linuxaudio.org

On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 08:51 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

quoted text
> On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 01:09 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:

> > On 07/22/2010 08:42 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

> >

> > one thing that often gets overlooked: people have learned to accept

> > stereo (or, in some circles, 5.1) as the gold standard, and its

> > shortcomings have grown into desired features. it's very hard to compete

> > with a method that does a few things very well and doesn't even try to

> > reproduce most of the auditory cues of, say, a live experience.

>

> Correct, I like stereo, I don't like 5.1 and indeed stereo is very

> limited, but with some training it's good to handle.

> If ambisonics shouldn't have the disadvantages of 5.1 I might like it.

One crucial difference, please:
Ambisonics is a spatialization technique. 
So called "5.1" is just an arrangement of speakers. It is no more than

that. What you don't like is the way the content creators are using that

particular arrangement of speakers to render their music (or effects, or

whatever). For that they use one or a selection of spatialization

techniques of which Ambisonics is just one example - the subject is

actually quite complex. I imagine most use just a variation of amplitude

panning or something similar. For the same arrangement of speakers (5.1)

you could use Ambisonics or any other technique. 
So, comparing Ambisonics and 5.1 is comparing apples with airplanes

(oranges would be too close, they are both fruits). Very different

things. 
-- Fernando
_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev