22 Jul
2010
22 Jul
'10
1:04 a.m.
On Wednesday 21 July 2010 23:18:15 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
I only have a four-channel square setup (half) working but the recordings from
above (note: real recordings from plane-fields, Indian markets and British
train stations) sounded _very_ realistic.
And as I said, the more speakers, the better.
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 22:58 +0200, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> @ nonsense and bullshit, where are the examples that it works?
Here: http://www.ambisonia.com/
Downloaded a lot of cool stuff from there (and will do so once my set-up is
finally complete). And even with my "untrained" ears (not as good as Fons'
or
Jörns or Pauls and not as experienced as yours) they sound great.
There is no
valid recording with more than 1 or 2 channels, regarding to
a natural impression. Some art projects that didn't try to give a
natural impression are something very, very different.
But I would like read what
people who do have 3D equipment do feel,
while listening to those perfect 3D recordings.
I do agree, that 3D could be good, but it never ever will sound natural. It's unimportant what are my thoughts about those
links, I'm unable to
listen, because I'm reduced to stereo, for good reasons.
Even with hearing aids you are _not_ limited to stereo. At least when stereo
is "two ears for listening".
When stereo means "two speakers for playback", that is rather limiting. But
something that can be solved...
There is no perfect building to the context for stereo
or mono and there
also is no perfect way to use 5 or 7 audio channels.
We are not talking about 5.1 or 7.1 here. These suck big time.
We are talking about ambisonics vs. binaurals vs. simple stereo here!
A lot of people, even a lot of those who you respect,
tried it and I
never meed someone who preferred mono or stereo to surround.
I don't understand that last sentence. You argue against using more then two
speaker-channels. And then you tell us you never meet anyone who prefered mono
or stereo over surround?
Love and peace,
Arnold