Re: [Sursound] uhj and z

On 12/10/13, 1:07 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: ...once you toss 4 components into 2 channels, you can never perfectly separate them again. there will always be some sort of "crosstalk" Ah yes, the downfall of "quad"... --R ___ Sursound mailing l

Re: [Sursound] uhj and z

True, but it's amazing what can be done ;-) Reference: all other quad matrix systems ever. Paul -- Paul Hodges ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound --- This email is f

Re: [Sursound] uhj and z

--On 10 December 2013 14:07 +0100 Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > once you toss 4 components into 2 channels, you can never perfectly > separate them again. Reference: all other quad matrix systems ever. Paul -- Paul Hodges ___ Sursound mailing list

Re: [Sursound] uhj and z

On 12/10/2013 02:00 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: On 12/10/2013 08:20 AM, Bearcat M. Şándor wrote: Is there a technical reason why z is never included in UHJ recordings? yes. 2-channel UHJ is meant as a stereo-compatible encoding in two channels (let's ignore the 3 and 4 channel extensions of

Re: [Sursound] uhj and z

On 12/10/2013 08:20 AM, Bearcat M. Şándor wrote: Is there a technical reason why z is never included in UHJ recordings? yes. 2-channel UHJ is meant as a stereo-compatible encoding in two channels (let's ignore the 3 and 4 channel extensions of UHJ for now), that should be playable over a stan

Re: [Sursound] uhj and z

> Is there a technical reason why z is never included in UHJ recordings? > I suppose the simplistic answer to _not_ included would be channel count. As for _never_ included, the table at the base of the 'hierarchy' section of i

[Sursound] uhj and z

Is there a technical reason why z is never included in UHJ recordings? -- Bearcat M. Şándor -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: _