Hi Trond,
we actually did some informal tests on this last year, converting
B-format recordings to both mp3 and AAC, then decoding and comparing these
to the decode from the original wav files.
It was a pretty quick test but we didn't notice any big differences in
terms of the spatial imaging at high bit rates. Using lower bit rates
resulted in the general sort of audio quality degradation you'd expect, but
spatially it didn't seem to change too much.
As someone else pointed out, I suspect they're using PCM here to avoid any
issues with AAC and certain mobile devices, rather than anything related to
spatial imaging.
e
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:14:43 +0200
From: Trond Lossius <trond.loss...@bek.no>
To: mailing list sursound <sursound@music.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: [Sursound] YouTube now supports Ambisonics
(warning....part advertisement..)
Message-ID: <3f5fad98-ce7c-4d05-a2ac-96de998f5...@bek.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> On 20 Apr 2016, at 21:16, Marc Lavallee <m...@hacklava.net> wrote:
>
> I wonder why using uncompressed PCM instead of compressed AAC...
Is there a risk of compressed audio altering the phase between the
channels, affecting the spatial image?
Cheers,
Trond
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160421/cb3bb66f/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit
account or options, view archives and so on.
