[LAD] Attenuation of sounds in 3D space

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 10:02 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 08:51 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 01:09 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> > > On 07/22/2010 08:42 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > >
> > > one thing that often gets overlooked: people have learned to accept 
> > > stereo (or, in some circles, 5.1) as the gold standard, and its 
> > > shortcomings have grown into desired features. it's very hard to compete 
> > > with a method that does a few things very well and doesn't even try to 
> > > reproduce most of the auditory cues of, say, a live experience.
> > 
> > Correct, I like stereo, I don't like 5.1 and indeed stereo is very
> > limited, but with some training it's good to handle.
> > If ambisonics shouldn't have the disadvantages of 5.1 I might like it.
> 
> One crucial difference, please:
> 
> Ambisonics is a spatialization technique. 
> 
> So called "5.1" is just an arrangement of speakers. It is no more than
> that. What you don't like is the way the content creators are using that
> particular arrangement of speakers to render their music (or effects, or
> whatever). For that they use one or a selection of spatialization
> techniques of which Ambisonics is just one example - the subject is
> actually quite complex. I imagine most use just a variation of amplitude
> panning or something similar. For the same arrangement of speakers (5.1)
> you could use Ambisonics or any other technique. 
> 
> So, comparing Ambisonics and 5.1 is comparing apples with airplanes
> (oranges would be too close, they are both fruits). Very different
> things. 
> 
> -- Fernando

That gives me hope that I'm wrong about abilities of surround sound :).
If I'm mistaken, it will be a win for me :).

- Ralf