On 30/04/2011 01:12, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
On 29 Apr 2011, at 19:15, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
..
I sometimes wish these people could be locked away in a closet and
released only after 1st order Ambisonics is sufficiently accepted by
the audio community at large and the consumer electronics and
computer software makers. Maybe we might get somewhere that way.
I remember arguing much the same point ten years ago (or eleven - AMB
was announced at ICMC in 2000) - and got precisely nowhere. The
preoccupation on this list has always been the pursuit of "the best
possible", defined as mm-perfect localization over a more or less large
area, with cost and number of speakers no object. While for mere users
the attraction of a format is clearly in inverse proportion to the
number of speakers required, and to the the number of decisions they
have to make before pressing "play". Those discussions about the
ultimate HOA file format (4th-order or better, no doubt) are, I imagine,
still ongoing. Worse than useless to anyone still pondering whether to
go up to a "full" 5.1 system.
And of course there is absolutely no mileage whatsoever in any research
application dealing with first-order. Any such application would, I have
no doubt, be likely shot down in flames by those asked to referee the
proposal. I even have such a project in mind - periphonic sonification
of LHC collision data. There are reasons enough why such a project would
get short shrift from the powers that be, but one of them would
certainly be "should be using at least third-order".
So I fear the battle for Ambisonics has already been lost; it remains a
niche interest for a few researchers and individuals with the time,
money and space to indulge it.
And then there is Wavefield Synthesis...
Richard Dobson
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
