text:
\section{Introduction}

The MINOS and NO$\nu$A experiments are both situated on the NuMI neutrino
beam-line. 120GeV protons from the Fermilab Main Injector strike a graphite
target, the resulting pions are focussed by two magnetic horns, and decay to
produce a beam of primarily muon neutrinos. Observing the energy-dependent
disappearance of these muon neutrinos, and subdominant appearance of electron
neutrinos provides information about the neutrino oscillation parameters. Both
experiments make use of a two-detector design, in which observations by a Near
Detector allow measurements of the beam flux, cross-sections and detector
effects, while a larger, but otherwise similarly constructed, Far Detector
observes the change in the beam composition over a much longer baseline.

\section{MINOS}

The MINOS detectors are magnetized steel-scintillator tracking sampling
calorimeters. They consist of alternating planes of 2.54cm thick steel and
$4.1$cm$\times1$cm solid scintillator strips. Each scintillator strip contains
an embedded wavelength-shifting fibre, read out at both ends by Hamamatsu
multi-pixel PMTs. Adjacent scintillator planes are oriented at $90^\circ$ to
each other, allowing for 3D event reconstruction. The detectors are magnetized
by a coil to a field of around 1T, allowing for charge identification of
muons from curvature.

The MINOS Far Detector is located underground in the Soudan mine, Minnesota,
735km from the NuMI target. It has a total mass of 5.4kton, and has been
operating since 2003. The Near Detector is located underground at Fermilab,
about 1km downstream from the target. It has a mass of about 1kton, and was
completed in 2005. Since 2005, the NuMI beam-line has delivered
$10.7\times10^{20}$ protons-on-target (POT) to MINOS in the ``low energy''
neutrino configuration, and $3.36\times10^{20}$ POT in antineutrino
configuration, plus smaller samples in special configurations. In addition,
MINOS has collected an exposure of 37.8 kton years of atmospheric neutrinos. In
2013, following a shutdown, the NuMI beam returned, delivering neutrinos to
NO$\nu$A (and MINOS+ and MINER$\nu$A) in the new ``medium energy''
configuration, optimized to give the greatest flux around oscillation maximum
($\sim2$GeV) given NO$\nu$A's off-axis location.

\begin{figure}
  \begin{minipage}{.65\linewidth}
    \includegraphics[width=.49\linewidth]{minos_3flav_spectra_fhc_neutrino_withNue}
    \includegraphics[width=.49\linewidth]{minos_3flav_spectra_rhc_antineutrino_withNue}
    \vspace{-1.5em}\\
    \includegraphics[width=.49\linewidth]{minos_3flav_spectra_fhc_neutrino_ratio_withNue}
    \includegraphics[width=.49\linewidth]{minos_3flav_spectra_rhc_antineutrino_ratio_withNue}
  \end{minipage}
  \hspace{.025\linewidth}
  \begin{minipage}{.3\linewidth}
    \caption{Energy spectra from the MINOS neutrino disappearance analyses. The
      black points are the observed event counts, with statistical errors. The
      grey curves show the expectation in the absence of oscillations, and the
      red curves show the best oscillation fit. Agreement with the oscillation
      hypothesis is very good for both neutrino mode (left) and antineutrino
      mode (right). The lower panels display ratios to the unoscillated
      prediction.}
    \label{fig:beam_spectra}
  \end{minipage}
\end{figure}

Extrapolating from the observed neutrino spectrum in the Near Detector, in the
absence of oscillations, MINOS would expect to select 3201 $\nu_\mu$
interactions in the Far Detector, and 363 interactions in the antineutrino
running. The observed counts are 2579 and 312 respectively. Figure
\ref{fig:beam_spectra} shows the spectral shapes of these deficits, compared to
the best fit from the neutrino oscillation hypothesis. The three-flavour
oscillation paradigm fits the data well: 18\% of Monte Carlo pseudo-experiments
have a worse fit \cite{ref:minos_numu}.

\begin{figure}
  \begin{centering}
    \includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{minos_3flav_spectra_atmos_contained_withNue}\\
  \end{centering}
  \caption{Spectra for the MINOS atmospheric neutrino sample. The points show
    the observed event counts as a function of reconstructed zenith angle. The
    grey curves show the unoscillated predictions, and the red and blue dashed
    curves are the best oscillation fits assuming normal or inverted hierarchy
    respectively. The filled blue histograms indicate the background due to
    cosmic-ray muons.
  }
  \label{fig:atmo_spectra}
\end{figure}

The inclusion of atmospheric neutrino samples into the analysis provides
additional sensitivity, particularly to the mass hierarchy. The unoscillated
expectation is for 1100 events, 905 are observed. Figure~\ref{fig:atmo_spectra}
shows the spectra of the contained muon-selected events as a function of zenith
angle. Partially-contained and showering events are also included in the
analysis as additional samples.

\begin{figure}
  \begin{minipage}{.65\linewidth}
    \includegraphics[clip,width=\linewidth]{PRL_3binstack}
  \end{minipage}\hspace{.025\linewidth}
  \begin{minipage}{.345\linewidth}
    \caption{Spectra of $\nu_e$-selected events in MINOS. The points are the
      number of events selected as a function of reconstructed neutrino
      energy. The red curve shows the prediction for $\theta_{13}=0$, and the
      purple region shows the excess for the best-fit value of $\theta_{13}$.
      The samples are divided by PID value (top to bottom) and between neutrino
      (left) and antineutrino (right) running. The data is divided into bins of
      PID value, from the lowest selected PIDs (top) to the most $\nu_e$-like
      events (bottom). 88 neutrino-mode events and 12 antineutrino-mode events
      are selected, compared to an expectation for $\theta_{13}=0$ of 69.1 and
      10.5. The expectations for $\theta_{13}=0.1$ are 95.1 and 13.6.
    }
    \label{fig:nue_spectra}
  \end{minipage}\\
\end{figure}

Selecting electron neutrino candidates, the expectation for $\theta_{13}=0$ is
69.1 events of background in neutrino mode, and 10.5 in antineutrinos. The
counts observed in data are 88 and 12. Figure \ref{fig:nue_spectra} shows these
excesses in bins of energy and PID value.
The hypothesis that $\theta_{13}=0$ is rejected at the 96\% confidence level
\cite{ref:minos_nue}.

\begin{figure}
  \begin{centering}
    \includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{minos_3flav_contour_and_profile_withNue}\\
  \end{centering}
  \caption{Combined results from the MINOS $\nu_\mu$, $\nu_e$, and atmospheric
    analyses. The star shows the best fit values of $\sin^2\theta_{23}$ and
    $\Delta m^2_{32}$. This point weakly favours non-maximal mixing, the lower
    octant, and inverted hierarchy. The red and blue contours indicate 68\% and
    90\% confidence levels. The panels on the right display the profile
    likelihood projection onto each of the two parameters.}
  \label{fig:minos_combined}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
  \begin{minipage}{.375\linewidth}
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{minos_3flav_combined_fullfit_profile_deltaCP_withNue}
  \end{minipage}\hspace{.025\linewidth}
  \begin{minipage}{.575\linewidth}
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{delta_slices_inv_lo_0.5pi.eps}
  \end{minipage}\\
  \begin{minipage}{.375\linewidth}
    \caption{Log-likelihood differences from the best fit oscillation
      parameters for different values of $\delta_{CP}$, hierarchy and
      $\theta_{23}$ octant for the combination of MINOS analyses. The
      region normal hierarchy, upper octant,
      $\delta_{CP}\sim{3\pi\over2}$ is disfavoured at greater than 90\%
      confidence.}
    \label{fig:minos_slices}
  \end{minipage}\hspace{.025\linewidth}
  \begin{minipage}{.575\linewidth}
    \caption{Sensitivity of NO$\nu$A for a nominal run of three years neutrino
      plus three antineutrino ($18\times10^{20}$ POT each). The true
      oscillation values are chosen to be close to the MINOS best-fit. The
      shape of the curves is very similar to the MINOS results in
      Figure~\ref{fig:minos_slices}, but the expected sensitivity is much
      higher. For example, the most disfavoured scenario, normal hierarchy,
      upper octant, would be excluded at $5\sigma$ for all values of
      $\delta_{CP}$.}
    \label{fig:nova_slices}
  \end{minipage}
\end{figure}

Combining the information provided by the $\nu_\mu$, atmospheric, and $\nu_e$
samples, plus additional constraints on $\theta_{13}$ from reactor experiments
provides some sensitivity to the neutrino hierarchy and $\theta_{23}$ octant.
The solar parameters ($\Delta m^2_{21}$, $\theta_{12}$) are held fixed in this
analysis. $\theta_{13}$ is treated as a nuisance parameter, constrained by
external reactor results. $\delta_{CP}$, $\theta_{23}$, and $\Delta m^2_{32}$
are unconstrained and determined by the joint best fit to all the
spectra. Major sources of systematic error are included as nuisance parameters.

Figure \ref{fig:minos_combined} shows the confidence contours obtained in
($\Delta m^2_{32}$, $\sin^2\theta_{23}$) space. The best fit value of
$\sin^2\theta_{23}$ is 0.41, and maximal mixing is disfavoured at 79\%
confidence. The data also weakly favour the inverted hierarchy and the lower
$\theta_{23}$ octant. Figure \ref{fig:minos_slices} shows a different
projection of this information, with $\delta_{CP}$ information included. The
most disfavoured scenario is the combination of normal hierarchy and upper
$\theta_{23}$ octant which is rejected at the $81\%$ confidence level for all
values of $\delta_{CP}$. This measurement is also the most precise
determination of $|\Delta m^2_{32}|$. The results are summarized numerically in
Table \ref{tbl:summary} \cite{ref:minos_comb}.

\begin{table}
  \caption{Summary of MINOS combined oscillation fit results for normal and inverted hierarchy.}
  \label{tbl:summary}

  \begin{centering}
    \begin{tabular}{lrlrl}
      \br
      Parameter & Best fit & Confidence limits (NH) & Best fit & Confidence limits (IH) \\
      \mr
      $|\Delta m^2_{32}|/10^{-3}{\rm eV}^2$ & 2.37 & 2.28 - 2.46 (68\% C.L.) & 2.41 & 2.32 - 2.53 (68\% C.L.)\\
      $\sin^2\theta_{23}$ & 0.41 & 0.35 - 0.65 (90\% C.L.) & 0.41 & 0.34 - 0.67 (90\% C.L.)\\
      \br
    \end{tabular}\\
    \begin{tabular}{rl}
      Preference for inverted hierarchy:&$-2\Delta\log L$=0.23\\
      Preference for lower octant:&$-2\Delta\log L$=0.09\\
      Exclusion of maximal mixing:&$-2\Delta\log L$=1.54 ($\to 79\%$ C.L.)
    \end{tabular}\\
  \end{centering}
\end{table}

If some component of the disappearing MINOS flux were oscillating to sterile
neutrinos, one would expect to also see a deficit of neutral current events, in
addition to the deficit seen in $\nu_\mu$ charged currents. In fact, a search
for this effect found a small excess of neutral current interactions at the Far
Detector as compared to predictions. Interpreting in terms of oscillations
around $\Delta m^2\sim0.5{\rm eV}^2$
leads to a limit $\sin^22\theta_{\mu e} < 7.1\times10^{-3}$ at the 90\%
confidence level.

The MINOS detectors continue to operate in the NO$\nu$A-era beam. The higher
energy peak of the neutrino flux reduces the statistics acquired in the
oscillation region
, but the statistics at higher energies are greatly increased. MINOS+ expects
to collect around 4,000 $\nu_\mu$ charged current events per year. This
high-statistics sample will allow tests of the standard three-flavour
oscillation paradigm, including searches for sterile neutrinos, and sensitivity
to signatures of exotic physics such as large extra dimensions.

\section{NO$\nu$A}

The NO$\nu$A detectors are fine-grained, low-Z, highly active tracking
calorimeters. Cells of extruded PVC, approximately 6cm$\times$4cm are
formed into planes, with the orientation of successive planes alternating as in
MINOS. They are filled with a mineral oil/liquid scintillator mix, which
comprises 64\% of the detector by mass. Each cell contains a looped
wavelength-shifting fibre, read out at one end by one of the 32 pixels of a
Hamamatsu avalanche photodiode (APD), cooled to $-15^\circ{\rm C}$ \cite{ref:tdr}.

The Far Detector is located on the surface at Ash River, Minnesota, 810km from
the NuMI target. The detector consists of 344,000 channels, approximately
$16\times16\times60$m, for a total mass of 14kton. Assembly and placement of
the plastic blocks, scintillator filling, and electronics installation proceed
in parallel. All blocks are now in place, and oil filling is almost
complete. Over 2/3 of the detector is instrumented with APDs and being read
out. The Near Detector is located underground at Fermilab, approximately 1km
from the target. It comprises 18,000 channels, with a mass of 0.3kton. All
blocks are in place, and oil filling and electronics outfitting are in
progress.
The NuMI beam is being upgraded from a maximum capacity of 350kW up to
700kW. This will be achieved by converting the Recycler from running
antiprotons to protons, and shortening the cycle in the Main Injector from 2.2s
to 1.33s. The beam has been running stably since returning from shutdown in
September 2013, and power is gradually being increased. The maximum power
achievable will be limited to 500kW until upgrading of the Booster RF cavities
is complete. Thus far, in excess of $1.5\times10^{20}$ protons have been
delivered.

\begin{figure}
  \begin{minipage}{.475\linewidth}
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{numi_peak}
  \end{minipage}
  \hspace{.025\linewidth}
  \begin{minipage}{.5\linewidth}
    \caption{The timing peak formed by neutrinos from the NuMI beam in the NDOS
      detector (filled histogram) with the times of selected interactions in
      the NO$\nu$A Far Detector marked (circles). The Far Detector events were
      found by a combination of hand-scanning and automated analysis.
      The estimated cosmic-ray background in the 10$\mu$s Far Detector spill
      window is 0.05 events.}
    \label{fig:numi_peak}
  \end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
  \begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
    \caption{Event display of the first neutrino candidate event selected in
      the NO$\nu$A Far Detector. Each square represents energy deposited and
      detected in a single cell. The neutrino beam enters from the left. The
      top panel shows the information from vertically-oriented cells, with
      horizontal cells shown in the bottom panel. The overlaid coloured lines
      are the reconstructed paths of particles, and the cross marks the
      reconstructed position of the interaction vertex.}
    \label{fig:evd}
  \end{minipage}
  \hspace{.025\linewidth}
  \begin{minipage}{.475\linewidth}
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{evt1_reco_edit}
  \end{minipage}
\end{figure}

It is important to validate the detectors' ability to pick neutrino
interactions out of the cosmic-ray background, and to verify the
synchronization of the Far Detector to the NuMI spill times. Analysis of the
Near Detector prototype on the surface at Fermilab (NDOS) shows a clear peak in
the neutrino candidate timing spectrum over the cosmic-ray
background. Propagating this timing information to the Far Detector gives a
10$\mu$s window in which neutrinos are expected to be found. A combination of
automated analysis and hand-scanning of events in a 500$\mu$s window around
this point (plus out-of-time spills for background estimation) found four
candidate events within the timing window, on a background of 0.05. The times
of the events relative to the beam window were kept secret until after the
choice of these events had been finalized. Figure \ref{fig:numi_peak} shows the
NDOS timing peak compared to the times of the selected neutrino candidates, and
Figure \ref{fig:evd} shows one of the Far Detector events in the timing window,
a multi-pronged interaction, with reconstructed neutrino direction coming from
Fermilab.

The sensitivity projections presented below assume $18\times10^{20}$ POT of
data taken in neutrino mode plus $18\times10^{20}$ POT taken with
antineutrinos. This corresponds to a nominal $6\times10^{20}$ POT per year and
a run plan with three years in each mode. The choice of what exposure to take
in each beam configuration is flexible, and may be adjusted in response to
changing circumstances. The oscillation parameters assumed are
$\sin^22\theta_{13}=0.095$
$\sin^22\theta_{23}=0.95$ or $1.0$ depending on context. We take $\Delta
m^2_{32}=2.35\times10^{-3}{\rm eV}^2$, and the other parameters from the latest
Particle Data Group averages \cite{ref:pdg}.

\begin{table}[h]
  \caption{Representative event counts for NO$\nu$A analyses. The columns
    represent $18\times10^{20}$ POT neutrino-mode and antineutrino-mode
    running.
    The $\nu_\mu$ analysis divides the dataset into three
    samples, candidate quasielastic events, non-quasielastic events, and events
    where the muon is not fully contained within the detector.
    The counts are constrained to the range 0-5GeV, the region of sensitivity
    to oscillations driven by the atmospheric mass splitting.}
\begin{centering}
\begin{minipage}{.35\linewidth}
  \begin{centering}
  \begin{tabular}{rrr}
    \br
    {\bf $\bf{\nu_e}$ selected} & $\nu$ & $\bar\nu$\\
    \mr
    NC & 19 & 10\\
    $\nu_\mu$ CC & 5 & $<1$\\
    Beam $\nu_e$ & 8 & 5\\
    \mr
    Tot bkg & 32 & 15\\
    Signal & 68 & 32\\
    \br
  \end{tabular}\\
  \end{centering}
\end{minipage}\hspace{.025\linewidth}%

\begin{minipage}{.6\linewidth}
  \begin{centering}
  \begin{tabular}{rrrrr}
    \br
    {\bf $\bf{\nu_\mu}$ selected} & $\nu_\mu$ CC & NC & $\bar\nu_\mu$ CC & NC\\
    \mr
    Quasielastic & 82 & $<1$ & 49 & $<1$\\
    non-QE & 168 & 14 & 78 & 6\\
    Uncontained & 233 & 6 & 134 & 3\\
    \br
  \end{tabular}\\
  \begin{centering}
    (0-5GeV visible energy)\\
  \end{centering}
  \end{centering}
  \vphantom{\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\}
  \label{tbl:counts}
\end{minipage}\\
\end{centering}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}
  \begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
    \caption{Projected 90\% confidence contours in the ($\Delta m^2_{32}$,
      $\sin^2\theta_{23}$) space for two, six, or ten years of running
      (assuming $6\times10^{20}$ POT per year), for two values of
      $\theta_{23}$. In the case of $\sin^22\theta_{23}=0.95$, maximal mixing
      can be excluded at 90\% confidence in under two years of running.}
    \label{fig:nova_cc_conts}
  \end{minipage}
  \hspace{.025\linewidth}
  \begin{minipage}{.5\linewidth}
    \vspace{-2.5em}
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{overlay}
  \end{minipage}
\end{figure}

Current global constraints on the atmospheric mixing angle are around
$\sin^22\theta_{23}\gtrsim0.9$, with hints of non-maximal mixing from
MINOS. The NO$\nu$A experiment will have significantly enhanced power to
distinguish between maximal and non-maximal mixing. The $\nu_\mu$ charged
current analysis being developed separates the data into three samples:
quasi-elastic candidates, which are very pure with good energy reconstruction;
the remainder of contained candidates; and uncontained events, where the muon
exits through the back or side of the detector, a sample with substantial
statistics, but poor energy resolution. Predicted event counts are given in
Table \ref{tbl:counts}.
The contours that would be obtained with increasing exposure are shown in
Figure \ref{fig:nova_cc_conts}, for two possible values of $\theta_{23}$. With
three years of neutrino running, and three years of antineutrinos, this
analysis should obtain percent-level uncertainty on the atmospheric mixing
parameters. If $\sin^2\theta_{23}=0.95$, maximal mixing could be excluded at
90\% confidence with one year of running.

\begin{figure}
  \begin{minipage}{.5\linewidth}
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{hie_sens}
  \end{minipage}
  \begin{minipage}{.5\linewidth}
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{cpv_sens}
  \end{minipage}\\
\begin{minipage}{.5\linewidth}
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{octant_sens_095_lower}
\end{minipage}
  \begin{minipage}{.5\linewidth}
  \caption{Sensitivity of NO$\nu$A to resolve the mass hierarchy (top left),
    discover $\mathcal{CP}$ violation (above), and resolve the $\theta_{23}$
    octant (left) as a function of the true value of $\delta_{CP}$.
    The solid blue curves are in the case that the true mass hierarchy is
    normal, the dashed red curves are for the inverted case. In each case,
    $\sin^22\theta_{13}=0.095$ is assumed. For hierarchy and $\mathcal{CP}$
    violation $\sin^22\theta_{23}=1$ is assumed, the octant sensitivity assumes
    $\sin^22\theta_{23}=0.95$, first octant.}
  \label{fig:hie_cpv_oct}
  \end{minipage}
\end{figure}

Table \ref{tbl:counts} also shows the representative event counts for the
sample of electron neutrino candidates. As with MINOS, sensitivity to the mass
hierarchy, $\theta_{23}$ octant, and $\delta_{CP}$ comes from combining the
disappearance and appearance analyses, plus constraints on $\theta_{13}$ from
reactor experiments. Figure \ref{fig:hie_cpv_oct} shows the sensitivity of this
analysis to these three parameters, as a function of the true values of
$\delta_{CP}$ and the mass hierarchy. For the mass hierarchy, there are
degenerate regions where it is not possible to disentangle the matter effects,
which give information about the mass hierarchy, from true
$\mathcal{CP}$-violation driven by $\delta_{CP}$. But for favourable
combinations $2-3\sigma$ evidence for the mass hierarchy can be
obtained. Determination of the $\theta_{23}$ octant is much less sensitive to
$\delta_{CP}$ and can be achieved at better than $2\sigma$ for all values of
$\delta_{CP}$ if $\sin^22\theta_{23}=0.95$. The lower octant is assumed in
order to match the best fit from MINOS, performance for the upper octant is
slightly better.
Figure \ref{fig:nova_slices} shows predicted $\Delta\chi^2$ slices as a
function of $\delta_{CP}$, to be compared with the analogous Figure
\ref{fig:minos_slices} from MINOS data. The true parameters are chosen to match
the MINOS best fit (inverted hierarchy, lower octant,
$\delta_{CP}\sim{\pi\over2}$). If the true parameters are indeed in this
region, NO$\nu$A would reject parts of phase space (in particular the
combination of normal hierarchy and upper octant) at very high significance.

\section{Conclusion}

The MINOS experiment has collected a large sample of neutrino interactions in
over six years of running, in both neutrino and antineutrino mode. A combined
fit to this data gives the world's most precise measurement of $|\Delta
m^2_{32}|$, and hints for the neutrino mass hierarchy and $\theta_{23}$
octant. These detectors will continue taking data in the NO$\nu$A-era beam as
MINOS+.

Construction of the NO$\nu$A experiment is progressing well. First neutrinos
have been found in the Far Detector, and projections show good sensitivity to
the mass hierarchy and $\theta_{23}$ octant, in addition to improved
measurements of the atmospheric mixing parameters. Results from the next few
years, in combination with other experiments, should provide significant
information on these questions for the first time.

\section*{References}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


text:
Foto © msm studios GmbH & Co. KG | Dolby Atmos Music - Sound in 3D
Home/Report/Dolby Atmos Music – Sound in 3D
ReportHiFiMusic
Dolby Atmos Music – Sound in 3D
Michael Holzinger Follow on Twitter Send an email 1 April 2022Last Updated: 5 April 2022
Die großen Musik-Streaming-Dienste bieten es mittlerweile an und sogar die Grammys, die weltweit bedeutendsten Auszeichnungen der Musikbranche, haben ihm eine eigene Kategorie gewidmet: 3D-Audio! Was steckt hinter der neuen, räumlichen Tonausgabe, die sich im Musikgeschäft derzeit rasend schnell verbreitet?
The transition from mono to stereo in the 1960s and 1970s ushered in a new era in the music scene. The way of listening to and producing music had changed completely. Not a few see Dolby Atmos Music, in spatial audio reproduction, as the next logical step in the evolution.
At the centre of this development are the audio and video professionals at Dolby Laboratories, who have made so-called immersive listening possible for everyone with Dolby Atmos Music. They have removed the technical hurdles for consumers and producers and created the basis for the high acceptance. This is because 3D sound can not only be used on many conventional end devices that are already available. It also offers fast but effective access in music production. But above all, it offers new possibilities for presenting music.
Foto © msm studios GmbH & Co. KG | Dolby Atmos Music – Sound in 3D
Artists and producers on board
Renowned producers such as Trevor Horn (Seal) and Giles Martin (INXS) also see it that way. They have already jumped on the Dolby Atmos Music bandwagon. Horn recently produced the 1991 debut album of soul superstar Seal ("Seal") and Martin the Beatles' "1", classics of music history specially prepared for spatial reproduction.
Speaking on Apple's radio station, the son of original Beatles producer Sir George Martin talks about how Dolby Atmos Music makes you close your eyes and create a world far beyond what you can see on a screen.
"That's where it gets exciting, and where immersive audio becomes really cool. It's like a book: you can create layers upon layers upon layers, create something that people no longer take for granted."
Giles Martin
What does "immersive audio" mean?
Immersive means to penetrate, to immerse. Dolby Atmos (or Sony 360 Reality Audio) is an object-based audio format that departs from typical 5.1 and 7.1 surround configurations, allowing it to reproduce a fully three-dimensional sound field by including treble information. This setup makes it acoustically "look" as if different instruments and effects are sounding from different angles.
The effect is designed to be far more immersive than normal stereo or common surround sound setups when produced well, as it adds a sense of height as well as width to the soundstage. Important: this is not meant to randomly distribute sound effects around the room. Rather, the music is brought much closer to the listener, involves him more, surrounds him. In short: the listener is immersed in the music.
What do I need for 3D sound with Dolby Atmos Music?
The highlight: unlike earlier surround formats, Dolby Atmos does not rely on a specific number or configuration of speakers to ensure precise reproduction. Therefore, a wide range of playback devices, from home theatres and soundbars to game consoles, smartphones and even in-car audio systems, can already support the format.
To listen to music in Dolby Atmos, you need access to a streaming service that supports the object-based format, as well as a Dolby Atmos-enabled playback device, be it a wireless speaker, a soundbar, a pair of headphones or even just a compatible smartphone or tablet. Very many already bring compatibility with them.
Where can I get Dolby Atmos Music?
Dolby Atmos, unlike previous surround formats, has been very well received by the music industry, including many major music streaming services. Many current acts from Billie Eilish, The Weeknd and Mark Forster to retread classics from past decades (Marvin Gaye, Elton John, Aretha Franklin) are already available in 3D sound.
TIDAL and Amazon Music have added Dolby Atmos support to their streaming services in 2019. Apple is also a big proponent of Dolby Atmos and added spatial audio with support for Dolby Atmos and lossless audio to its Apple Music streaming service in June 2021. Thousands of albums and songs are thus already available in Dolby Atmos.
How do I use Dolby Atmos with Apple Music?
If you have a TV with Apple TV or a soundbar with Apple Music integration that supports Dolby Atmos, you're all set. Alternatively, you can listen to the session in Dolby Atmos on all Apple laptops, tablets and phones released after 2018.
In your device's "Settings"….
– Click on "Music"
– Set "Dolby Atmos" to ALWAYS ON.
– Set "Audio Quality" to LOSSLESS AUDIO (optional, but recommended).
– Set "Sound Check" to ON
Dolby Atmos is output wirelessly on all Apple headphones and Beats models with the H1 chip. The signal is also output on Apple Homepods. With headphones and speakers from other manufacturers, you must find out in advance how Spatial Audio is reproduced.
How do I set up Dolby Atmos on Amazon?
If you have a TV with Dolby Atmos, a soundbar with Dolby Atmos or an Amazon Echo, you're all set. Alternatively, you can listen to the session in Dolby Atmos on current Google Android or Apple iOS tablets and phones.
This is based on the latest versions of Apple iOS on the Apple iPhone or Apple iPad as well as the latest version for smartphones and tablets with Google Android. You need access to Amazon Music Unlimited.
On the "Home" page of the app
– Click on "Gear" (top right)
– Click on "Settings
– Set "Dolby Atmos" to ON
– Set "Streaming Quality" to HD (optional, but recommended).
– Set "Loudness normalisation" to ON
Amazon Music does not currently have Apple AirPlay or other casting support for Dolby Atmos. If you decide to stream a Dolby Atmos song via the Amazon app, the Dolby Atmos icon will still be displayed in the app, but the playback will be in the original stereo sound and not Dolby Atmos.
How can I use Dolby Atmos on TIDAL?
If you have a TV or soundbar that supports Dolby Atmos, you will need a compatible device connected to the TV. This includes Apple TV 4K (with Apple tvOS 13 or later), Fire TV (Fire TV Stick 4K, Fire TV Gen 3 2017, Fire TV Cube 1st Gen or Fire TV Cube 2nd Gen), Nvidia Shield TV and Nvidia Shield TV Pro (2019 and newer models).
Alternatively, you can listen to the session in Dolby Atmos on recent Google Android tablets and phones. You will need a TIDAL Hifi Plus subscription. There is currently no casting support for Dolby Atmos in the TIDAL app.
We asked Stefan Bock, Managing Director of msm studios GmbH & Co. KG in Munich and, as a sound and mix engineer, has been significantly involved in many German and international Dolby Atmos productions. Here are his exciting comments.
What are the biggest challenges in a Dolby Atmos production?
"For me, Dolby Atmos is a logical further development of music production and reproduction. After all, we don't have to squeeze the music between two speakers, but can play the entire room. This is much more natural and comes much closer to a real experience.
Of course, this presupposes that we can work in an optimal acoustic environment in our studios. Seen in this light, Dolby Atmos is not a "challenge" but a wonderful opportunity to literally add a new dimension to the musical experience. Music is emotion – and this must be brought to the listener as well as possible. In the end, however, it is always about the artist and the music. A production must never become an end in itself for the format."
Does it make a difference to remix an old production as opposed to an album that is co-produced in atmos right away?
"It depends on how the old productions were archived. Often they were archived in such a way that we no longer have full access to the individual music signals. With acoustic music it's easier and we have also developed ways to recreate the original room acoustics three-dimensionally.
With a new production it's different and you have all the possibilities to produce and mix three-dimensionally right from the start.
We also experience time and again that musicians compose and arrange differently once they have been 'confronted' with Dolby Atmos."
Are the artists involved in a Dolby Atmos mix?
"I'm a big fan of involving the artists in the mixing process. Ideally, they come to our studio. Some of them do that. Dolby Atmos is not just an output and playback format. A Dolby Atmos mix is a creative process and I think it's very important to involve the artists here."
Finally, we would like to present three albums that showcase music in a new, three-dimensional form and rely on Dolby Atmos. In fact, the selection on the market is already very diverse, so that you can find various titles from the most varied genres.
John Williams & Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra "The Berlin Concert".
When legends meet. Film composer John Williams and the Berliner Philharmoniker performed some of the most famous film scores from the American's pen in front of a sold-out audience. Melodies from Hollywood classics such as "Star Wars", "Indiana Jones" or "Harry Potter" resound in state-of-the-art Dolby Atmos Music and throw the listener directly into the concert hall of the Berlin Philharmonie. The album was released on 4 February 2022, on the occasion of John Williams' 90th birthday by Deutsche Grammophon.
Playing tips: "Superman March", "Imperial March from Star Wars".
Billie Eilish "Happier than ever"
With her unique voice and unmistakable vocal style, Billie Eilish is already an event in her own right. Together with her brother Finneas O'Connell, her producer and musical counterpart, the young American is becoming a phenomenon that has rightly conquered the music world in no time. The Dolby Atmos Music production of "Happier Than Ever" once again takes her unique sound to a new level and literally immerses fans in the worlds of sound.
Playing tips: "Happier than ever", "Therefore I am".
Scorpions "Rock believer
Scorpions have been among the world stars of the rock scene for decades. With the album "Rock Believer", the Hanoverians prove that even after 50 years in the business, they still have real rock'n'roll in their blood. The eleven tracks also prove that Dolby Atmos Music offers a new approach to music, even when the going gets tough. The joy of playing of the metal legends is especially expressed here, the listener seems to be literally standing in the studio with Klaus Meine & Co.
Recommended songs: "Peacemaker", "Shining of your Soul".
At this rate of distribution, it's likely that most major label releases will be mixed for Dolby Atmos in the future. And considering that all music consumers need to listen to Dolby Atmos-mixed content is their smartphone and a pair of earbuds, the stage may already be set for a replacement of stereo.
MSM STUDIOS
Manufacturer msm studios GmbH & Co. KG
Distribution msm studios GmbH & Co. KG
Dolby Atmos Dolby Atmos Music Dolby Laboratories immersive Audio msm studios GmbH & Co. KG Report Surround
Block SYMPHONIE – The new flagship of the Block Smart Radio Series
Sonus Faber OMNIA All-in-One High-end Wireless Speaker – In tribute to the music

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


To make an appointment, simply call our Clinic and speak to one of our medical receptionists. Depending on your condition, your GP may refer you to see a specific surgeon who specialises in treating your condition or alternatively, you may choose which surgeon you would like to see. For a list of our Surgeons and who specialises in which joints.
Firstly you will see your Surgeon for an initial consultation. This appointment may go for approximately 15 to 20 minutes depending on the complexity of your condition. In this consultation, your Surgeon will diagnose your condition and then present you with various different treatment options to choose from.
If your chosen treatment option involves surgery, your Surgeon will provide you with everything you need to know about the procedure, what to expect, fees and payments and information on hospital admissions.
Our Clinic is guided by industry standard fees and charges and so each of our surgeons typically charge a consultation and surgical fee. A portion of these fees may not be covered by Medicare or your private health fund, so it is important to understand that there will be a gap.
It is important to also note that these fees do not include any hospital charges, so check your level of hospital cover with your private health insurer to fully understand what you will be charged.
At the end of your consultation you will be billed. We really appreciate same day settlement of your account so please go straight to the desk to settle your bill with one of our friendly staff.
Each patient is different and unfortunately there is no 'one-size-fits-all' template in terms of recovery times.
Typically, post surgery you may spend a couple of days in hospital under the care of your Surgeon. Then upon discharge, your Surgeon will advise you how long to expect before you make a full recovery. This could range from a few days up until six weeks, and will vary from person to person based on their physical and mental health prior to their operation.
Most of our surgeons operate in both private and public hospitals at locations south of the river in Perth including the Mandurah/Peel region. Our surgeons also service the Kimberley in the far north of Western Australia.
Hospitals our surgeons cover include Fremantle Hospital, St John of God Hospitals Subiaco and Murdoch, Peel Health Campus, Waikiki Private Hospital and Armadale Kelmscott Memorial Hospital.
Our closest affiliated hospital is St John of God Hospital Murdoch which is conveniently located on the same premises as our Clinic in Murdoch and close to public transport.
St John of God Hospital Murdoch is (one of) Perth's largest private Hospitals south of the river. With over 500 beds and 16 theatres, the Hospital is well positioned to service an array of clinical, diagnostic and surgical services.
The Hospital also provides many support services onsite including; radiology, physiotherapy, pathology and nuclear medicine.


Whether you're showcasing Flocabulary within your school or district, or spreading the Flove at a conference, we want to support you.
Drop us a line using the form below and we'd be happy to offer you resources for your presentation and answer any questions you may have.
Flocabulary understands the exceptional professional development opportunities EdCamps provide (so much, in fact, we rapped about it).
We are happy to provide EdCamp organizers with exclusive trial access to Flocabulary for their attendees. Want in? Contact us using the form below to get started.


text:
Q: About Bayesian formula and rating system I'm building a scoring system with score from 0 to 5) and I would like to sort products according to the number of reviews and their scores.
After some research on the Internet I have found two formulas to get a good ranking system.
Which one is the Bayesian formula ?
What is the other formula ?
Which one is valid ?
I have tried to explain the problem using a simple reviews table and SQL queries, here's the reviews table.
Reviews table
Product   | Score
Product A | 3      \
Product A | 3      |
Product A | 3      |-> 5 reviews
Product A | 3      |
Product A | 3      /
Product B | 2      \
Product B | 2      |
Product B | 2      |
Product B | 2      |
Product B | 2      |-> 10 reviews
Product B | 2      |
Product B | 2      |
Product B | 2      |
Product B | 2      |
Product B | 2      /
Product C | 1      \
Product C | 1      |
Product C | 1      |
Product C | 1      |
Product C | 1      |
Product C | 1      |
Product C | 1      |
Product C | 1      |-> 15 reviews
Product C | 1      |
Product C | 1      |
Product C | 1      |
Product C | 1      |
Product C | 1      |
Product C | 1      |
Product C | 1      /

Method A, general formula:
(AVG_NUM_VOTE * AVG_RATING) + (PRODUCT_NUM_VOTES * PRODUCT_AVG_SCORE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
                 (AVG_NUM_VOTE + PRODUCT_NUM_VOTES)

AVG_NUM_VOTE: SELECT COUNT(product)/COUNT(DISTINCT product) FROM reviews => 10
AVG_RATING: SELECT AVG(score) FROM reviews => 1.666666...
Now, to get the value for each product:
Product A:
PRODUCT_NUM_VOTE: SELECT COUNT(product) FROM reviews WHERE product = 'Product A' = 5
PRODUCT_AVG_SCORE: SELECT AVG(score) FROM reviews WHERE product = 'Product A' = 3
(10 * 1.66666) + (5 * 3)
------------------------ = 2.111111...
          10 + 5

Product B:
PRODUCT_NUM_VOTE: SELECT COUNT(product) FROM reviews WHERE product = 'Product B' = 10
PRODUCT_AVG_SCORE: SELECT AVG(score) FROM reviews WHERE product = 'Product B' = 2
(10 * 1.66666) + (10 * 2)
------------------------- = 1.833333...
         10 + 10

Product C:
PRODUCT_NUM_VOTE: SELECT COUNT(product) FROM reviews WHERE product = 'Product C' = 15
PRODUCT_AVG_SCORE: SELECT AVG(score) FROM reviews WHERE product = 'Product C' = 1
(10 * 1.66666) + (15 * 1)
------------------------- = 1.266666666
          10 + 15

Method B, general formula:
TOTAL_SUM + (PRODUCT_NUM_VOTE * PRODUCT_AVG_SCORE)
--------------------------------------------------
        (TOTAL_VOTE + PRODUCT_NUM_VOTE)

TOTAL_SUM: SELECT SUM(count) FROM ( SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT product) AS count FROM reviews ) AS SUM = 5*3 + 10*2 + 15*1 = 50
TOTAL_VOTE: SELECT COUNT(product) FROM reviews = 30
Product A:
PRODUCT_NUM_VOTE: SELECT COUNT(product) FROM reviews WHERE product = 'Product A' = 5
PRODUCT_AVG_SCORE: SELECT AVG(score) FROM reviews WHERE product = 'Product A' = 3
50 + (5 * 3)
------------ = 1.857142
   30 + 5

Product B:
PRODUCT_NUM_VOTE: SELECT COUNT(product) FROM reviews WHERE product = 'Product B' = 10
PRODUCT_AVG_SCORE: SELECT AVG(score) FROM reviews WHERE product = 'Product B' = 2
50 + (10 * 2)
------------- = 1.75
   30 + 10

Product C:
PRODUCT_NUM_VOTE: SELECT COUNT(product) FROM reviews WHERE product = 'Product C' = 15
PRODUCT_AVG_SCORE: SELECT AVG(score) FROM reviews WHERE product = 'Product C' = 1
50 + (15 * 1)
------------- = 1.444444
   30 + 15

Now if I compare the two methods:
Product   | Method A | Method B
Product A | 2.111111 | 1.857142
Product B | 1.833333 | 1.75
Product C | 1.266666 | 1.444444

Which method is the Bayesian average ? And what is the other method ?
What is the best formula to use ?
Thanks for reading...
Edit:
During my search, I've noticed that in method B:

*

*TOTAL_SUM = (AVG_RATING * AVG_NUM_VOTE * (#products) )

*TOTAL_VOTE = (AVG_NUM_VOTE * (#products) )
#products is the number of different products taken in account.
My guess is that the first formula is incomplete and we need to add something in it, like this:
(AVG_NUM_VOTE * AVG_RATING * #products) + (PRODUCT_NUM_VOTES * PRODUCT_AVG_SCORE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               ( (AVG_NUM_VOTE * #products) + PRODUCT_NUM_VOTES)

What do you think ?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Garrett Wolfe!!
By aorist9 Oct 5, 2006, 10:53am CDT
Share All sharing options for: Garrett Wolfe!!
Yesterday we asked about Garrett Wolfe, Northern Illinois running back. The consensus was that he's a lock for 2500 yards this season; SMQ says over 3,000. My other question may have been the more interesting one. Most of you said that the thing that can make his candidacy is not rushing yards but ESPN, while some said breaking Barry Sanders' record would help.
Garrett Wolfe, seen here practicing the lessons he learned from long time friend Chuck Norris
Well this Sunday, that's right Sunday, Northern Illinois plays Miami of Ohio, and it will be broadcast nationally on ESPN. I don't know about y'all, but, as the Cowboys do not play that night but rather earlier in the day, I will be tuning in to watch Garrett Wolfe run.


text:
Watch the new Captain America: Civil War International Trailer
The reviews are in for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, which are pretty wildly mixed but at least speak to a film worth seeing in the theater, and on an IMAX screen if there's one anywhere close to your house. As Peter Sciretta of Slashfilm writes, "This is probably the first IMAX movie since Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol that I think you must see on an original IMAX screen."
With Batman v Superman finally battling it out in theaters, we turn our attention to the next big superhero brawl, which is of course Captain America: Civil War. We've seen a lot of exciting footage already, including the big Spider-Man cameo into its second official trailer a few weeks ago. In this new international trailer, there's fresh footage of old pals Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) facing off in an emotional fight. This is a relationship that has been a big part of the Avengers stories, and seeing them fight might not have as much whiz-bang appeal as say Batman and Superman, or Captain America and Iron Man, but it's probably invested with even more emotion. Then there's the Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), who might be an even bigger draw than the inclusion of Spider-Man.
We'll see all the mayhem come May 1st.
Here's the new international trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcCvgAOtRMw
TAGSCaptain America: Civil War
Universal Archivist Jeff Pirtle on the Legacy of Noble Johnson, Harriet & More
Archivist, Interviews, Movies
Your First Look at Timothée Chalamet in Dune