On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:47:03PM +0200, JohnLM wrote: > I've been studying process of spatialization a bit, and ambisonics > figure in there quite a bit. > I was wondering if there is some "data loss" if I encode ambisonic > format and then decode it to whatever "direct channel-to-speaker" > format (stereo, 5.1, others) is needed, in stead of writing to > different channels directly. > > To make it a bit clearer: What difference would these methods cause? > 1. Inputs -> B-format -> 5.1 > or > 2. Inputs -> 5.1 > > Simply first method allows me to concentrate making ambisonics only, > and then use already existing decoders to create final output.
If you use 2nd order AMB and a good AMB->5.1 decoder the results should be very good. The combimation AMB panner + AMB->5.1 decoder is in fact a 5.1 panner, but quite a sophisticated one. You could put one of theae in each channel, but since the second part is the same for all it's more effficient to do it after the mixing, in other words use an AMB mixing bus. Compared to conventional 5.1 pairwise panning the result will be more even, without emphasising the speaker locations as would be the case otherwise. In other words, the sound will be much less seem to originate in the speakers. Ciao, -- FA There are three of them, and Alleline. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
