lead to some interesting results.

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Joel Ross  wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> What's described there sounds like a VBAP system wrapped up in some
> proprietary performance system. Its interesting though given those
> arguments about being able to extract the individual channels for
> whatever purpose; I think an ambisonic encoding would make this much
> harder and make the decoding less intensive.
>
> Regards,
>  Joel
>
> On 17 August 2014 15:23, Steven Yi  wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I saw this interesting thread on Slashdot today about Dolby Atmos:
>>
>> http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/14/08/16/212214/is-dolby-atmos-a-flop-for-home-theater-like-3dtv-was
>>
>> The comments by iluvcapra were particularly interesting to me. The
>> idea of Atmos vs. Ambisonics seems to have similar arguments of VBAP
>> vs. Ambisonics.  I haven't followed Atmos much at all though; would
>> anyone here have comments on all this?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> steven
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to
>>         https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to
>         https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>
>

I saw a presentation last year by BBC R&D's Frank Melchior about the
convergence of ambisonic and wavefield synthesis methods - in the
sense that if you look at wavefield synthesis systems with greatly
reduced numbers of speakers, the problems start to look quite similar.
I really suspect that in the end you can collapse all of these things
down to the same basic set of ideas even given the different
perspectives involved. It will probably be a while before someone
comes up with a compelling way of doing that however. (I'm sort of
ignoring VBAP as it isn't really trying to achieve quite the same
thing as the other two).

Regards,
 Joel

On 18 August 2014 19:04, Michael Gogins  wrote:
> A few months ago I posted this link:
>
>
> http://ambisonics10.ircam.fr/drupal/files/proceedings/presentations/O14_47.pdf
>
> which describes the use of VBAP to decode Ambisonics-encoded signals for
> speakers that are not necessarily in the same locations as a standard,
> uniformly spaced Ambisonics rig.
>
> The math is fairly straightforward. At some point I will probably add this
> to my spatialization system for Csound.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Michael Gogins
> Irreducible Productions
> http://michaelgogins.tumblr.com
> Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>
>> It's sort of interesting to me as a system that's not really pure, if
>> that makes sense?  It seems to try cover all bases by mixing different
>> strategies, the 9.1 setups for discrete speaker targeting and the
>> VBAP-like stuff for other motion.  I seem to remember some piece or
>> discussion here about mixing VBAP and Ambisonics. I haven't worked
>> much with either, let alone mixing the two, but it seems like it could
>> lead to some interesting results.
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Joel Ross 
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Steven,
>> >
>> > What's described there sounds like a VBAP system wrapped up in some
>> > proprietary performance system. Its interesting though given those
>> > arguments about being able to extract the individual channels for
>> > whatever purpose; I think an ambisonic encoding would make this much
>> > harder and make the decoding less intensive.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >  Joel
>> >
>> > On 17 August 2014 15:23, Steven Yi  wrote:
>> >> Hi All,
>> >>
>> >> I saw this interesting thread on Slashdot today about Dolby Atmos:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/14/08/16/212214/is-dolby-atmos-a-flop-for-home-theater-like-3dtv-was
>> >>
>> >> The comments by iluvcapra were particularly interesting to me. The
>> >> idea of Atmos vs. Ambisonics seems to have similar arguments of VBAP
>> >> vs. Ambisonics.  I haven't followed Atmos much at all though; would
>> >> anyone here have comments on all this?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >> steven
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Send bugs reports to
>> >>         https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>> >> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> >> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>> >> "unsubscribe csound"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Send bugs reports to
>> >         https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>> > Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> > To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> > csound"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to
>>         https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>>
>>
>

That reminds me, I remember at one of the LAC's talking to someone
about Wavefield and Ambisonics. I remember something similar to what
you said, but going the opposite direction, that as you go higher in
order with Ambisonics you approach Wavefield synthesis.  That might
just be hearsay though, as again this isn't my forte at all.

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Joel Ross  wrote:
> I saw a presentation last year by BBC R&D's Frank Melchior about the
> convergence of ambisonic and wavefield synthesis methods - in the
> sense that if you look at wavefield synthesis systems with greatly
> reduced numbers of speakers, the problems start to look quite similar.
> I really suspect that in the end you can collapse all of these things
> down to the same basic set of ideas even given the different
> perspectives involved. It will probably be a while before someone
> comes up with a compelling way of doing that however. (I'm sort of
> ignoring VBAP as it isn't really trying to achieve quite the same
> thing as the other two).
>
> Regards,
>  Joel
>
> On 18 August 2014 19:04, Michael Gogins  wrote:
>> A few months ago I posted this link:
>>
>>
>> http://ambisonics10.ircam.fr/drupal/files/proceedings/presentations/O14_47.pdf
>>
>> which describes the use of VBAP to decode Ambisonics-encoded signals for
>> speakers that are not necessarily in the same locations as a standard,
>> uniformly spaced Ambisonics rig.
>>
>> The math is fairly straightforward. At some point I will probably add this
>> to my spatialization system for Csound.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> Michael Gogins
>> Irreducible Productions
>> http://michaelgogins.tumblr.com
>> Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>>
>>> It's sort of interesting to me as a system that's not really pure, if
>>> that makes sense?  It seems to try cover all bases by mixing different
>>> strategies, the 9.1 setups for discrete speaker targeting and the
>>> VBAP-like stuff for other motion.  I seem to remember some piece or
>>> discussion here about mixing VBAP and Ambisonics. I haven't worked
>>> much with either, let alone mixing the two, but it seems like it could
>>> lead to some interesting results.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Joel Ross 
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi Steven,
>>> >
>>> > What's described there sounds like a VBAP system wrapped up in some
>>> > proprietary performance system. Its interesting though given those
>>> > arguments about being able to extract the individual channels for
>>> > whatever purpose; I think an ambisonic encoding would make this much
>>> > harder and make the decoding less intensive.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> >  Joel
>>> >
>>> > On 17 August 2014 15:23, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>> >> Hi All,
>>> >>
>>> >> I saw this interesting thread on Slashdot today about Dolby Atmos:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/14/08/16/212214/is-dolby-atmos-a-flop-for-home-theater-like-3dtv-was
>>> >>
>>> >> The comments by iluvcapra were particularly interesting to me. The
>>> >> idea of Atmos vs. Ambisonics seems to have similar arguments of VBAP
>>> >> vs. Ambisonics.  I haven't followed Atmos much at all though; would
>>> >> anyone here have comments on all this?
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks!
>>> >> steven
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Send bugs reports to
>>> >>         https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>>> >> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> >> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>>> >> "unsubscribe csound"
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Send bugs reports to
>>> >         https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>>> > Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> > To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>> > csound"
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to
>>>         https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to
>         https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>
>