Sorry for the “double greeting” in my former mail...
Actually this is a bit strange, because in the “Sent” folder of my
mailbox the beginning appears in a different form - and as I had seen
it before sending, exactly as cited below...
(Was/am typing on my iPad, so no idea why something different arrives
at sursound than I am seeing on my screen. WYSIWYG this was not... ?!?
In case of being annoyed just delete the former mail, please...)
Best regards,
Stefan
- - -
(same text w/o double headers...)
Citando Stefan Schreiber <[email protected]>:
Dear Franz,
Good evening Franz,
firstly: many thanks for your competent and useful response!
So trying to summarize up things a bit, I think it could make sense
to separate two cases:
If you are in the sweet spot (which includes binaural decoding) or
at least being close, you can have very good results using 3rd order
HOA (TOA).
If using HOA as < area format > (most people technically being out
of the sweet spot), we will agree that 4th order and 5th order will
be still and noticeably better than TOA. (4th order has been tested
as cinema audio format, for example.)
You wrote (refering to 5th order):
“It is as practical as 3-stereo:
We have 30° degrees of angular separation, so very-close-to-stereo
channel separation. At the moment the best we have for the practice
with large audiences and studio. The question is where the practice
should focus to. “
Comment: For 5th order reproduction we would need a minimum of 12
loudspeakers, ideally in a regular layout in 30° steps.
(For simplification: let us restrict the discussion to the 2D case.)
The speaker separation of 30° means that the maximum angular error
of into the SF encoded sources/positions should not exceed 15°,
during reproduction. ( Because the closest speaker can’t be further
away. )
So maybe this would imply that the < average > error should be
around 7.5°, if we are talking about higher frequencies?
For TOA the analogue values should be 22.5° and 11.25°, respectively.
In practice things might work actually quite a bit better,
especially in or near the sweet spot.
On the other hand figures above could be too optimistic if getting
close to the speakers, of course.
You wrote further:
“The newest binaural decoders (BinauralDecoder) show that 5th order
is typically not different to 7th, for dense audio scenes it 3rd is
also as good as 7th (Lee 2019, AES IAA). Sidelobe suppression does
not appear relevant in the sweet spot of 3rd order and above, as we
could prove by listening experiments in loudspeaker playback (Frank
2017, AES Conv.).”
Are these “newest binaural decoders” somehow available for being
used in software and/or CE projects?
I know that you are already offering a plugin:
https://plugins.iem.at/docs/plugindescriptions/#binauraldecoder
For the ones of us who enjoy reading papers with plenty of formulas
😉, here a link to the corresponding “paper”:
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.5040489
So this TAC method (binaural decoding of ambisonics, realized for
orders 1 to 5) seems to be “quite interesting”, but maybe also to be
used in some wider form...
Best regards
Stefan
- - -
...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20190308/4b8a9a52/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit
account or options, view archives and so on.
