Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:50:19 +0100, Richard Dobson <richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote :
> The preoccupation on this list has always been the pursuit of > "the best possible", defined as mm-perfect localization over a more > or less large area, with cost and number of speakers no object. Then why not start a dedicated forum (or discussion on this forum) for the "best enough" localization in a small domestic listening area with little effort and money? While keeping an eye on the discussions about "the best possible"? > While for mere users the attraction of a format is clearly in inverse > proportion to the number of speakers required, and to the the number > of decisions they have to make before pressing "play". As a domestic listener, I'm not interested by systems for large rooms; I'm listening to stereo recordings in a very small room (often using XTC), and I'm not sure how much time and energy I should reasonably spend on installing an ambisonics (or even a surround) system. > Those discussions about the ultimate HOA file format (4th-order or > better, no doubt) are, I imagine, still ongoing. Worse than useless > to anyone still pondering whether to go up to a "full" 5.1 system. An appropriate discussion could be about how to scale the quality of the experience from stereo to first-order ambisonics with four speakers up to eight and more, in the same room. Installing a good surround system is not very different from installing a good-enough stereo system. The critical component of any reproduction system is the listening room; starting with a dedicated room for stereo listening (with appropriate acoustic treatments), going surround might be a big step because of the added speakers around the listening area, but then going "up" to horizontal ambisonics with six or eight speakers should be easy enough if one is using a silent computer and a good software decoder (instead of a vintage hardware decoder). > And of course there is absolutely no mileage whatsoever in any > research application dealing with first-order. Any such application > would, I have no doubt, be likely shot down in flames by those asked > to referee the proposal. I even have such a project in mind - > periphonic sonification of LHC collision data. There are reasons > enough why such a project would get short shrift from the powers that > be, but one of them would certainly be "should be using at least > third-order". Is first-order enough for domestic listeners? Probably. We don't all have the same agenda: I just want a better experience, not listen to "god particles"... The Harpex technology is an effort at "enhancing" first-order ambisonics, but it's proprietary, patented, expensive and targeted as a tool for audio engineers; I would only try the free player to test different speakers configurations (like the 5.1 decoding preset). I will follow these instructions by Jörn Nettingsmeier: http://stackingdwarves.net/public_stuff/linux_audio/ambi_at_home/ As a software user, I plan to document my effort and maybe program a software player, even if it's not very useful for the promotion of ambisonics. > So I fear the battle for Ambisonics has already been lost; it remains > a niche interest for a few researchers and individuals with the time, > money and space to indulge it. Why should it be a battle? Should everything on earth be a market with winners and losers? Mono was enough to build a big market for sound reproduction, and reaching high quality with more than one speaker created lots of niche markets. There's a market for mono recordings on vinyl records, so I'm sure there is a market for retro-futuristic ambisonics that will always "suffer" from the competition of other reproduction techniques like surround, XTC, ambiophonics, WFS... Hollywood was able to impose surround in reproduction devices, but it failed at forcing people to use more than two speakers for watching blockbusters. Cheap computers can play 8 channels on cheap full-range drivers using cheap class-D amplifiers, so why not use these available technologies for ambisonics instead of waiting for Hollywood, and before the mainstream culture streams exclusively on "intelligent" telephones? > And then there is Wavefield Synthesis... Correct me if I'm wrong, but WFS is useless in small listening areas, unless we can use thousands of sub-miniature full-range drivers. -- Marc _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
