It might be helpful to reflect about the basics:
If ambisonics is about sound field reconstruction it will work best in
the sweet spot.
Accordingly it might be better to separate into sweet spot and “area”
applications,
as different cases.
(Home/headphone vs. concert/performance applications.)
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP254.pdf
“I hope this helps.”
Best,
Stefan
- - -
Citando Pierre Alexandre Tremblay <[email protected]>:
This report is very much in line with my observations too, in the
concert hall and in optimal studio conditions. I would say that HOA
start to be usable for focused point source around the 5th order,
and gets better higher up with the problems of then having the
speaker setup to fill it… so when it was time for me to write a high
channel count piece for the BEAST, I opted for a hybrid setup of:
- Third order ambisonic for envelopment and fluffy positioning
- point sources (5:2 + an elevated) for cheats strong positioning
for everyone*
- a quad of real distant speakers in the far corners**
Total: 28 channels, that can be rendered in a 8:4 hemispherical
array at worse, and in optimal conditions, is capitalising on the
best of all worlds. Quite portable. Obviously, calibration between
the different setups was needed, is easily done, with the proper
pink noise bursts. It has been played quite successfully in many
different settings.
I hope this helps
p
* because sweet spot still exist in all of them except WFS and even
that is not super solid)
** because all of the other are based on being on the sphere, again
WFS is good for stuff outside the ring but not convenient for many
other things like spectral flatness...
On 20 Apr 2019, at 09:08, Augustine Leudar
<[email protected]> wrote:
Ps if I remember rightly Peter Stitt may have done some studies comparing
vbap and ambisonics in an octoganal array at sarc you could check him out.
On Saturday, 20 April 2019, Augustine Leudar <[email protected]>
wrote:
I havent done a study on it but ive done hundreds of compositions and
installations and the differences are pretty obvious. Ambisonics is pretty
good at filling a hole in the panning but vbap can be better under some
circumstances. Ambisonics is pretty much useles if you want to say, makes
sounds fly round a labarinth of corridors covering a festival
area in which
case dbap is better suited. Wfs handles focussed sources better. 5-,1
strictty speaking is a speaker array so you could have ambisonics over a
5.1 speaker setup. Ive toyed with the idea of doing a study comparing how
well tecniques can get sounds to sppear close to a lustener between wfs ,
ambisonics and dbap but its pointless reslly as its obvious to anyone who
uses these things what the results would be.All different tools for
different jobs.
On Friday, 19 April 2019, Michael Bevers <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
I'm curious if anyone knows of, or has conducted, any studies
comparing an
Ambisonic system to a channel-based system? For example, a comparison of
an
Auro 3-D system with an Ambisonic system. Or even just a 5.1 surround
system with an Ambisonic system.
I haven't found any studies myself directly comparing the two, even
through
AES.
Thanks for any help,
Michael
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20190420/28a16e1c/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20190422/e173d1fb/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.
