> On 01 Jul 2016, at 18:50, Justin Bennett <j...@bmbcon.demon.nl> wrote: > > > that’s interesting to hear, Trond, I was also wondering about how upsampling > would affect the reproduction of field recordings. > > best, Justin >
Hi Justin, To my experience, parametric methods such as Harpex or DirAC deal greatly with field recordings, since there is always enough ‘activity’ and natural variability in the sound scene that is analyzed and reproduced reasonably by the method’s underlying model. This is in contrast for example to synthetic material, in which you can generate unnatural cases that can “confuse” the model, e.g. six anechoic saw-tooth waves coming from various angles simultaneously with the same fundamental frequency. Also to my experience, and that doesn’t seem to be a very popular view yet in ambisonic community, these parametric methods do not only upsample or sharpen the image compared to direct first-order decoding, but they actually reproduce the natural recording in a way that is closer perceptually to how the original sounded, both spatially and in timbre. Or at least that’s what our listening tests have shown in a number of cases and recordings. And the directional sharpening is one effect, but also the higher spatial decorrelation that they achieve (or lower inter-aural coherence) in reverberant recordings is equally important. By the way, I have always considered the term upsampling a bit inaccurate for this parametric FOA-to-HOA mapping., and has no relation to upsampling from a signal processing POV. Upmixing would be more appropriate, since this is what the methods are essentially doing internally, not dissimilar to the older parametric upmixing methods from, e.g., stereo to surround. Regards, Archontis _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
