On 06/06/2012 08:52 PM, Anthony Palomba wrote:
I figured I would decode on a separate machine because I thought it might be CPU intensive. The laptop I am running the performance on, will already be working pretty hard doing other signal/video processing tasks.
decoding is not cpu intensive at all, so unless those few percents extra load tip your machine over the edge, i'd suggest to keep it all in one box - fewer points of failure that way...
There are ambisonic encode/decode externals for Max... http://www.grahamwakefield.net/soft/ambi~/index.htm That might be the easiest thing to try first.
possibly. there is one thing on the homepage that strikes me as odd, however: "Ambi.decode~ decodes an ambisonic encoded sound field to a user-defined speaker array of up to 16 channels (more can be added by using more than one ambi.decode~ object). Messages control the speaker layout, global gain, mono/spatialized balance, and decoding order weights."
i don't understand how one could just use two independent decoders and still arrive at an optimum decoding result. it's not clear how the decoder works, and i'm not sure it's really state-of-the-art... others may be able to comment. check out the BLaH paper "is my decoder ambisonic?" for some of the pitfalls and a list of known-good decoders.
Ideally I would like to have 8 (maybe more) speakers that I could configure in various different ways.
for larger audiences than, say, 5-10 people, i would recommend a third-order horizontal-only ring of eight if you are looking for proper localisation. a cube in my experience is problematic for more than one listener, unless all you want is envelopment.
-- Jörn Nettingsmeier Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio) Tonmeister VDT http://stackingdwarves.net _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
