On 09/07/2011 23:10, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/09/2011 11:49 PM, dw wrote:
On 09/07/2011 22:28, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
ps. I am sure M Gerzon knew that ambisonics (low order) has
theoretical
sweet spot the size of a pea, but it still sounds good to some people,
His fans are still as self-righteous as ever.
i could imagine way worse things than being called a MAG fanboy. there
has been very constructive discussion in the past about why
first-order works way better than it obviously should, and what its
limits are. this exchange however doesn't quite cut it in the
"constructive" department.
So how does this 'human energy-vector-detector" work then?
ok'ish.
ppps How are higher-order microphones coming aloing these days, or are
we still happy truncating the infinite series at one order above an
omni?
higher order microphones work in principle, but are nowhere near as
pleasant as simpler stereo microphones. in addition to coloration
problems, they suffer from noise problems due to the high gains
required.
What you need is a 'virtual' high-order microphone.
the approach i'm exploring is this:
http://stackingdwarves.net/public_stuff/linux_audio/tmt10/TMT2010_J%c3%b6rn_Nettingsmeier-Higher_order_Ambisonics.pdf
skip the intro and jump to section 5.
I was thinking more of recording in mono, computing the vectors in
various bands from the output of some large microphone array and then
encoding (the mono sound) into the required number of spherical
harmonics. I doubt whether there is any advantage in determining the
vectors much better than a human listener can do, although not
necessarily in the same way. If nature can do 'it' with two ears, surely
it can't be too difficult with the benefit of a large array. The vector
has no sound of its own so the sound quality of the array is immaterial.
I am of the firm opinion that audiophiles do not deserve anything better
than the vinyl, stereo, and tweaks they have now, but it is still
interesting to see what is possible.
i used to think that this kind of hack is not really conceptually
elegant (it isn't - nothing beats the simple beauty of a sound field
microphone). but then i learned about all the unholy hacks that are
routinely being employed by respected record labels to produce their
(very nice sounding) surround recordings. i have been very relaxed
about conceptual purity ever since.
but for my work, i still want to have a plausible theory first and
then see what can be done in practice. i dislike stuff that "sounds
nice" whose proponents can't really explain why :) but that's a
personal spleen of mine, not a snide remark at xtc in general.
best,
jörn
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
