"Bearcat M. ?andor" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you. I think i understand all that, but let me take this apart to > make sure. What you're [J?rn Nettingsmeier is] saying is that having full > range speakers only > effects the playback quality of the music not the ambisonics and > that ambisonics itself does not *need* full range speakers, but that > having full range speakers is better than not. Is that correct?
There are (at least) two things to reproduce: the frequency range and the localisation. Ambisonics satisfies localisation cues up to about 5 kHz, and down to very low. (There is evidence that humans can localise frequencies below 20 Hz using things like chest cavities. Ambisonics can reproduce such localisation cues if these frequencies are in the source.) So, for localisation, the speakers can top out at 5 kHz. However, music played though such speakers is unlikely to sound very good. At the low end, lower is better. However, it is a law of diminishing returns, limited by the standing waves in your listening room which will interfere with the localisation of subwoofers. > I think part of my confusion is that i'm still thinking of it as having > 6 or 8 or more *channels* when that is not the case. The speakers are > not steered, they are driven. So you are not going to have a situation > where the speakers behind you are only reproducing high to midrange > information as was the case with Dolby pro-logic or something. Right? Right. With Ambisonics, all the speakers cooperate to localise a sound. While the speakers on the left push, those on the right pull. (This is less pronounced with frequencies above 400 Hz and less important with higher-order Ambisonics, but ignore this.) Regards, Martin -- Martin J Leese E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/ _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
