On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote: > The perceived "directional bandwidth" of stereo recordings is better > than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reproduce.
This is again a game of words. Most stereo recordings are made to be reproduced by two speakers, seen by the listener at an angle of 60 to 90 degrees, and such that the signals from either speaker reach both ears. That is the way it is supposed to work. There is a solid theory behind this. Calling this 'crosstalk (a term which has a negative connotation as a defect of audio equipment), and the cure 'crosstalk cancellation' amounts to gross intellectual dishonesty. The signals you find on the vast majority of stereo records are _not_ meant to be delivered one-to-one to the ears. XTC will work (within some limits) on binaural recordings, and it produces a sort of spatial effect on some of those that are badly engineered for speaker reproduction, e.g. using widely spaced omni mics as the main source. It also can provide some 'spatiality' on TV sound, helped by the fact that when watching a screen in front you are unlikely to face other directions than the one to the screen. > 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? Starting from stereo there is little Ambisonics can do. One some (mostly classical music) recordings, you can add either algorithmic or convolution reverb to mimic the acoustics of a real concert hall, and this can be quite effective. An AMB reproduction rig can also do better room correction than would be possible with just two speakers. Ciao, -- FA _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
