Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion

ught up on FuMa, especially with X delegated to the fourth channel, and "less important" than Z. . Ciao, Dave Hunt On 18 Apr 2018, at 17:00, sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu wrote: > From: Bearcat M. Şándor > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion > Date: 17 Apri

Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion

On 04/14/2018 05:53 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 05:28:57PM +0200, David Pickett wrote: Thanks, Fons. I was hoping it was something as simple as this. I failed to find anything on the internet that expresses the relationships so simply. Did I actually miss a page? Not on

Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion

AmbiX is more common these days ___ 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.

Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion

Is one standard considered better (or more common) than the other? On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Jon Honeyball wrote: > The wonderful thing about standards is the opportunity to have lots of them > > jon > > > On 14 Apr 2018, at 09:55, Jack Reynolds > wrote: > > > > FuMa is WXYZ and ambiX is

Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion

https://xkcd.com/927/ -Original Message- From: Jon Honeyball To: Surround Sound discussion group Sent: Mon, Apr 16, 2018 4:19 am Subject: Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion The wonderful thing about standards is the opportunity to have lots of them jon > On 14 Apr 2018, at

Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion

The wonderful thing about standards is the opportunity to have lots of them jon > On 14 Apr 2018, at 09:55, Jack Reynolds wrote: > > FuMa is WXYZ and ambiX is WYZX with SN3D normalisation. > I forget the gains off the top of my head, but will have a look and get back > if no one else has chip

Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion

Dear David, regarding Ambisonics normalization ("level differences"), you might find interesting the following article by T. Carpentier: "Normalization Schemes in Ambisonic: Does it Matter? ". Best, Andrés El 14/04/18 a las 10:17, David Pic

Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 05:28:57PM +0200, David Pickett wrote: > Thanks, Fons. I was hoping it was something as simple as this. I failed to > find anything on the internet that expresses the relationships so simply. > Did I actually miss a page? Not one I know of. Some of my programs (e.g. Ambdec

Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion

Thanks, Fons. I was hoping it was something as simple as this. I failed to find anything on the internet that expresses the relationships so simply. Did I actually miss a page? David At 12:55 14-04-18, Fons Adriaensen wrote: >On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Jack Reynolds wrote: > >>

Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Jack Reynolds wrote: > FuMa is WXYZ and ambiX is WYZX with SN3D normalisation. > I forget the gains off the top of my head, but will have > a look and get back if no one else has chipped in. Convert FuMa to Ambix - ACN-0 = 1.4142

Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion

--On 14 April 2018 10:17 +0200 David Pickett wrote: > (I am working with separate B-format wavfiles -- not multichannel > wavfiles -- and as far as I can find there are no plugins for this > situation.) There are many reasons not to use Steinberg's WaveLab for ambisonics (though it works fine fo

Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion

FuMa is WXYZ and ambiX is WYZX with SN3D normalisation. I forget the gains off the top of my head, but will have a look and get back if no one else has chipped in. J ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/list