I did not say it should(be played in front)! It just is.
Of course there are instances when antiphonal effects
are used, and very well they can work too.
But I think that using this sort of thing as a way
to persuade people they ought to have 16 channels
of playback or something is wrong headed. It won't
work, I think.
Only someone who was a little unhinged
on the subject would go to the trouble to set
up high order Ambisonics in order to hear the tiny
fraction of the repertoire where actual sources are
behind or to the sides.
Surround is great--because it creates (when done right)
the concert hall--and that really is all around you.
But direct sources that are totally nonfrontal--
not important.
I think the big mistake of Ambisonics in practical terms
is that it emphasized homogeneity--a mathematical nicety
but a nonstarter as a musical matter. And it makes it complicated
and ineffective except with great effort at relatively simple
things, or things that should be relatively simple.
I suppose many of you know the classic men in a balloon joke
popular among mathematicians(who do not mind laughing at themselves):
Two men are flying in a balloon and they are lost. As they sail
over a man standing in a field they call out "Where are we?"
The man in the field says nothing until finally as the balloon
is almost out of earshot , the man in the field calls out
"You are in a balloon".
One of the men in the balloon says to the other, "That fellow
in the field must be a mathematician".
"Why do you say that?"
"We asked him a simple question ,
he thought for a very long
time about the answer, his answer was absolutely correct,
and his answer was completely useless."
I would not say that Ambisonics was useless and it is surely
intriguing as an application of mathematics. But I do think
only a truly impractical person would have decided that in
practice homogeneity was a vital criterion for reproducing music
as it is.
Robert
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, David Pickett wrote:
At 14:33 31/03/2012, Paul Hodges wrote:
--On 31 March 2012 12:53 -0400 newme...@aol.com wrote:
Music of the ordinary sort is in front . . .
Yes it is! Which is why Ambisonics makes *no* sense for the FRONT in a
musical reproduction system.
"Music of the ordinary sort" being the music that's in front, I guess,
making that a tautology.
I frequently listen to, and record, music in churches (commonly with an
organ behind or to one side), and concerts with music surrounding the
audience in the round (in places as varied as Walthamstow Town Hall, The
Union Chapel Islington, and the Royal Festival Hall).
I shall never buy into the concept that music should come only from the
front. One of the most exciting recordings I have is the Tallis Scholars'
later version of the Allegri Miserere, which is available as a 5.1 high
definition download. The distant choir in the rear is magical. Of course, the
performance is also magical, but the physical disposition of the performers
makes it feel much more like a live event to me. All to whom I have played
this have also been impressed.
I dont think this particular recording was made with the SF mic, but my point
is that there is much music that benefits from direct sound in the rear. I
have many Tacet.de recordings that use the rear channels for direct sound,
also to great musical effect in my opinion. The same repertoire is available
in 2-channel stereo if that is the listener's preference, so why not do
something different?
David
_______________________________________________
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
