"Richard" <zoanne...@yahoo.co.uk> > The thing is that Matrix HJ isn't UHJ, nor compatible with it. That much, > I've discovered. It's only 45J that's "compatible"
Why do you think that? The ENcoding zones for HJ are described in Figure 1 (Page 4) of the paper at: http://decoy.iki.fi/dsound/ambisonic/motherlode/source/Encoding%20standards%20for%20NRDC%20Universal%20HJ%201977.pdf The DEcoder described in the same paper is a UHJ decoder. The paper is dated 22 November 1977, and has already been suggested to you by Eero Aro through this list. Paul Hodges <pwh-surro...@cassland.org> wrote: > --On 27 January 2012 15:03 +0000 Richard <zoanne...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> I'm surprised that the altered equation used wasn't ever written down >> anywhere. > > Was there actually a specific altered equation anyway? Given that the > definition of HJ used tolerance zones, how would it be have been > decided on? And the zones are in the paper described above. Regards, Martin -- Martin J Leese E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/ _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
