IBM's 3D audio is a step in this direction, I haven't worked on it for a
long time, but from what I remember, you can for example set objects on a 3D
graphical space, to simulate the spatialization effect.
Also they have an SDK for the 3D audio, where you can do things such
combining 3D animation with 3D audio. About Mac Os- if I remember correctly
they also did their SDK in Java, so it might work on Mac Os too...

ciao,

oded.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	tolve [SMTP:tlv@tuna.net]
> Sent:	Tuesday, September 07, 1999 10:36 AM
> To:	Pete Larson; sursound@lists.uoregon.edu
> Cc:	csound@maths.ex.ac.uk; Tom Erbe; John ffitch; Jean Piche; Matt J.
> Ingalls; Alex Burton; Richard Boulanger; Mike Berry; David Madole; Gabriel
> Maldonado; Michael Gogins; Richard Karpen; Robin Whittle
> Subject:	Re: sursound: What does 3D really mean?
> 
> clarity often elusive on the internet.
> 
> i am an electro acoustic composer. i really do want the "instrument" to
> sound as if it is coming from the ceiling. then moving down to the
> basement. then onward to the grocery store across the street.
> 
> 3d audio technology is opening up exciting new possibilities for artists.
> but don't expect there will be much (of the above) content without an
> intuitive interface.
> 
> what i would like to see is a graphic computer interface (mac os preferred
> but dedicated or other ok) that allows me to go back into a mix and tweak
> the position of a sound as it moves through time and space. a tall order.
> suppose it need not be achieved in a single screen. if not, i'll just
> settle for 2d surround. for now.
> 
> so who is the travel agent who will book my flight to that little town?
> 
> tolve
> 
> from sursound list:
> >At 08:30 PM 9/6/99 +0100, tolve wrote:
> >>Richard Dobson wrote:
> >>>is this a case for a '3D watchdog service'?
> >>
> >>apparently. and i surrender peaceably. kindly amend my previous two
> posts
> >>to read "ping pong pang pung peng pyung p?ng p?ng"
> >>
> Pete Larson wrote
> >The little town of poong poing? FWIW, I think it's always been common
> >(amongst commoners) to consider anything having depth to be 3D. In some
> >respects you couldn't actually limit sound in your room be only 2D (for
> >many people's definition) anymore than you could have a 2D piece of water
> >and I wouldn't be surprised if there were "3D" mono recordings in the
> '30's
> >via one omni mic. Actual vertical staging, I would like to hear, as well
> as
> >just overhead convolving, but music is pretty much made on a level plane
> >anyway, whether orchestral, country, rock, whatever. I can only vaguely
> >imagine what I haven't had a chance to experience, being ambi-deprived as
> I
> >am, yet. I know there has been discussion about a theoretical listening
> >environment with a speaker at or below the floor. I'm sure some have
> tried
> >a more realistic method of imaging between a center front and a "center
> >front top"? Maybe with that "cft" speaker brought forward and then signal
> >delayed? I know there has been work with a second rectangular array of
> >speakers at or near ceiling height but I don't remember reading anything
> >about mic'ing or mixing techniques involved to get the vertical
> >imaging.(??) Anyway if the 3D watchdog service gets everyone to stop
> using
> >that term, you can also probably get some well-paying government work :/)
> 
>