Rod
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2018
- Messages
- 744
- Likes
- 332
You gave me something to research. Light-field manipulation and femto. I will do a search.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Rod
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2018
- Messages
- 744
- Likes
- 332
I am trying to make a connection with femto machines and virtual reality. My level of understanding is quite rudimentary with today's high tech. Getting old too doesn't help. Can you explain?
OP
pirad
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2018
- Messages
- 178
- Likes
- 61
- Thread Starter
- #85
Dolby Atmos and DTS X use positioning of audio objects. REM “Automatic for the People” on Atmos BD is supposed to be something amazing.
I don’t have an Atmos setup yet, haven’t heard any of the records. Maybe it’s time. A true interactive Real Reality video is not quite here yet. Google street view , Lytro camera, came from Stanford and maybe one day they will show us
those technologies merged in RR moving pictures and sounds.
OP
pirad
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2018
- Messages
- 178
- Likes
- 61
- Thread Starter
- #86
We can already, to some extent, manipulate audio objects in a 3d space- Dolby Atmos.
We can do the same with artificially created in computers 3d visual objects-VR.
We cannot do it reliably and realistically with real life objects moving in space and time. Real Reality is still computationally too complicated,
Lytro stills camera is the first step to record a real life light field. It captures
pictures with additional information about 3d properties of the scene.
Eg you can focus on an object in the scene AFTER taking the picture.
But one day we will be able to do a virtual AudioVideo walk on a real, not computer created, concert stage. Maybe faster than some think.
PS. Lytro also introduced Lytro Cinema in 2016.I am not familiar with this technology and the company folded soon after.
PSPS. nano to femto was a metaphor of the progress still needed. No femtomachines in sight (yet)
We can do the same with artificially created in computers 3d visual objects-VR.
We cannot do it reliably and realistically with real life objects moving in space and time. Real Reality is still computationally too complicated,
Lytro stills camera is the first step to record a real life light field. It captures
pictures with additional information about 3d properties of the scene.
Eg you can focus on an object in the scene AFTER taking the picture.
But one day we will be able to do a virtual AudioVideo walk on a real, not computer created, concert stage. Maybe faster than some think.
PS. Lytro also introduced Lytro Cinema in 2016.I am not familiar with this technology and the company folded soon after.
PSPS. nano to femto was a metaphor of the progress still needed. No femtomachines in sight (yet)
Last edited:
Yes, yes, yes -- but will the Holodeck be lossless?
That peaked my curiosity as I'm just getting my ATMOS system running.
Have you seen the asking prices?
OP
pirad
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2018
- Messages
- 178
- Likes
- 61
- Thread Starter
- #94
R.E.M. Atmos BD review
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017...ng-thing-to-happen-to-pop-music-since-stereo/
OP
pirad
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2018
- Messages
- 178
- Likes
- 61
- Thread Starter
- #96
I would like to add one important voice on sound measurements and room correction.
2015 AES paper by Floyd Toole. "The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproduction Systems".
See full paper attached and two excerpts below (J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 63, No. 7/8, 2015 July/August).
Page 512
For decades it has been widely accepted that a steadystate amplitude response measured with an omnidirectional
microphone at the listening location in a room is an important indicator of how an audio system will sound. Such
measurements have come to be known as generic “room curves,” or more specific “house curves.” That belief has a
long history in professional audio, and now it has penetrated consumer audio with stand-alone products and receivers
incorporating automated measurement and equalization capabilities. The implication is that by making in-situ measurements
and manipulating the input signal so that the room curve matches a predetermined target shape, imperfections in (unspecified)
loudspeakers and (unspecified) rooms are measured and repaired. It is an enticing marketing story.
Page517
It is a bold assertion that a single steady-state measurement in a room—a room curve—can reliably anticipate
human response to a complex sound field. Such measurements take no account of the direction or timing of reflections
within the sound field. Time-windowing the measurement is useful to separate events in the time domain, but
these too ignore the directions from which sounds arrive. Human listeners respond to these cues, in some detail, and
they exhibit skills in separating room sound from the timbral identity of loudspeakers, and in adapting to different
circumstances. This is, after all, what happens at live, unamplified, musical events. This means that not everything
measured is perceptually important, nor can our reaction to such sound fields be constant, we adapt (see [1] chapters
5–11, and section 11.3.1, and [2] section 2.5). The simple measurements therefore cannot be definitive.
2015 AES paper by Floyd Toole. "The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproduction Systems".
See full paper attached and two excerpts below (J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 63, No. 7/8, 2015 July/August).
Page 512
For decades it has been widely accepted that a steadystate amplitude response measured with an omnidirectional
microphone at the listening location in a room is an important indicator of how an audio system will sound. Such
measurements have come to be known as generic “room curves,” or more specific “house curves.” That belief has a
long history in professional audio, and now it has penetrated consumer audio with stand-alone products and receivers
incorporating automated measurement and equalization capabilities. The implication is that by making in-situ measurements
and manipulating the input signal so that the room curve matches a predetermined target shape, imperfections in (unspecified)
loudspeakers and (unspecified) rooms are measured and repaired. It is an enticing marketing story.
Page517
It is a bold assertion that a single steady-state measurement in a room—a room curve—can reliably anticipate
human response to a complex sound field. Such measurements take no account of the direction or timing of reflections
within the sound field. Time-windowing the measurement is useful to separate events in the time domain, but
these too ignore the directions from which sounds arrive. Human listeners respond to these cues, in some detail, and
they exhibit skills in separating room sound from the timbral identity of loudspeakers, and in adapting to different
circumstances. This is, after all, what happens at live, unamplified, musical events. This means that not everything
measured is perceptually important, nor can our reaction to such sound fields be constant, we adapt (see [1] chapters
5–11, and section 11.3.1, and [2] section 2.5). The simple measurements therefore cannot be definitive.
Fitzcaraldo215
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,440
- Likes
- 633
Well, yes. I respect Dr. Toole. I have read the book and many of his excellent writings. But, I believe there may be some oversimplifications of how the better current EQ suites now operate in his assumptions. BTW, didn't Harman itself produce one on his watch or perhaps shortly thereafter? Also, didn't Sean Olive at Harman show empirically in DBT that at least some full range EQ suites produced clear listener preferences over no correction?
For me, with my imperfect system, it just works without any reservations as to its sonic benefits over the long haul. And, it works better now for me than it did with older generation EQ tools. Others I trust have come to the same conclusion independently. I would not want to be without it, theoretical arguments aside.
For me, with my imperfect system, it just works without any reservations as to its sonic benefits over the long haul. And, it works better now for me than it did with older generation EQ tools. Others I trust have come to the same conclusion independently. I would not want to be without it, theoretical arguments aside.
@pirad, you are one of about three people in these forums who actually understand the significance of the above two paragraphs!
Welcome aboard!
In the spamers post, click the "Report" button at the left of the post. I've done this on that spammer already as I'm sure have others.
Thanks for overlook things.
I'd really like to hear that, just don't want to pay a hundred bucks for the privilege, specially for music I wouldn't listen to much. I've already spent way too much over the years for specialty "audiophile" recordings that I only played once or twice. LOL
A quick note on ATMOS, I'm very much enjoying my new Marantz pre-pro with ATMOS encoded movies. It brought more to the plate than just the wiz-bang of overhead effects than I was expecting. The way the side walls completely disappear and transport the room to a different sound space is impressive. This was one upgrade that didn't disappoint.
YMMV
