>> I find it much easier to identify UHJ with natural recordings > By this, do you mean recordings that you _know_ in beforehand?
> If I gave you 5-7 recordings, would you be able to pick up the UHJ encoded > recordings from them? Some of my examples would include audibly and > measureably similar phase differences between the stereo channels as you > would have in a UHJ recording. Yes. Though its been nearly 30 yrs since I did this. I was very specific about the type of recording. It would have to be an original Calrec Soundfield that still had its original alignment or a TetraMic. And a venue with good acoustic like Yorkminster. I don't think I can do it with panned artiicial stuff or tetrahedral recordings in a very dry environment. I'm actually listening to the "stereo" presentation of the reverb rather than individual sources. I think some of my Wharfedale Blind Listening Panel would remember how to do this too. I have no experience of doing this with panned UHJ stuff. However .. > In anechoic acoustics a tetrahedral mike provides a very sharp sound image > for a single sound source in a certain direction You'll probably find a stereo fig-8 @ 90 decode from the B-format gives sharper images than "UHJ encoding listened in stereo" of the same B-format. But the UHJ doesn't have the "cusp" at CF which fig-8 @ 90 (or worse panned stuff) does and which leads to a CF image sounding quite different from the rest of the sound stage. (Among things like funny stability, CF is the only position likely to give "comb filter" effects) The 35 (or 45) degree coding for CF in UHJ "smooths" out the presentation of CF to be more "like" the rest of the soundstage so is often preferred. This is just what I, and a select group of friends, hear. YMMV. (Gotta put this last 4LA in to show I've arrived in the 21st century) _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
