Eero Aro <eero....@dlc.fi> wrote: > J?rn Nettingsmeier wrote: >> in theory, you can. in practice, you can't, because you'd have to know >> what stereo technique was used during recording > > Yes you can. > > Just one word: Trifield.
Steven Dive <stevend...@mac.com> wrote: ... > I understand that Trifield is derived from the same groundwork as > Ambisonic, which also gives us ambi superstereo. It's a matter of > personal judgement, I think, but do you more knowledgeable theory > folks know if Trifield is therefore as flexible in its use as > superstereo? >From memory, the theory behind Trifield assumes either Blumlein XY, or pan-potted multi-track mono. Perhaps Geoffrey can chip in, or somebody can look at the paper (reference below). Again from memory, SuperStereo assumes some sort of coincident mic technique so, in theory, is more flexible than Trifield. I don't know of a reference for SuperStereo; this is a gap in Ambisonic theory. > Maybe Meridian were just suggesting indirectly that people experiment > to find the most pleasing effect from their black box (literally) > piece of hi-fi equipment. In practice, this is good advice, whether Meridian meant to suggest it or not. Regards, Martin M.A. Gerzon, "Optimum Reproduction Matrices for Multispeaker Stereo", J. Audio Engineering Society, vol. 40 no. 7/8, pp. 571-589 (1992 July/Aug.) This is in the Ambisonic motherlode at: http://decoy.iki.fi/dsound/ambisonic/motherlode/data/1991_Optimal%20Reproduction%20Matrices%20for%20Multispeaker%20Stereo%20(TRIFIELD)_Gerzon.pdf -- Martin J Leese E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/ _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
