Tilgino

does anybody have an hardware recommendition for an setup of 20 individual channeled speakers? it should be as compact as possible.

hardware-for-20-speaker-soundinstallation

define compact as in what kind of installation, 20 speakers aren't 

You'll need amplifiers which you can solder yourself to make them 

more compact but it really depends on what kind of definition you 

On 13 Oct 2006, at 23:05, Peter T. wrote:

> does anybody have an hardware recommendition for an setup of 20 

> individual channeled speakers? it should be as compact as possible.

motu'z
maybe with adat
define compact as in what kind of installation, 20 speakers aren't  
compact
You'll need amplifiers which you can solder yourself to make them  
more compact but it really depends on what kind of definition you  
want in you're sound.
so elaborate!

>
> hi,
>
> does anybody have an hardware recommendition for an setup of 20  
> individual channeled speakers? it should be as compact as possible.
>
> thx
> peter
>


do you mena the audio soundcard or the speakers?

speakers were just computer ones, very tiny and cheap, plus 4 2:1 

Il giorno 13/ott/06, alle ore 23:05, Peter T. ha scritto:

i did an installation using motu 828mkII
that has 10 channel to stereo speakers;
speakers were just computer ones, very tiny and cheap, plus 4 2:1  
subwoofers.

Some variables might be whether you need XLR outputs from the interface or not, distance to run cables, etc. The MOTU stuff is good--896 for XLR outputs and 828, traveler, and ultralite for TRS outputs. The ultralite has 10 analog outs in a very compact package. Two of those would fit in a shoebox, and give you twenty independent outputs. As for speakers, if they don't need to be large, some of the cheaper powered monitors out there don't sound bad, depending on the application. While they may not be ideal for high-end monitoring, they may be perfect for an installation.

If you are using a mac, then I'm sure you're aware that you can use any combination of interfaces that you have and have the os build a single driver for all of them for simultaneous use. I'm not sure if there is some way to do that in windows.

Some variables might be whether you need XLR outputs from the interface or not, distance to run cables, etc. The MOTU stuff is good--896 for XLR outputs and 828, traveler, and ultralite for TRS outputs.  The ultralite has 10 analog outs in a very compact package.  Two of those would fit in a shoebox, and give you twenty independent outputs.  As for speakers, if they don't need to be large, some of the cheaper powered monitors out there don't sound bad, depending on the application.  While they may not be ideal for high-end monitoring, they may be perfect for an installation.

If you are using a mac, then I'm sure you're aware that you can use any combination of interfaces that you have and have the os build a single driver for all of them for simultaneous use.  I'm not sure if there is some way to do that in windows.

Quote: tim_thompson@mac.com wrote on Fri, 13 October 2006 19:01

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

> Some variables might be whether you need XLR outputs from the interface or not, distance to run cables, etc. The MOTU stuff is good--896 for XLR outputs and 828, traveler, and ultralite for TRS outputs. The ultralite has 10 analog outs in a very compact package. Two of those would fit in a shoebox, and give you twenty independent outputs. As for speakers, if they don't need to be large, some of the cheaper powered monitors out there don't sound bad, depending on the application. While they may not be ideal for high-end monitoring, they may be perfect for an installation.

> If you are using a mac, then I'm sure you're aware that you can use any combination of interfaces that you have and have the os build a single driver for all of them for simultaneous use. I'm not sure if there is some way to do that in windows.

Quote: tim_thompson@mac.com wrote on Fri, 13 October 2006 19:01
----------------------------------------------------
> Some variables might be whether you need XLR outputs from the interface or not, distance to run cables, etc. The MOTU stuff is good--896 for XLR outputs and 828, traveler, and ultralite for TRS outputs.  The ultralite has 10 analog outs in a very compact package.  Two of those would fit in a shoebox, and give you twenty independent outputs.  As for speakers, if they don't need to be large, some of the cheaper powered monitors out there don't sound bad, depending on the application.  While they may not be ideal for high-end monitoring, they may be perfect for an installation.
>
> If you are using a mac, then I'm sure you're aware that you can use any combination of interfaces that you have and have the os build a single driver for all of them for simultaneous use.  I'm not sure if there is some way to do that in windows.
>
> tim
----------------------------------------------------

I vote for motu for reliability and transparency. A cheap option is 

a used 828mk and an ADAT machine as a cheap 8 DA converter. It takes 

4 rack space though... the 2 ultralite is very good as well, or the 

24i/o if you have a PCI machine. We do concerts frequently with 4 

I vote for motu for reliability and transparency.  A cheap option is  
a used 828mk and an ADAT machine as a cheap 8 DA converter.  It takes  
4 rack space though... the 2 ultralite is very good as well, or the  
24i/o if you have a PCI machine.  We do concerts frequently with 4  
24io and MSP in Birmingham...

Hi, i may be a little late on this thread. At Sial we use 2x Motu896HDs

combined with 2x Creamware A16's and maxmsp to achieve a 32 channel

system. Quiet a bit of development has gone into this to ensure a

performance stable system, still minor teething probs in both sw and hw

integration, however the 896 has been quite a robust unit for our

>>> Pierre Alexandre Tremblay 10/14/06 11:06 pm

a used 828mk and an ADAT machine as a cheap 8 DA converter. It takes

Hi, i may be a little late on this thread. At Sial we use 2x Motu896HDs
combined with 2x Creamware A16's and maxmsp to achieve a 32 channel
system. Quiet a bit of development has gone into this to ensure a
performance stable system, still minor teething probs in both sw and hw
integration, however the 896 has been quite a robust unit for our
diffusion concerts. 

>>> Pierre Alexandre Tremblay  10/14/06 11:06 pm
>>>
Dear all

I vote for motu for reliability and transparency.  A cheap option is  
a used 828mk and an ADAT machine as a cheap 8 DA converter.  It takes 

4 rack space though... the 2 ultralite is very good as well, or the  
24i/o if you have a PCI machine.  We do concerts frequently with 4  
24io and MSP in Birmingham...

I used an external object " granola~" by Lyon for old version Max/MSP 

4.5.7 , with my new machine Mac Book pro 2.0 Intel CUP/ Max/MSP 

4.6.2 can't recognize the object ( even different image), the Web 

site arcana.dartmoth.edu/~eric/MAX seems closed, can anyone e-mail me 

the granola~ for Max.MSP 4.6.2 or any suggestion? thanks in advance!

hello! comrades,
I used an external object " granola~" by Lyon for old version Max/MSP  
4.5.7 , with my new machine Mac Book pro 2.0 Intel CUP/  Max/MSP  
4.6.2 can't recognize the object ( even different image), the Web  
site arcana.dartmoth.edu/~eric/MAX seems closed, can anyone e-mail me  
the granola~ for Max.MSP 4.6.2 or any suggestion? thanks in advance!

if you need only a player:ADAT HD24 24-Track Hard Disk Recorder (24 analog in/outputs)

http://www.alesis.com/products/hd24/about.html

if you need only a player:ADAT HD24  24-Track Hard Disk Recorder (24 analog in/outputs)

http://www.alesis.com/products/hd24/about.html


> I vote for motu for reliability and transparency. A cheap option is a 

> used 828mk and an ADAT machine as a cheap 8 DA converter.

Cheaper as a used ADAT machine and much more convenient to transport:

A used Fostex VC-8 converter (1 half rack size).

A bit more: a new Behringer ADA8000 with 8 Mic inputs!

Alone the difference in schlepp faktor would be worth it...

I do still have a Fostex, might sell it, it hasn't been used for too 

Pierre Alexandre Tremblay wrote:
> I vote for motu for reliability and transparency.  A cheap option is  a 
> used 828mk and an ADAT machine as a cheap 8 DA converter.

Cheaper as a used ADAT machine and much more convenient to transport:
A used Fostex VC-8 converter (1 half rack size).
A bit more: a new Behringer ADA8000 with 8 Mic inputs!
Alone the difference in schlepp faktor would be worth it...

I do still have a Fostex, might sell it, it hasn't been used for too 
long now....

-- 
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com


any tips about object used (3d positioning), possibilities in windows etc.

http://maxobjects.com/?request=multi-loudspeakers

> > I vote for motu for reliability and transparency. A cheap option is a

> > used 828mk and an ADAT machine as a cheap 8 DA converter.

> Cheaper as a used ADAT machine and much more convenient to transport:

> A used Fostex VC-8 converter (1 half rack size).

> A bit more: a new Behringer ADA8000 with 8 Mic inputs!

> Alone the difference in schlepp faktor would be worth it...

> I do still have a Fostex, might sell it, it hasn't been used for too

any tips about object used (3d positioning), possibilities in windows etc.
will be appreciated
http://maxobjects.com/?request=multi-loudspeakers

2006/10/18, Stefan Tiedje :
>
> Pierre Alexandre Tremblay wrote:
> > I vote for motu for reliability and transparency.  A cheap option is  a
> > used 828mk and an ADAT machine as a cheap 8 DA converter.
>
> Cheaper as a used ADAT machine and much more convenient to transport:
> A used Fostex VC-8 converter (1 half rack size).
> A bit more: a new Behringer ADA8000 with 8 Mic inputs!
> Alone the difference in schlepp faktor would be worth it...
>
> I do still have a Fostex, might sell it, it hasn't been used for too
> long now....
>
> Stefan
>
> --
> Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
> --_____-----------|--------------
> --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
> -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
> ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
>
>

I am working on an installation with a 2D 16 speakers linear array, mounted on a wall, next to which the audience can wall around freely.

I am debating whether to use multiouts~ or Vbap/Rvbap for the spatial dispersing of the sounds. 

How would you guys compare between the two?

Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 3:30 PM

Subject: Re: [maxmsp] Re: hardware for 20 speaker soundinstallation

any tips about object used (3d positioning), possibilities in windows etc. will be appreciated

> I vote for motu for reliability and transparency. A cheap option is a

Cheaper as a used ADAT machine and much more convenient to transport: 

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

while we're on the subject::
I am working on an installation with a 2D 16 speakers linear array, mounted on a wall, next to which the audience can wall around freely.

I am debating whether to use multiouts~ or Vbap/Rvbap for the spatial dispersing of the sounds. 
How would you guys compare between the two?
thanks,
Zax
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: yair reshef 
  To: maxmsp@cycling74.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 3:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [maxmsp] Re: hardware for 20 speaker soundinstallation

  any tips about object used (3d positioning), possibilities in windows etc. will be appreciated
  http://maxobjects.com/?request=multi-loudspeakers 

  2006/10/18, Stefan Tiedje :
    Pierre Alexandre Tremblay wrote:
    > I vote for motu for reliability and transparency.  A cheap option is  a
    > used 828mk and an ADAT machine as a cheap 8 DA converter.

    Cheaper as a used ADAT machine and much more convenient to transport: 
    A used Fostex VC-8 converter (1 half rack size).
    A bit more: a new Behringer ADA8000 with 8 Mic inputs!
    Alone the difference in schlepp faktor would be worth it...

    I do still have a Fostex, might sell it, it hasn't been used for too 
    long now....

    --
    Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
    --_____-----------|--------------
    --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
    -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
    ----------()-------- www.ccmix.com

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


From your description I get the impression that all of the speakers 

will be on a straight line, thus really 1D, but I might be misunderstanding.

I used 16 speakers on a line for an installation with Kurt Ralske two 

years ago. Some photos from the process of installing can be found here:

http://www.bek.no/Members/lossius/lostblog/373

For that installation I used the ambisonic external from ParisNord. When 

I first started thinking of positioning the speakers this way I imagined 

the row of speaker as a kind of virtual string, with sound moving back 

and forth along the line. In the end the sounding result was very 

different. I suspect that with the speaker setup and spatialisation 

technique used, it started behave a bit similar to wavefield synthesis, 

all loudspeakers contributing to a sound wave that felt to radiate as a 

more or less planar perpendicular to the wall. Even if sound levels were 

not all that loud, it had a very strong physical impact. It felt like 

waves of sound were passing by and through me at great speed. I used the 

ambisonic technique to virtually position the source of sound some 

meters behind the row of speakers, moving it back and forth along the 

direction of the line, also several meters past the line segment defined 

by the speakers. The impression of this was that the sound sometimes 

seemed to transcend the side walls of the gallery space.

While developing I also tried to use vbap in a similar wacky way, but I 

never managed to get any interesting results from it. It was difficult 

to locate exactly where along the speaker row the sound was coming from, 

and from a few meters distance any movement along the 8 meter line 

defined by the speakers didn't feel like that much of a movement after all.

Using ambisonics the effect got a lot more pronounced, and I was able to 

extend and exaggerate the length of the line that sound was moving along.

If you ant to test this for yourself I would recommend that you try it 

out with both the ICST ambisonic externals and the ones from parishNord. 

ICST have two big advantages over ParisNord, higher order 

encoding/decoding and encoding and decoding taking place in separate 

externals. On the other hand, looking at the source code for both 

externals, it seems to me that the ParishNord obejcts change the balance 

between omni and first order signals based on the distance of the 

source. In comparisment ICST externals only adjust balance as long as 

the source is positioned outside the unit circle/hemisphere. That might 

have influence on how sources moving into and coming from a distance are 

> I am working on an installation with a 2D 16 speakers linear array, 

> mounted on a wall, next to which the audience can wall around freely.

> I am debating whether to use multiouts~ or Vbap/Rvbap for the spatial 

> How would you guys compare between the two?

From your description I get the impression that all of the speakers 
will be on a straight line, thus really 1D, but I might be misunderstanding.

I used 16 speakers on a line for an installation with Kurt Ralske two 
years ago. Some photos from the process of installing can be found here:

For that installation I used the ambisonic external from ParisNord. When 
I first started thinking of positioning the speakers this way I imagined 
the row of speaker as a kind of virtual string, with sound moving back 
and forth along the line. In the end the sounding result was very 
different. I suspect that with the speaker setup and spatialisation 
technique used, it started behave a bit similar to wavefield synthesis, 
all loudspeakers contributing to a sound wave that felt to radiate as a 
more or less planar perpendicular to the wall. Even if sound levels were 
not all that loud, it had a very strong physical impact. It felt like 
waves of sound were passing by and through me at great speed. I used the 
ambisonic technique to virtually position the source of sound some 
meters behind the row of speakers, moving it back and forth along the 
direction of the line, also several meters past the line segment defined 
by the speakers. The impression of this was that the sound sometimes 
seemed to transcend the side walls of the gallery space.

While developing I also tried to use vbap in a similar wacky way, but I 
never managed to get any interesting results from it. It was difficult 
to locate exactly where along the speaker row the sound was coming from, 
and from a few meters distance any movement along the 8 meter line 
defined by the speakers didn't feel like that much of a movement after all.

Using ambisonics the effect got a lot more pronounced, and I was able to 
extend and exaggerate the length of the line that sound was moving along.

If you ant to test this for yourself I would recommend that you try it 
out with both the ICST ambisonic externals and the ones from parishNord. 
ICST have two big advantages over ParisNord, higher order 
encoding/decoding and encoding and decoding taking place in separate 
externals. On the other hand, looking at the source code for both 
externals, it seems to me that the ParishNord obejcts change the balance 
between omni and first order signals based on the distance of the 
source. In comparisment ICST externals only adjust balance as long as 
the source is positioned outside the unit circle/hemisphere. That might 
have influence on how sources moving into and coming from a distance are 
perceived.

Sachs & Eitan PR wrote:
> while we're on the subject::
> I am working on an installation with a 2D 16 speakers linear array, 
> mounted on a wall, next to which the audience can wall around freely.
>
> I am debating whether to use multiouts~ or Vbap/Rvbap for the spatial 
> dispersing of the sounds.
> How would you guys compare between the two?
> thanks,
> Zax
