x.miguel@catastropha.org

cheap-speakers-for-ambisonics

you wouldn't want to do this. the whole point of ambisonics is full range similar/identical speakers in arbitrary positions. about the opposite of 5.1

you wouldn't want to do this. the whole point of ambisonics is full range similar/identical speakers in arbitrary positions. about the opposite of 5.1
imo better get less and better speakers.

https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

> Well, the minimum for 2nd order ambisonics is 9 speakers (2+1)^2 and 9 good speakers cost a lot of money, so that is not an option. I could use 1st order, which requires 4 speakers, but i'm not sure 4 speakers would give a good spatial image for complete 3d sound.

> I'm aware of course that i should get good speakers... that's not the point, the point was if it would be possible to still reproduce ambisonics in cheap surround speakers (9 for exemple). But I'm inclined to think it is not because of the lack of low frequencies.

> By the way is there a forum somewhere dedicated to ambisonics ?

> Does anyone know of a external, patch or plug-in for ambisonics reverb ?

2007/2/7, Miguel Negrão :
>
> Well, the minimum for 2nd order ambisonics is 9 speakers (2+1)^2 and 9 good speakers cost a lot of money, so that is not an option. I could use 1st order, which requires 4 speakers, but i'm not sure 4 speakers would give a good spatial image for complete 3d sound.
>   I'm aware of course that i should get good speakers... that's not the point, the point was if it would be possible to still reproduce ambisonics in cheap surround speakers (9 for exemple). But I'm inclined to think it is not because of the lack of low frequencies.
>
> By the way is there a forum somewhere dedicated to ambisonics ?
> Does anyone know of a external, patch or plug-in for ambisonics reverb ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Miguel Negrão
>
>
>


v=libraries&id_library=89&requested=ambisonic&operateur=AND&id_plateform 

For reverb, I have generally been using standard reverbs in MSP 

(freeverb, gigaverb, yafr etc) and mixing the output signals directly 

into the Ambisonic domain signals (usually x, y and sometimes z is 

convincing enough). All sources can share the same reverb busses, 

since late reflections are mostly directionless.

Early reflection differences can be achieved using simple delays or 

combs, depending on how realistic your room simulation and distance 

cues need to be. Reverb send mix per source can be dependent upon 

the object distance, and optionally the object's own direction and 

diffusion pattern, if you're going for that level of realism.

Someday soon I should be able to put together a demo patch for simple 

distance cues with Ambisonics; including distance amplitude 

attenuation, distance filtering, simple object radiation patterns and 

reverberation. Someday when I'm not busy...

>
> Externals, try these:
>
> http://www.icst.net/index.php?show=137

http://www.maxobjects.com/? 
v=libraries&id_library=89&requested=ambisonic&operateur=AND&id_plateform 
e=4

For reverb, I have generally been using standard reverbs in MSP  
(freeverb, gigaverb, yafr etc) and mixing the output signals directly  
into the Ambisonic domain signals (usually x, y and sometimes z is  
convincing enough).  All sources can share the same reverb busses,  
since late reflections are mostly directionless.

Early reflection differences can be achieved using simple delays or  
combs, depending on how realistic your room simulation and distance  
cues need to be.  Reverb send mix per source can be dependent upon  
the object distance, and optionally the object's own direction and  
diffusion pattern, if you're going for that level of realism.

Someday soon I should be able to put together a demo patch for simple  
distance cues with Ambisonics; including distance amplitude  
attenuation, distance filtering, simple object radiation patterns and  
reverberation.  Someday when I'm not busy...


Quote: lists@grahamwakefield wrote on Wed, 07 February 2007 18:24

----------------------------------------------------

> v=libraries&id_library=89&requested=ambisonic&operateur=AND&id_plateform 

> For reverb, I have generally been using standard reverbs in MSP 

> (freeverb, gigaverb, yafr etc) and mixing the output signals directly 

> into the Ambisonic domain signals (usually x, y and sometimes z is 

> convincing enough). All sources can share the same reverb busses, 

> since late reflections are mostly directionless.

> Early reflection differences can be achieved using simple delays or 

> combs, depending on how realistic your room simulation and distance 

> cues need to be. Reverb send mix per source can be dependent upon 

> the object distance, and optionally the object's own direction and 

> diffusion pattern, if you're going for that level of realism.

> Someday soon I should be able to put together a demo patch for simple 

> distance cues with Ambisonics; including distance amplitude 

> attenuation, distance filtering, simple object radiation patterns and 

> reverberation. Someday when I'm not busy...

I'm not sure from your user name if you are Graham Wakefield, but if that is the case the best ambisonics reverb patch i saw was indeed an example in your set of ambisonics objects. But it was a reverb based on just two oposing walls. 

Does this mean that ambisonics reverb is still such an unexplored thing that there aren't a lot of papers written about it or software available ? It is true that in ambisonics it's hard to tell apart the spatialization part from the reverb part because they must are both part of the process of putting a source in a virutal 3d environment, maybe an ambisonics reverb vst or external will have to be also encoder, so that it receives a mono input and as output it gives an encoded ambisonics signal. 

Quote: lists@grahamwakefield wrote on Wed, 07 February 2007 18:24
----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Externals, try these:
> >
> > http://www.icst.net/index.php?show=137
>
> Or as an alternative, try these:
>
> http://www.maxobjects.com/? 
> v=libraries&id_library=89&requested=ambisonic&operateur=AND&id_plateform 
> e=4
>
>
> For reverb, I have generally been using standard reverbs in MSP  
> (freeverb, gigaverb, yafr etc) and mixing the output signals directly  
> into the Ambisonic domain signals (usually x, y and sometimes z is  
> convincing enough).  All sources can share the same reverb busses,  
> since late reflections are mostly directionless.
>
> Early reflection differences can be achieved using simple delays or  
> combs, depending on how realistic your room simulation and distance  
> cues need to be.  Reverb send mix per source can be dependent upon  
> the object distance, and optionally the object's own direction and  
> diffusion pattern, if you're going for that level of realism.
>
> Someday soon I should be able to put together a demo patch for simple  
> distance cues with Ambisonics; including distance amplitude  
> attenuation, distance filtering, simple object radiation patterns and  
> reverberation.  Someday when I'm not busy...
>
>
----------------------------------------------------

 I'm not sure from your user name if you are Graham Wakefield, but if that is the case the best ambisonics reverb patch i saw was indeed an example in your set of ambisonics objects. But it was a reverb based on just two oposing walls. 
  Does this mean that ambisonics reverb is still such an unexplored thing that there aren't a lot of papers written about it or software available ? It is true that in ambisonics it's hard to tell apart the spatialization part from the reverb part because they must are both part of the process of putting a source in a virutal 3d environment, maybe an ambisonics reverb vst or external will have to be also encoder, so that it receives a mono input and as output it gives an encoded ambisonics signal. 
Anyway i will try your aproach.


> Yes, I'm using those, they are quite nice, But I was asking for ambisonics Reverb externals or vsts. Designing a ambisonics reverb with raytracing and all thar seems to be a lot of work, if someone as done it allready it would be great, if not, no choice but to do it myself...

It's not for Max/Msp but for Supercollider, look (only for inspiration) at:

If you have access to Ircam Forum software there is the Spat library.

You could always just buy the speakers and return them if they're too junky ;)

the speakers used ina ambisonics setup cooperate together so the bass

are better then with other spatialization tecniques but 10 speakers

I think tahat the minimal setup is with budget hi-fi speakers (about 75 € one).

> I was think more like 10 speakers for 120€, but that probably will no sound as good as the 10 speakers for 30000€ that you mentioned. :-). But my problem is not that it "doesn't sound good", my problem would be if lost the spatialization of the low frequencies completly.

> > ----------------------------------------------------

> > hmmm i don't know to much about it,especially the orders, but i used 8 speakers in 3rd order, with the right coëfficients in the CITS objects and it was really nice.

> > then again, the speakers were 3000€ each, so it better be good -the advantage of playing at a fancy venue.

> ----------------------------------------------------

the speakers used ina ambisonics setup cooperate together so the bass
are better then with other spatialization tecniques  but 10 speakers
for 120 € is too low ;-)

2007/2/8, Miguel Negrão :
>
> I was think more like 10 speakers for 120€, but that probably will no sound as good as the 10 speakers for 30000€ that you mentioned. :-). But my problem is not that it "doesn't sound good", my problem would be if lost the spatialization of the low frequencies completly.
>
> Miguel Negrão
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > hmmm i don't know to much about it,especially the orders, but i used 8 speakers in 3rd order, with the right coëfficients in the CITS objects and it was really nice.
> > then again, the speakers were 3000€ each, so it better be good -the advantage of playing at a fancy venue.
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>


> I think tahat the minimal setup is with budget hi-fi speakers (about 

I was thinking Behringer MS-16 units, perhaps? They're surprisingly loud 

and bassy, especially since a) they're behringers(!) and b) because 

they're 65 euro a pair. And the amp is built in.

Also, they're small, and won't intrude too much in a large setup.

Alessandro Fogar skrev:
> I think tahat the minimal setup is with budget hi-fi speakers (about 
> 75 € one).
>
> And then you have to amplify them !
I was thinking Behringer MS-16 units, perhaps? They're surprisingly loud 
and bassy, especially since a) they're behringers(!) and b) because 
they're 65 euro a pair. And the amp is built in.

Also, they're small, and won't intrude too much in a large setup.
Andreas.


For a mid-range solution -- if you wanted to go with 2 X 5.1 -- you could get two BlueSky MediaDesk 5.1 setups. Not super cheap, but *very* good, for the price, IMO.

For anyone in need of several channels of precise yet cheap (15 watt) amplification look into the well reviewed Sonic Impact 5066 T-amp ($24-$50).

Sounds great, has a very low noise floor and can be battery powered.

For anyone in need of several channels of precise yet cheap (15 watt) amplification look into the well reviewed Sonic Impact 5066 T-amp ($24-$50). 

Sounds great, has a very low noise floor and can be battery powered.


On Dec 28, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Anthony Bisset wrote:

> For anyone in need of several channels of precise yet cheap (15 

> watt) amplification look into the well reviewed Sonic Impact 5066 T- 

while Googling for this amp I came across some mods and specs that 

might be useful to those who are 'soldering iron friendly'

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread/t-50870.html

also, where did you find these for $24 - $50? 

>
> For anyone in need of several channels of precise yet cheap (15  
> watt) amplification look into the well reviewed Sonic Impact 5066 T- 
> amp ($24-$50).

while Googling for this amp I came across some mods and specs that  
might be useful to those who are 'soldering iron friendly'
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread/t-50870.html

also, where did you find these for $24 - $50? 


Quote: Kim Cascone wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 16:40

> On Dec 28, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Anthony Bisset wrote:

> > For anyone in need of several channels of precise yet cheap (15 

> > watt) amplification look into the well reviewed Sonic Impact 5066 T- 

> also, where did you find these for $24 - $50? 

Sadly, I think the original T-Amp is discontinued. I've used these to great effect (I like to think) in sound installations. :-( The 2nd generation (5065) is out, for about $60. Not bad, although pretty much the same thing for more money. There are some older ones on eBay...

Quote: Kim Cascone wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 16:40
----------------------------------------------------
>
> On Dec 28, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Anthony Bisset wrote:
>
> >
> > For anyone in need of several channels of precise yet cheap (15  
> > watt) amplification look into the well reviewed Sonic Impact 5066 T- 
> > amp ...
> also, where did you find these for $24 - $50? 
>

for multichannel, if one can solder one of these are better...

http://www.audiodigit.com/index.php?section=90

> Quote: Kim Cascone wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 16:40

> > On Dec 28, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Anthony Bisset wrote:

> > > For anyone in need of several channels of precise yet cheap (15

> > > watt) amplification look into the well reviewed Sonic Impact 5066 T-

> > also, where did you find these for $24 - $50?

> Sadly, I think the original T-Amp is discontinued. I've used these to great effect (I like to think) in sound installations. :-( The 2nd generation (5065) is out, for about $60. Not bad, although pretty much the same thing for more money. There are some older ones on eBay...

> || michael f. zbyszynski -- molecular gastronimist

http://www.41hz.com/main.aspx?pageID=130
http://www.audiodigit.com/index.php?section=90

2007/12/29, mzed :
>
> Quote: Kim Cascone wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 16:40
> ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > On Dec 28, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Anthony Bisset wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > For anyone in need of several channels of precise yet cheap (15
> > > watt) amplification look into the well reviewed Sonic Impact 5066 T-
> > > amp ...
> > also, where did you find these for $24 - $50?
> >
>
>
> Sadly, I think the original T-Amp is discontinued. I've used these to great effect (I like to think) in sound installations. :-( The 2nd generation (5065) is out, for about $60. Not bad, although pretty much the same thing for more money. There are some older ones on eBay...
>
>
> mz
>
>
>
> --
> || michael f. zbyszynski -- molecular gastronimist
> || http://www.cnmat.berkeley.edu/
> || http://www.mikezed.com/
>
>
>
>


Quote: x.miguel@catastropha.org wrote on Wed, 07 February 2007 09:13

The minimum number of speakers for first-order full-sphere 

Ambisonics is 6, and preferably 8. (The minimum for 

horizontal first-order is 4). In general, you need more 

speakers than B-Format channels. For speaker layouts try 

Michael A Gerzon, 1980, Practical Periphony: The 

Reproduction of Full-Sphere Sound, presented at 

the 65th Audio Engineering Society Convention, 

London, 25-28 February. Preprint 1571 (A6).

Also, see the Ambisonic FAQ (which I created and maintain): 

http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/Ambisonic/faq_latest.html#SECTION20

Quote: x.miguel@catastropha.org wrote on Wed, 07 February 2007 09:13
----------------------------------------------------
> Well, the minimum for 2nd order ambisonics is 9 speakers (2+1)^2 and 9 good speakers cost a lot of money, so that is not an option. I could use 1st order, which requires 4 speakers, but i'm not sure 4 speakers would give a good spatial image for complete 3d sound.

The minimum number of speakers for first-order full-sphere 
Ambisonics is 6, and preferably 8.  (The minimum for 
horizontal first-order is 4).  In general, you need more 
speakers than B-Format channels.  For speaker layouts try 
to obtain:  
Michael A Gerzon, 1980, Practical Periphony: The 
Reproduction of Full-Sphere Sound, presented at 
the 65th Audio Engineering Society Convention, 
London, 25-28 February. Preprint 1571 (A6).

Also, see the Ambisonic FAQ (which I created and maintain):  
http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/Ambisonic/faq_latest.html#SECTION20

Quote: x.miguel@catastropha.org wrote on Thu, 08 February 2007 19:22

> That's exactly what I'm talking about, the bass frequencies ARE important for spatialization in ambisonics. The reason the normal surround setups (5.1) don't need the low frequencies for spatialization is that they only use the amplitude cues. But ambisonics also use phase cues for spatialization (that's why in theory it will sound better than vbap surround). that's why the surround systems for home cinema are composed of small satelite speakes and a subwoofer/woofer, because they don't need the low frequencies for spatialization. But we use at least three cues for localization of sounds: amplitude difference, phase difference and something else i don't remember now... 

Phase is used to localise sounds with frequencies 

between 150 Hz and 1.5 kHz, amplitude for frequencies 

between 300 Hz and 5 kHz, and other cues for 

frequencies above 2.5 kHz. Note that the three 

Ambisonics tries to satisfy the first two sets of 

localization cues. In theory, the transition 

frequency between the two sets should be 700 Hz (so 

that the distance between your ears is half a 

wavelength). In practical domestic Ambisonic 

decoders, this is lowered to 400 Hz. This better 

accommodates off-centre listeners at the expense of 

The point of this diatribe is that, for Ambisonics, 

you need speakers that go below 400 Hz. This is a 

lot higher than a sub-woofer, and even small 

speakers can usually manage this. However, for 

full-sphere you are going to need at least six, and 

Also, see the Ambisonic FAQ (which I created and 

http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/Ambisonic/faq_latest.html#SECTION12

Quote: x.miguel@catastropha.org wrote on Thu, 08 February 2007 19:22
----------------------------------------------------
> That's exactly what I'm talking about, the bass frequencies  ARE important for spatialization in ambisonics. The reason the normal surround setups (5.1) don't need the low frequencies for spatialization is that they only use the amplitude cues. But ambisonics also use phase cues for spatialization (that's why in theory it will sound better than vbap surround). that's why the surround systems for home cinema are composed of small satelite speakes and a subwoofer/woofer, because they don't need the low frequencies for spatialization. But we use at least three cues for localization of sounds:  amplitude difference, phase difference and something else i don't remember now... 
----------------------------------------------------

Phase is used to localise sounds with frequencies 
between 150 Hz and 1.5 kHz, amplitude for frequencies 
between 300 Hz and 5 kHz, and other cues for 
frequencies above 2.5 kHz.  Note that the three 
frequency ranges overlap.

Ambisonics tries to satisfy the first two sets of 
localization cues.  In theory, the transition 
frequency between the two sets should be 700 Hz (so 
that the distance between your ears is half a 
wavelength).  In practical domestic Ambisonic 
decoders, this is lowered to 400 Hz.  This better 
accommodates off-centre listeners at the expense of 
poorer localization at the sweet spot.

The point of this diatribe is that, for Ambisonics, 
you need speakers that go below 400 Hz.  This is a 
lot higher than a sub-woofer, and even small 
speakers can usually manage this.  However, for 
full-sphere you are going to need at least six, and 
preferably eight.

Also, see the Ambisonic FAQ (which I created and 
maintain): 
http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/Ambisonic/faq_latest.html#SECTION12

On 29 Dec 2007, at 19:30, Martin Leese wrote:

> Also, see the Ambisonic FAQ (which I created and

http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/Ambisonic/

Bookmarked - thanks. Luckily I'm blocking all the ads, otherwise I'd 

now be a Mormon with an iPod Nano, a subscription to Wired, a job in 

> Also, see the Ambisonic FAQ (which I created and
> maintain):
> http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/Ambisonic/ 
> faq_latest.html#SECTION12

Bookmarked - thanks. Luckily I'm blocking all the ads, otherwise I'd  
now be a Mormon with an iPod Nano, a subscription to Wired, a job in  
Paris, and a huge pile of pop ringtones.

Nick Rothwell / Cassiel.com Limited
www.cassiel.com
www.myspace.com/cassieldotcom
www.last.fm/music/cassiel
http://www.reverbnation.com/cassiel
www.loadbang.net

Quote: nick rothwell / cassiel wrote on Sat, 29 December 2007 12:15

Luckily I'm blocking all the ads, otherwise I'd 

> now be a Mormon with an iPod Nano, a subscription to Wired, a job in 

> Paris, and a huge pile of pop ringtones.

Quote: nick rothwell / cassiel wrote on Sat, 29 December 2007 12:15
----------------------------------------------------
 Luckily I'm blocking all the ads, otherwise I'd  
> now be a Mormon with an iPod Nano, a subscription to Wired, a job in  
> Paris, and a huge pile of pop ringtones.
>

Quote: nick rothwell / cassiel wrote on Sat, 29 December 2007 13:15

> On 29 Dec 2007, at 19:30, Martin Leese wrote:

> > Also, see the Ambisonic FAQ (which I created and

> Bookmarked - thanks. Luckily I'm blocking all the ads, otherwise I'd 

Quote: nick rothwell / cassiel wrote on Sat, 29 December 2007 13:15
----------------------------------------------------
>
> On 29 Dec 2007, at 19:30, Martin Leese wrote:
>
> > Also, see the Ambisonic FAQ (which I created and
> > maintain):
> > http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/Ambisonic/ 
> > faq_latest.html#SECTION12
>
> Bookmarked - thanks. Luckily I'm blocking all the ads, otherwise I'd  
> now be a Mormon with an iPod Nano, a subscription to Wired, a job in  
> Paris, and a huge pile of pop ringtones.
----------------------------------------------------

This is the price *you* pay so that *I* 
get free Web hosting :-)


Two months ago I used froogle and found an online store that still had stock for $24.95 without the 12v power supply.

I just looked again and couldn't find any stores with stock below $60.

http://www.pricegrabber.com/user_sales_getprod.php?masterid=3642271&lot_id=6492473&mode=googleff

The T-amp Gen-2 can be had for $69.99 here:

http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/audio/9c60/

One might consider DIY'ing x-channels based on Tripath chips if they can brave SMD.

This page has some interesting low cost amps:

The T-amp Gen-2 can be had for $69.99 here:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/audio/9c60/

This page has some interesting low cost amps:
http://www.spectrumaudio.de/roehre.html

Cheap speakers for ambisonics