newme...@aol.com wrote:
Jorn:
My question about how it SOUNDS wasn't merely rhetorical.
Presumably, the 3D/AA has embraced "object-oriented audio" in order to a)
abstract from speaker layouts b) reduce number of audio "channels" to 6 or 8
(i.e. fit into 5.1/7.1 distribution media like Blu-ray) and c) to make
production more streamlined.
If the playback, distribution and production of audio, which -- for the
first time, as per MAG's wishes -- contains HEIGHT (i.e. is truly
three-dimensional), isn't relatively PAINLESS, then it won't happen.
But how will it SOUND?
If the quality of the resulting 3D surround sounds terrible -- yes, QUAD
comes to mind -- then what a waste of time it will have been.
Is there an Ambisonic and/or Ambi-derived system that sounds really good
that should be considered?
My guess is that MAG would be on that Working Group, if he was still alive.
Who should be there in his stead?
Mark Stahlman
Brooklyn NY
It is just pretty normal that a proposed 3D Audio standard would have to
be evaluated in terms of quality, prepared to alternatives etc. The
problem is that this group doesn't seem to evaluate different proposals
(??), so the standard itself might be a joke.
If I want to be "open", I have to work together with other people.
On the other hand, you can't judge anything if there is basically no
real information, as in this case.
Best,
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
