Thank you all for your insightful replies. I know I could spend years trying to setup a scientifically accurate ambisonic setup. But then I would probably never make any music!
Dave, are there a links to these papers by Eric, Richard and Aaron that you speak of? -ap On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Dave Malham <dave.mal...@york.ac.uk> wrote: > > > On 08/06/2012 09:49, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > >> On 06/06/2012 08:52 PM, Anthony Palomba wrote: >> >> There are ambisonic encode/decode externals for Max... >>> http://www.grahamwakefield.**net/soft/ambi~/index.htm<http://www.grahamwakefield.net/soft/ambi%7E/index.htm> >>> That might be the easiest thing to try first. >>> >> >> possibly. there is one thing on the homepage that strikes me as odd, >> however: >> "Ambi.decode~ decodes an ambisonic encoded sound field to a user-defined >> speaker array of up to 16 channels (more can be added by using more than >> one ambi.decode~ object). Messages control the speaker layout, global gain, >> mono/spatialized balance, and decoding order weights." >> >> i don't understand how one could just use two independent decoders and >> still arrive at an optimum decoding result. it's not clear how the decoder >> works, and i'm not sure it's really state-of-the-art... others may be able >> to comment. >> > You'd certainly want to look at doing some manual optimisation with > multiple decoders, which might be as simple (and time consuming!) as just > tweaking things by ear or might involve a full scale optimisation using > something like Bruce Wiggins' heuristic approach. > > > check out the BLaH paper "is my decoder ambisonic?" for some of the >> pitfalls and a list of known-good decoders. >> >> But do be aware that the excellent work that has been done for these > papers by Eric, Richard and Aaron is (currently (that I'm aware of)) only > for first order decoders and domestic sized rigs. > > > Ideally I would like to have 8 (maybe more) speakers that I could >>> configure in various different ways. >>> >> >> for larger audiences than, say, 5-10 people, i would recommend a >> third-order horizontal-only ring of eight if you are looking for proper >> localisation. a cube in my experience is problematic for more than one >> listener, unless all you want is envelopment. >> >> Agreed. > > Dave > > -- > These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer > /*************************************************************** > **********/ > /* Dave Malham > http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/**research/dave-malham/<http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/>*/ > /* Music Research Centre */ > /* Department of Music "http://music.york.ac.uk/"; */ > /* The University of York Phone 01904 322448 */ > /* Heslington Fax 01904 322450 */ > /* York YO10 5DD */ > /* UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' */ > /* > "http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/**mustech/3d_audio/<http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/>" > */ > /*************************************************************** > **********/ > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120608/615e30b3/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
