Neil, I used the wrong words. Please excuse my "up-converting" nonsense, and let me ask again.
The perceived "directional bandwidth" of stereo recordings is better than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reproduce. So, is it possible to adapt a stereo recording to play on a horizontal ambisonics system, in order to get a better stereo image than with conventional stereo? A kind of "restored stereo" experience that ambisonics can provide because of its directional capabilities? Another example: there are ways to listen to ambisonics on 5.1 systems, but is it possible to listen to 5.1 recordings on a horizontal ambisonics system? Neil Waterman <neil.water...@asti-usa.com> a écrit : > ML: "Maybe it can; is there a way to "up convert" non-ambisonics > recordings to horizontal ambisonics?" > > If you down sample a 48kHz recording to 16kHz what happens? All the > audio information above 8kHz is lost right? > > If you up convert back to 48kHz can you recover the bandwidth lost? > No. You just have a large file. Everything from 8kHz up is still > missing... (where would it come from? It's GONE!). > > The concept is the same for directionality. Once you have selected > the dimensional format (stereo, ambi, 5.1, etc) any format with a > lesser directional 'bandwidth' will be rendered 'stuck'. The concept > of "up-converting" dimensionally can only be a smoke and mirrors > illusion at best. > > - Neil > > > On 7/9/2011 1:07 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote: > > Fons Adriaensen<f...@linuxaudio.org> a écrit : > > > >> And *if* I turn my head, for whatever reason, and the illusion > >> collapses, I'm not impressed... > > I just tried turning my head while listening to XTC. I can turn it > > more than 45 degrees in both directions without destroying the > > stereo image. So if turning the head is part of the localization > > process, it does also work with XTC (to some extent). > > > > XTC brings out a better and larger stereo image from conventional > > stereo recordings, just by inserting a filter in the reproduction > > path and by using two small frontal speakers (not four or more > > speakers all around me as required by ambisonics). That's already > > impressive. > > > > I still don't know from experience if ambisonics is better than XTC > > for other than practical and ideological reasons. I hope to have a > > second epiphany with ambisonics, because it requires more > > investments and efforts to install a working system at home. I only > > heard a few minutes of ambisonics (rendered with the Harpex filter > > on a horizontal/hexagonal speakers setup), and it was interesting... > > > > I would be impressed if ambisonics could provide a better listening > > experience from stereo and/or 5.1 recordings. Maybe it can; is > > there a way to "up convert" non-ambisonics recordings to horizontal > > ambisonics? > > > > -- > > Marc > > _______________________________________________ > > Sursound mailing list > > Sursound@music.vt.edu > > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
