Eric Carmichel wrote:
I am creating ways to *objectively* assess that the physical movement of air
(macro level, not micro) to demonstrate Ambisonics or HOA is suitable for
scientific research. As I recently wrote, it’s the PHYSICAL re-creation that
matters, not human perception. (Read or re-read Phantom of the Laboratory and
Round Arrays in Square Spaces). If the sound is physically accurate, we can bet
it sounds real, whether it’s a sound we like or believe to be boring. Making
sounds sound good is the art; accurate physical reproduction is the science.
Back to square one,
Eric C.
I didn't know that somebody had/has to < demonstrate > that
Ambisonics/HOA is suitable for scientific research.
In my time, people just < did > the research, without having to
demonstrate that it would be < maybe possible > to do some research...
(???????????????)
I am not sure if I am confused, but probably not... :-)
Best,
Stefan
P.S.:
As I recently wrote, it’s the PHYSICAL re-creation that matters, not human
perception.
Reads well, but no. Both matters? Otherwise FOA wouldn't work at all...
Come on!
P.S. 2: "Back from square one"? =-O
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
