24 Jul
2010
24 Jul
'10
10:45 a.m.
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:
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
On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 01:09 +0200, Jörn
Nettingsmeier wrote:
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 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.