On tor, 2004-05-20 at 11:59, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
> Jens M Andreasen wrote:
>
> > I went to ambisonic and read the FAQ. I do not agree with them when they
> > say that 2-channel stereo is only good for imaging between the speakers.
> > It is possible by using phase differences (and the assu
Hi Joern,
> not superior, but equivalent, less snake-oil-infested, cheaper, more
> general and more elegant. ahem, yes, superior :-D
>
> you can express any spatial sound with just 4 channels, where one is
> the mono component, and 3 are the x, y, and z-axis difference
> signals (similar to m/
Jens M Andreasen wrote:
Hi Alfons!
I went to ambisonic and read the FAQ. I do not agree with them when they
say that 2-channel stereo is only good for imaging between the speakers.
It is possible by using phase differences (and the assumption that
people are not living in sound-dead laboratories) t
Here is one link that includes some equations:
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/ambis2.htm
I wonder if would be possible to convert ambiosonic to binaural ..
/jens
On tor, 2004-05-20 at 13:07, Paul Davis wrote:
> if you really want to understand surround, i'd like to pass along a
>
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 07:07:52AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> this will get you started:
>
>
> http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Aug01/articles/surroundsound1.asp?session=dec5645986353a3e68c8439720360f53
Hi Paul, interesting pointer, it's in my bookmarks now ! Thanks !
--
Fons
>I went to ambisonic and read the FAQ. I do not agree with them when they
>say that 2-channel stereo is only good for imaging between the speakers.
>It is possible by using phase differences (and the assumption that
>people are not living in sound-dead laboratories) to project sounds
>outside of th
Hi Alfons!
I went to ambisonic and read the FAQ. I do not agree with them when they
say that 2-channel stereo is only good for imaging between the speakers.
It is possible by using phase differences (and the assumption that
people are not living in sound-dead laboratories) to project sounds
outsid
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:36:08AM +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
> 4-channel support??? Puuhlease, this is sooo 1967ish ... :)
>
> Industri standard these days is 7.1, which by the way is no near perfect
> but at least affordable.
The ITU n.1 speaker layouts may be 'industry standard', but they
Hi!
4-channel support??? Puuhlease, this is sooo 1967ish ... :)
Industri standard these days is 7.1, which by the way is no near perfect
but at least affordable.
with friendly regards // Jens M Andreasen
On tis, 2004-05-18 at 16:24, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I'm involved in a
On Wed, 19 May 2004 00:25:30 +0200
Fons Adriaensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Erik, thanks for your response.
>
> I had a look at the libsndfile formats matrix, and of course there's
> WAV, but I didn't see WAV-EX.
The matrix is probably just a little out of date :-).
> Do you mean libsnd
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 06:46:18AM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> Once libsndfile gets Ogg Vorbis and Speex support, FLAC support is
> also high on the list. Since libsndfile accepts WAV-EX (stupid fscking
> microsoft idea) it will be able to transcode WAV-EX -> FLAC without
> a problem. libs
On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:24:14 +0200
Alfons Adriaensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I'm involved in a (friendly) debate on the surround sound list.
> One the main contributors of this list, Angelo Farina (univ. of
> Parma, Italy) wants to make available some interesting 4-channel
>
Hello list,
I'm involved in a (friendly) debate on the surround sound list.
One the main contributors of this list, Angelo Farina (univ. of
Parma, Italy) wants to make available some interesting 4-channel
recordings he recently made. The distribution format has to be
lossless. I already pointed hi
13 matches
Mail list logo
