Hello, Not related to a comparison with a third order mic but related to directional cues: I did a quick check using the demo plugin decoding some tetrahedral mic recordings to binaural. I loaded it into a Max/MSP patch and did A-B comparisons between two combos consisting of Tetraproc-Harpex and Tetraproc-Ambdec-SPAT (SPAT for the binaural virtual speakers). To my ears, this comparison revealed that directionality was much precise and clear with the TAS combo than with Harpex. This was particularly noticeable with a recording of birds singing from tree branches located above the mic. With Harpex some of the bird calls would jump around spatially as the spectral content of the call changed whereas with TAS it remained focused and well localized within a discernible location. I haven't done a test decoding over speakers so I'm not sure if this would be only related to binaural decoding.
Best, Hector Centeno On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Len Moskowitz <lenmoskow...@optonline.net> wrote: > I've been playing with Svein's player. It looks and sounds good. > > One claim he's making is that his parametric decoding method allows a > first-order soundfield microphone (like our TetraMic) to provide direction > cues that are equal to or better that what's available from a third-order > soundfield microphone. Also, presumably the "sweet spot" is comparable > in size to the one we'd expect from a third-order microphone. > > If you've been using the HARPEX-B player or plug-in, do you think the claims > are reasonable? > > > Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com) > > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
