Marc Lavall?e <[email protected]> wrote: > Le Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:41:13 -0600,
> Martin Leese <[email protected]> a ?crit : >> The difference is not between Ambisonics and >> 5.1 (or whatever), but between the capabilities >> of the main speakers and the subs. The >> purpose of bass management is to direct bass >> to speakers that can handle it. If not all of >> your speakers are equally capable of >> reproducing bass (and the fact that you have >> a sub at all suggests this is the case) then you >> would benefit from bass management. >> >> There is nothing magical about Ambisonics >> with respect to bass. > > Bass management is a downmix of the surround channels to one or more > subs, or -- in the case where there are full-range speakers but no > sub(s) -- it is a mix of the LFE channel to the surround channels. > > If there is bass in five surround channels, how to down mix it to three > subs? My preference is to feed two front subs with the two front > channels and the centre channel. The rear sub is then a mono mix of the > rear channels and the LFE channel. It would be simpler (although more expensive) to just use five subs. > With Ambisonics, bass can decoded to 3 or more subs. It's not magic, > but it is (at least conceptually) much more elegant. Yep. Regards, Martin -- Martin J Leese E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/ _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
