On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 10:02 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 08:51 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 01:09 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > > > On 07/22/2010 08:42 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > > > > one thing that often gets overlooked: people have learned to accept > > > stereo (or, in some circles, 5.1) as the gold standard, and its > > > shortcomings have grown into desired features. it's very hard to compete > > > with a method that does a few things very well and doesn't even try to > > > reproduce most of the auditory cues of, say, a live experience. > > > > Correct, I like stereo, I don't like 5.1 and indeed stereo is very > > limited, but with some training it's good to handle. > > If ambisonics shouldn't have the disadvantages of 5.1 I might like it. > > One crucial difference, please: > > Ambisonics is a spatialization technique. > > So called "5.1" is just an arrangement of speakers. It is no more than > that. What you don't like is the way the content creators are using that > particular arrangement of speakers to render their music (or effects, or > whatever). For that they use one or a selection of spatialization > techniques of which Ambisonics is just one example - the subject is > actually quite complex. I imagine most use just a variation of amplitude > panning or something similar. For the same arrangement of speakers (5.1) > you could use Ambisonics or any other technique. > > So, comparing Ambisonics and 5.1 is comparing apples with airplanes > (oranges would be too close, they are both fruits). Very different > things. > > -- Fernando
That gives me hope that I'm wrong about abilities of surround sound :). If I'm mistaken, it will be a win for me :). - Ralf _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
