dw wrote:
On 21/12/2013 10:58, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
dw wrote:
On 12/12/2013 12:40, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Hi Étienne.
etienne deleflie <edelef...@gmail.com> a écrit :
... and then ambisonics is suddenly available to
masses of people, for very cheap, and with a consistent and quality
spatial experience (assuming the HRTF decoding can be done right).
Etienne
HRTF decoding is the problem here. Finding a proper HRTF profile by
trying many (over of hundred) is not a solution; realistic binaural
reproduction works only when I listen to my own binaural recordings.
So, to enjoy "mass produced" ambisonics, I'd need personalized HRTF
measurements, a service that is not cheap and non-existent for a
majority of "HRTF challenged" people; for us, decoding ambisonics over
4 speakers is a better option,
It is undeniable that listening to FOA over a bunch of speakers
will mess up your 'personallised (actual) HRTFs' considerably..
???
Frankly, this is a messed up statement. You need HRTFs if listening
via headphones.
When listening over speakers "decoding ambisonics over 4 speakers is a
better option, ", you are listening via the the superposition of
several of your natural HRTFs with varying amplitudes and delays. In
the time domain this is not equivalent your HRIR for any real source.
Interpolation between these several speaker-head IRs will occur at the
sweet spot to give more or less correct ILD and ITD values, but
outside of the sweet spot, and at high frequencies, the resulting IR
is alien.
Or you are just listening to the "model" of a (natural, complete, ideal)
soundfield, even if this soundfield is reduced?
you are listening via the the superposition of several of your natural
HRTFs with varying amplitudes and delays.
Does this also happen if you/I attend a concert? I had to ask this one,
for further clarification.
On 21/12/2013 10:58, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Just for clarification. (Nobody corrected this.)
The Ambisonic scientologists don't want to play?
"In 1901, Allen Upward <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Upward>
coined /Scientology/ "as a disparaging term, to indicate a blind,
unthinking acceptance of scientific doctrine"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
Naaah. I am just a musician, and I always like to question theories,
including your's - because you have presented a technical/scientific
theory, or at least some interpretation of what happens if FOA is
decoded via 4 loudspeakers! The latter ain't be perfect, but this is
certainly not related to binaural representation. (But I am aware that
we are listening with two ears, at least in the normal case! )
And: I don't adhere to any "Scientologist" community or network... ;-)
The < undeniable > tag doesn't help a lot, BTW.
Thanks for that.
De nada! (I just wanted to express my "belief" that most to all
theories are not undeniable. Further reading: Wittgenstein, "Über
Gewissheit". And Karl Popper basically says that theories can be easily
falsified, whereas the < verification > is a more complex issue. Of
course, scientologist philosophers won't prove my argument... O:-) )
Best,
Stefan
Just for clarification. (Nobody corrected this.)
The < undeniable > tag doesn't help a lot, BTW.
Superposition of IRs is a fact of life.
Best,
Stefan Schreiber
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
