29 Jul
2010
29 Jul
'10
8:50 a.m.
fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:47:03PM +0200, JohnLM
wrote:
That's what I was referring to in my previous email on
this subject,
although I think we did the decoding "by hand" the result (from a mere
subjective point of view was remarkable). What - empirically - struck me
is that the 'sweet spot' seemed to be particularly big, that is if I
moved off the centre I could still hear things pretty localised, as if
you move in along the axis of a stage...
Lorenzo
I've been studying process of spatialization
a bit, and ambisonics
figure in there quite a bit.
I was wondering if there is some "data loss" if I encode ambisonic
format and then decode it to whatever "direct channel-to-speaker"
format (stereo, 5.1, others) is needed, in stead of writing to
different channels directly.
To make it a bit clearer: What difference would these methods cause?
1. Inputs -> B-format -> 5.1
or
2. Inputs -> 5.1
Simply first method allows me to concentrate making ambisonics only,
and then use already existing decoders to create final output.
If you use 2nd order AMB and a good AMB->5.1 decoder the results
should be very good. The combimation AMB panner + AMB->5.1 decoder
is in fact a 5.1 panner, but quite a sophisticated one. You could
put one of theae in each channel, but since the second part is the
same for all it's more effficient to do it after the mixing, in
other words use an AMB mixing bus.
Compared to conventional 5.1 pairwise panning the result will be
more even, without emphasising the speaker locations as would be
the case otherwise. In other words, the sound will be much less
seem to originate in the speakers.
Ciao,