Marc Lavallée wrote:
Mon, 02 May 2011 06:59:40 +0200,
Jörn Nettingsmeier <netti...@stackingdwarves.net> wrote :
not native, but here's a very simple one that has been shoehorned
into a third-order workstation:
http://cec.concordia.ca/econtact/11_3/nettingsmeier_ambisonics.html
I'd like to understand the "Versatile (and Quite Luxurious) Speaker
Setup" part of your article, and how it relates to your recommendation
on the number of speakers:
in production, use HOA. in reproduction, use as many speakers
as you can afford, up to a limit determined by the order of the
source material:
1st OA: no more than six
2nd OA: six or eight
3rd OA: eight, twelve if necessary
it's now an established fact that too many speakers degrade
the result for any given order.
Is your "versatile" setup appropriate for 1st, 2nd and 3rd OA?
Does the elevated hexagon work with FOA, or is it only for HOA?
Is the octagon good for FOA, even if you don't seem to recommend it?
Finally: is it a good setup for domestic listening?
--
Marc
_______________________________________________
Very nice observations!
The list above would mean that an eight speaker array is adequate for
2nd and 3rd order, but not for FOA.
it's now an established fact that too many speakers degrade
the result for any given order.
I for my part am unconvinced. Is there any mathematical proof for this
"established fact", or were some experiments misread?
I don't buy into "everybody knows" statements... So, please explain to
a layman why you "can't" decode FOA to an 8 speaker array, and keep the
math as simple as possible! :-D
Best,
Stefan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110503/f511f42c/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
