3D Sound form 2ch 2014 technology

[mikebse2a3]

First some history for those that find this stuff interesting.

 

How many here remember and/or used the Carver Sonic Holography  circa: late 70's early 80's

 

It was developed to deal with interaural crosstalk created by 2 loudspeakers channels that are trying to reproduce a source.

 

It definitely was an interesting effect but had obvious audible issues and colorations.

 

 

By the way Polk SDA loudspeakers attempted to dilute the interaural crossover interference with their loudspeaker designs.

 

 

 

miketn

 

 

 

Carver_-_C-9_-_Sonic_Hologram_Generator.pdf

Carver_C-9_owner_manual.pdf

Carver_C-9_service_manual.pdf

Edited December 23, 2014 by mikebse2a3

[mikebse2a3]

Today's technology being applied to the problem.

 

Checkout the video, research and papers from this site.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/index.html

[mikebse2a3]

A product developed and sold......Nobody seems to give a price on their sites so I suspect it must be very expensive at this time.

 

 

http://www.theoretica.us/BACCH-SP#p=1

 

Note: If you have trouble click the corners of the pages to make them turn.

[mikebse2a3]

Other sites I found on this unit.

 

http://www.bitcauldron.com/bacch-sp/index.html

 

 

http://digitalroomcorrection.hk/http___www.digitalroomcorrection.hk_/BACCH_3D_Audio.html

 

 

Look under blog 3D sound of this site as well as some other really artistic horn designs.

 

http://oswaldsmillaudio.com/blog/

[mikebse2a3]

Pure Stereo paper introduction and a Thesis by Ramin Anushiravani

 

 

 

Pure_Stereo.pdf

ECE499-Fa2013-anushiravani.pdf

[Quiet_Hollow]

Interesting material...But I'm also, at the same time, highly skeptical of anyone (especially a non-outdoorsman type) who claims to have reverse engineered the human auditory sense to the letter.

 

I'm not so much concerned by how much someone has "dreamed" about doing it, or how much money can be thrown at the research. I'm very concerned with what an entrenched scholarly-type wants to do with the technology. Where are they going?

 

3D board room conference?? C'mon! Good Grief. Hit me in the knees. 

 

OTOH If there were a convincing 3D tree stand bowhunting experience with the option of a chickadee perched on my arrow, or the sounds of fishing with the spring peepers at full tilt and a trolling motor bobbing in and out of the water....I might raise an eye brow. Until then....I just can't share that enthusiasm.

[pzannucci]

Interesting material...But I'm also, at the same time, highly skeptical of anyone (especially a non-outdoorsman type) who claims to have reverse engineered the human auditory sense to the letter.

 

I'm not so much concerned by how much someone has "dreamed" about doing it, or how much money can be thrown at the research. I'm very concerned with what an entrenched scholarly-type wants to do with the technology. Where are they going?

 

3D board room conference?? C'mon! Good Grief. Hit me in the knees. 

 

OTOH If there were a convincing 3D tree stand bowhunting experience with the option of a chickadee perched on my arrow, or the sounds of fishing with the spring peepers at full tilt and a trolling motor bobbing in and out of the water....I might raise an eye brow. Until then....I just can't share that enthusiasm.

 

I still have a SRS Labs 3D Theater processor sitting around from the 90's.  I can say when you are sitting in the sweet spot, listening to live recordings and concerts, the sound is quite convincing.  

 

With just two speakers sound is above you, behind you and all around.  Seriously enveloping.  That was a $300 unit at the time when SRS was trying to gain momentum in home theater though they were in most televisions  at the time.

 

Two problems with it were that the unit wasn't true high end though sounded good for what it was.  Also it had quite a small sweet spot when using two speakers but when you were in that spot, the sound was coming from everywhere.  I do wonder how closely they were able to peel apart the sonic queues to actually position sounds appropriately though I believe it had it's basis on binaural recording.  http://www.3dfocus.co.uk/3d-news-2/dts-and-srs-to-launch-3d-audio-late-next-year/9551

 

I wonder what DTS is doing with it now and if some of the new technologies incorporate any of the old Hughes Aircraft / SRS patents.

[Chris A]

Thanks Mike.  The Polk SDA monitors that were demonstrated for me in the early 80s were very convincing as was the disappearance of surround effect was when the cable connecting the two stereo loudspeakers was disconnected.  It was startling to say the least.

 

I believe that the Carver black box worked almost as well, and was much more flexible to use with virtually any setup.  I always wondered why Polk and Carver gave up on their stereo crosstalk elimination hardware/software, even if you had to be sitting in a 2-foot-wide strip centered between your stereo loudspeakers. 

 

I believe that I understand the basis of the present methodology from the thesis you provided - and it's nice to see what they are doing.  I, too, await understanding of the price of this technical black box (or software black box) and where it can be demo'ed/heard.  There are a great many stereo recordings out there that might benefit greatly from a significant technical update to this now-old technology.  I know that I really enjoyed the SDA monitors way back when.  I can't remember why I didn't invest in a pair, but it must have been  that I already owned a full set of gear at the time, and just tagged along with my friend to listen.

 

Thanks again for the heads up (pun intended).

 

Chris

Edited December 23, 2014 by Chris A

[Chris A]

I wonder what this technique would sound like on a pair of K-402s?

[mikebse2a3]

I wonder what this technique would sound like on a pair of K-402s?

I would expect the K402 would do very well....

http://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/Directivity.html

[Chris A]

From the curves posted here, the Jub bass bin also does very well down to ~130 Hz, which is probably well below interaural time difference detectability.  In other words, Jubs are very directional throughout the main directionality detection bands (for humans--not elephants ).  Might be interesting.

 

Edited December 23, 2014 by Chris A

[pzannucci]

It does look like you need to get the room out of the way, not just the recording.  Horns can help there.  

 

Now if you could mic the room and develop cancellation algorithms to totally take the room out as a sound source, sell it for $999, that would be a winner.  Unfortunately, as with most technologies, the sweet spot is only a couple of seats wide.

[Mallette]

I recall getting a tear-out demo 331/3 disc in an Audio or Stereo Review back then of the Carver system.  I cannot recall how it was supposed to work without the hardware, but it did a fairly good job.

 

Dave

[Quiet_Hollow]

It doesn't seem as though the varied attempts at creating 3D sound fields ever stuck.

  I wager for the same reasons that 3D television continues to have a hard time in that not everyone "senses" in the exactly the same ways.

 

Binaural recording and playback technique using earbuds works fantastic. No research or high priced hardware required. Toss in head tracking and signal convolution, and the result is convincing enough to induce severe disorientation when there's a hardware glitch.

 

That's what I don't get, and it's not that I'm completely at odds with current research either. I just feel the money could be better spent on something like educating and subsidizing manufacturers to make power tools, appliances, and other industrial equipment quieter...or something with a higher pay off for the public.

[whatever55]

Then there is also the Dynaco setup