[LINK] Government teleconferencing

[Marghanita da Cruz]

Richard Chirgwin wrote:
> Thinking randomish ...
> 
> We are, I suspect, more susceptible to good psycho-acoustics; by which I
> mean, I suppose, that "phone plus video" just doesn't "kick" as well as
> the telepresence.
> 
> Funny, you could go a long way with a stereo microphone and some
> smart-enough software ... not that you would get "telepresence" but you
> could certainly get good placement of the apparent location of a voice
> to someone at the other end, esp wearing headphones.
> 
> (All of this has been known to record producers for years. You can track
> the progress of certain tricks, from where they were first noticed to
> when they became passe).
> 

I also wonder if part of the problem, is that when we see someone on a TV screen 
or hear them through speaker we expect high quality scripted content. One of the 
things about the remote presentation using skype was the playing of  prepackaged 
video. Rather than a presenter trying to synch remotely.

What about this?
>I  was dubious of the concept that’s been hailed in the press and in the classical blogosphere lately about the Berlin Philharmonic’s new Digital Concert Hall project.  It will offer both live and archived streams in near high-definition video of orchestral and chamber music on demand for a subscription fee beginning on January 6, 2009.
<http://www.nobleviola.com/wordpress/2008/12/18/berlins-virtual-concert-hall/>

and for those with Flash:
<http://dch.berliner-philharmoniker.de/#/en/>

Tschüss!

Marghanita

> Cheers,
> RC
> 
> Paul Brooks wrote:
>> Jan Whitaker wrote:
>>> At 12:31 AM 12/03/2009, stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
>>>   
>>>> Lindsay Tanner said: "Gone are the days of poor sound quality and fuzzy
>>>> images making video conferencing more trouble than it's worth.
>>>> TelePresence offers big screens, with high definition sound making the
>>>> option of actually choosing to hold a meeting using this technology a
>>>> real and cost-effective alternative to getting on a plane."
>>>>     
>>> Have any linkers seen this particular technology [Telstra/Cisco] in 
>>> use? [BTW, I'm copying Lindsay Tanner into this message]
>>>
>>> I've been around videoconferencing for -- goodness! -- 20 years! 
>>> Gawd, I'm getting old. Anyway, it's not the picture that is generally 
>>> the problem, it's the AUDIO. Unless these installations pay attention 
>>> to proper mic and speaker placement, having HD pictures won't matter 
>>> diddly-squat. Without clear and consistent audio, you might as well 
>>> shut it down. No communication will take place -- full stop.
>>>   
>> Jan - I've used the Cisco telepresence system, and it really is as good 
>> as they make out, including the positional audio - I think they use an  
>> surround sound- system with somewhere around 11 speakers.
>>
>> "Facing" 3 people on the other side of the screens, the audio did appear 
>> to be coming directly from their mouths - no matter where we sat on our 
>> side.
>> When someone on the other side dropped their pen under the desk, one of 
>> the people on our side unconsciously bent down under the desk to pick it 
>> up for them.
>> When someone on the other side suddenly opened the door to their 
>> conferencing suite - off-camera - every eyeball and head on our side 
>> automatically followed the audio cue of the door latch and 
>> snap-swivelled instantly to look at the wall where the 'virtual door' 
>> would have been - the spookiest thing I've done for a long time.
>>
>> Jan - I completely agree that the audio is more important than the video 
>> - and the audio really has been Done Right.
>>
>> Paul.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Link mailing list
>> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
> 


-- 
Marghanita da Cruz
http://www.ramin.com.au
Phone: (+61)0414 869202