5DD
UK
'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20131009/4c2f5e44/attachment.html
___
Sursound mailing list
Imaging for Audio'
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20131009/7fc7e1ce/attachment.html
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https
Yes, but that's the point - for off-centre listening
Dr. Peter Lennox
School of Technology,
Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology
University of Derby, UK
e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk
t: 01332 593155
-Original Message-
From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Aaron
/20131009/7fc7e1ce/attachment.html
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
_
The University of Derby has a published policy
--
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20131009/4c2f5e44/attachment.html
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
--
07580951119
Peter Lennox wrote:
Aaron Heller wrote:
The second one uses basic decoding (aka velocity, matching, rV=1) decoding
over the entire frequency range, which means, among other things, that the
ILDs are not as large as they would be with rE_max decoding.
Yes, but that's the point - for
On 10/09/2013 06:59 PM, Martin Leese wrote:
Peter Lennox wrote:
Aaron Heller wrote:
The second one uses basic decoding (aka velocity, matching, rV=1) decoding
over the entire frequency range, which means, among other things, that the
ILDs are not as large as they would be with rE_max
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 08:22:24PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
This reads to me that for off-centre listeners,
Energy decoding is more useful than Velocity
decoding.
that's what i would have expected, too, but i've been wrong before.
peter, can you elaborate on your comment?
Energy
