Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:40:19 +0000, Fons Adriaensen <[email protected]> a écrit :
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 11:24:45AM -0500, Marc Lavallée wrote: > > > My comprehension of Ambisonics is that the listener's head (in the > > "sweetest spot") is exposed to one coherent approximation of a > > reproduced (or synthesized) sound field, not to a set of directional > > waves coming from the speakers (one directional wave per speaker). > > The listener is exposed to to a set of directional waves coming > from the speakers (one directional wave per speaker) which combine > into an approximation of the original soundfield - there is no > conflict between the two views. Yes, I understand that (intuitively); what I meant (you excluded the last part of my message) is that I prefer to consider Ambisonics as a way to produce a sound field that is coherent enough (in the sweet spot), to not care (much) about the all the interactions between the listener and each speaker. > If the approximation is good enough, the way it is constructed > becomes irrelevant and you won't hear the speakers as separate > sources. A phantom (between the speakers) source will result > in superposition (i.e. interpolation) of HRIRs, even when > listening to a speaker system. If the same happens when binaural > signals are synthesized, that should not be a problem if it wasn't > one for the speakers system. Right. What matters is the resulting sound field in the "listening spot". > In other words, the fact that interpolating HRIRs will not > result in the exact HRIR for the intented direction should > be irrelevant IFF the signals that are combined would produce > a convincing soundfield when reproduced over speakers. > > > Ciao, Thats' clear enough. Thanks for your explanation. -- Marc _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
