> This is especially difficult with acoustic recordings, .. I find it much easier to identify UHJ with natural recordings made with a single properly aligned tetrahedral mike; especially if there is a nice acoustic. Many of the early recordings by Music for York and the original Ambisonic team fall into this category.
When listening in stereo, the reverb is very evenly distributed, extending beyond the speakers but cuts off rather abruptly at a definite point _outside_ the speakers. This is in contrast to fig-8s at 90 from the same B-format master which also extends beyond the speakers but tapers off. Both techniques make it difficult to identify the stereo speakers which helps the illusion. QS variant sound sorta like fig-8s. Other matrix systems sound very strange in stereo, especially UMX. SQ just sounds like the usual bad multi-miking. If there is an obvious CF source, a goniometer (phase meter/display) will tell us if it is 45J or UHJ (35J). Apart from the 2 questions 1 Is it Ambisonic? ie 45J or UHJ (35J) 2 Is it 45J or is it UHJ(35J)? I'm not sure any other questions are relevant to decoding for good sound. But surely we should be archiving the 2 channel original. Anything which comes out of this research should just be a tag/comment on the file. _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
