On 2 Apr 2012, at 18:21, Robert Greene <gre...@math.ucla.edu> wrote:
> One really gets the strong impression that the Ambisonics > community has never seriously tried for public attention, > and perhaps did not even want it. The ambisonic community was always obsessed with perfection (N-th order stuff with zillion channels etc.) rather than realizing that even flawed 1st order Ambisonics create a more realistic ambience than all the other surround junk out there, and that nobody (in the statistical sense) goes and does A-B comparisons of the real event and the recording, and complains that the trumpet sounds like 25 degree to the left when it was only 18 degrees to the left. As far as I'm concerned: I like the clarity of single point recordings, and the envelopment of realistic ambience. That covers more then 90% of what I want from Ambisonics, and it does that better than just about anything else I've heard, even in first order. The problem is, the people who know enough about Ambisonics are busy doing 3rd and higher order stuff in some university labs, and the people who might get realistic 1st order stuff productized know nothing about it, and when they are curious, they are told by the lab purists "You need at least third order to do this properly" at which point they quickly look at the number of recording channels and playback speakers required and toss any further consideration of Ambisonics over board. And that's IMO where Ambisonics is stuck for a long time. Ronald _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
