Subject: spatialization / multi-channel dispersion in live performance [was: multi-channel list/problems]
Date: Wed Nov 17 2004 - 21:11:03 EST
Does anyone here use ambisonics in a live performance context? If not, do you use other systems?
Philippe, might you have an example PD patch to share?
-- Bob Falesch zeggz.com/raf/
Philippe-Aubert Gauthier wrote:
> Even if "Wave Field Synthesis" is a general term, we must be more than careful
> because this precise expression (behind its general sounding) have been chosen
> by researchers in the 80s to specifically design an application.
> I usually try to use "sound field reproduction" (seems absurd, but its not my
> fault! WFS is locaked with a given way to think). Now you can say that "WFS" is
> "sound field reproduction" and Ambisonics is "sound field reproduction".
> You can run Ambisonic by yourself with Pure-Data (there is some fresh object ...
> like "ambipan"?). My personnal ambisonic patch have been developped using the
> mtx (matrices) object in Pure-Data. Those objects have been developped by IEM
> for ambisonic.
> Selon email@example.com:
>>I take it "Wave Field Synthesis" is a general enough term to encompass
>>systems like ambisonics and vbap. I've just begun experimenting with the
>>former through use of various VST plugins readily available on the web
>>(York/Malham, Gerzonic, et al) and I'm somewhat encouraged so far (my present
>>interest is in the generative synthesis of sounds in a 2D/3D field rather
>>than recording/reproduction per se, but I think I'm still too uninformed to
>>even know whether that's a useful distinction! :)
>>Any thoughts about ambisonics?
>> -- Bob Falesch zeggz.com/raf/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:05 EST