Discussion:
Rode Soundfield NT-SF1
Add Reply
Courville, Daniel
2018-04-11 10:26:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This should be interesting...

http://www.rode.com/nt-sf1

https://vimeo.com/264158943
Dave Hunt
2018-04-11 17:30:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi,

Also this, a sound field microphone to mount on top of a camera:

http://www.rode.com/blog/all/videomic-soundfield-abdi

Seems like a short while ago that it was on their website looking more like a forthcoming product.

https://www.gear4music.com/PA-DJ-and-Lighting/Rode-VideoMic-SoundField/1U73

Described as "Coming Soon". I did see a video, but it seems to have disappeared.

It looks like they may have dropped this concept for the time being. Presumably they had problems with the housing being near the capsules and quite large. As shown, it would have the body of the mic in the down position, so perhaps not too much of a problem.


It looked like an extension of

http://www.rode.com/microphones/stereovideomicx

with similar mounting, controls, and windshields, and (as I remember) sensible headphone monitoring.

I have one of these, and have been impressed.

An unusual looking microphone, but quality and very practical.

Then, there's this

http://www.rode.com/news/new-rode-i16-offers-360-surround-recording-for-ios-devices

Ciao,

Dave Hunt
Subject: [Sursound] Rode Soundfield NT-SF1
Date: 11 April 2018 11:26:00 BST
This should be interesting...
http://www.rode.com/nt-sf1
https://vimeo.com/264158943
Paul Hodges
2018-04-11 17:40:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
--On 11 April 2018 10:26 +0000 "Courville, Daniel"
Post by Courville, Daniel
http://www.rode.com/nt-sf1
Given the amount of space they've left behind the capsules, it seems a
shame they didn't take the opportunity to mount them closer. Perhaps
the space is crucial to the performance of the capsules.

I wonder how the capsules will compare with those on the SPS-200, given
that the projected cost is a mere fraction of that (if the price quoted
in the video is in Australian dollars, then it's only a quarter of the
price of the SPS-200!).

Paul
--
Paul Hodges
Jack Reynolds
2018-04-12 08:36:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
There is an optimum radius of about 15mm, below which the bottom end begins to suffer I’m told.
Paul Hodges
2018-04-12 09:12:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
--On 12 April 2018 09:36 +0100 Jack Reynolds
Post by Jack Reynolds
There is an optimum radius of about 15mm, below which the bottom end
begins to suffer I'm told.
I would guess this is practical rather than theoretical; determined by
a combination of noise (because of the gain required in the
differences) and the difficulty of precise calibration at low
frequencies.

Paul
--
Paul Hodges
Fons Adriaensen
2018-04-12 19:43:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Hodges
--On 12 April 2018 09:36 +0100 Jack Reynolds
Post by Jack Reynolds
There is an optimum radius of about 15mm, below which the bottom end
begins to suffer I'm told.
I would guess this is practical rather than theoretical; determined by
a combination of noise (because of the gain required in the
differences) and the difficulty of precise calibration at low
frequencies.
The radius would matter if omni capsules are used. In that case
the practical lower limit if you want the 1st order response to
go down to the 20-50 Hz range is around the size of the Eigenmic,
somwat more than 15 mm radius. And even then that requires very
careful calibration and stability.

Tetrahedral mics use near cardioid capsules, and extracting the
first order AMB components doesn't require a minimum distance
between them.

Ciao,
--
FA
Jack Reynolds
2018-04-12 22:33:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
So is a larger radius A-Format mic not a problem then? I always thought the radius dictated the upper frequency limit for spatial aliasing.
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
2018-04-13 17:14:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Reynolds
So is a larger radius A-Format mic not a problem then? I always thought the radius dictated the upper frequency limit for spatial aliasing.
The radius defines the frequency at which the array stops behaving like
a coincident array. Above that frequency filters are normally used to
try to compensate for that, but they cannot equalize the array equally
well in all directions. A smaller array will be better in the sense that
those problems will happen at higher frequencies.

-- Fernando
Jack Reynolds
2018-04-13 17:23:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
That’s what I thought.
I have also heard that a radius smaller than 15mm or so has detrimental effects on the low end
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
2018-04-13 17:58:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Reynolds
That’s what I thought.
I have also heard that a radius smaller than 15mm or so has detrimental effects on the low end
The is probably related to the size of the capsules. As you bring the
radius down you have to use smaller capsules and the low frequency
response will suffer (for example, I can see a big difference in low end
response between microphones I have built using 10mm capsules - array
radius of 9.2mm - vs. 14mm capsules - array radius 11mm, but that is
because of the capsules themselves).

-- Fernando
David Pickett
2018-04-14 08:17:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In
https://www.waves.com/ambisonics-explained-guide-for-sound-engineers it says:

"...there are two conventions within the Ambisonics B-format
standard: AmbiX and FuMa. They are quite similar, but not
interchangeable: they differ by the sequence in which the four
channels are arranged..."

Could someone be so kind as to tell me what the exact sequence and
level differences are, so that I can convert first and second order
B-format files between the two standards? (I am working with separate
B-format wavfiles -- not multichannel wavfiles -- and as far as I can
find there are no plugins for this situation.)

Many thanks in advance!

David
Jack Reynolds
2018-04-14 08:55:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FuMa is WXYZ and ambiX is WYZX with SN3D normalisation.
I forget the gains off the top of my head, but will have a look and get back if no one else has chipped in.
J
Fons Adriaensen
2018-04-14 10:55:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Reynolds
FuMa is WXYZ and ambiX is WYZX with SN3D normalisation.
I forget the gains off the top of my head, but will have
a look and get back if no one else has chipped in.
Convert FuMa to Ambix
---------------------

ACN-0 = 1.4142 * W (+3.01 dB)
ACN-1 = Y
ACN-2 = Z
ACN-3 = X
------
ACN-4 = 0.8660 * V (-1.25 dB)
ACN-5 = 0.8660 * T
ACN-6 = R
ACN-7 = 0.8660 * S
ACN-8 = 0.8660 * U
------
ACN-9 = 0.7906 * Q (-2.04 dB)
ACN-10 = 0.7454 * O (-2.55 dB)
ACN-11 = 0.8433 * M (-1.48 dB)
ACN-12 = K
ACN-13 = 0.8433 * L
ACN-14 = 0.7454 * N
ACN-15 = 0.7906 * P

Ambix files should use CAF (Apple's Core Audio Format),
but in practice WAVEX is used as well.


Convert Ambix to Fuma
---------------------

W = 0.7071 * ACN-0 (-3.01 dB)
X = ACN-3
Y = ACN-1
Z = ACN-2
-----
R = ACN-6
S = 1.1547 * ACN-7 (+1.25 dB)
T = 1.1547 * ACN-5
U = 1.1547 * ACN-8
V = 1.1547 * ACN-4
-----
K = ACN-12
L = 1.1859 * ACN-13 (+1.48 dB)
M = 1.1859 * ACN-11
N = 1.3416 * ACN-14 (+2.55 dB)
O = 1.3416 * ACN-10
P = 1.2649 * ACN-15 (+2.04 dB)
Q = 1.2649 * ACN-9


Ciao,
--
FA
David Pickett
2018-04-14 15:28:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Thanks, Fons. I was hoping it was something as simple as this. I
failed to find anything on the internet that expresses the
relationships so simply. Did I actually miss a page?

David
Post by Fons Adriaensen
Post by Jack Reynolds
FuMa is WXYZ and ambiX is WYZX with SN3D normalisation.
I forget the gains off the top of my head, but will have
a look and get back if no one else has chipped in.
Convert FuMa to Ambix
---------------------
ACN-0 = 1.4142 * W (+3.01 dB)
ACN-1 = Y
ACN-2 = Z
ACN-3 = X
------
ACN-4 = 0.8660 * V (-1.25 dB)
ACN-5 = 0.8660 * T
ACN-6 = R
ACN-7 = 0.8660 * S
ACN-8 = 0.8660 * U
------
ACN-9 = 0.7906 * Q (-2.04 dB)
ACN-10 = 0.7454 * O (-2.55 dB)
ACN-11 = 0.8433 * M (-1.48 dB)
ACN-12 = K
ACN-13 = 0.8433 * L
ACN-14 = 0.7454 * N
ACN-15 = 0.7906 * P
Ambix files should use CAF (Apple's Core Audio Format),
but in practice WAVEX is used as well.
Convert Ambix to Fuma
---------------------
W = 0.7071 * ACN-0 (-3.01 dB)
X = ACN-3
Y = ACN-1
Z = ACN-2
-----
R = ACN-6
S = 1.1547 * ACN-7 (+1.25 dB)
T = 1.1547 * ACN-5
U = 1.1547 * ACN-8
V = 1.1547 * ACN-4
-----
K = ACN-12
L = 1.1859 * ACN-13 (+1.48 dB)
M = 1.1859 * ACN-11
N = 1.3416 * ACN-14 (+2.55 dB)
O = 1.3416 * ACN-10
P = 1.2649 * ACN-15 (+2.04 dB)
Q = 1.2649 * ACN-9
Ciao,
--
FA
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Fons Adriaensen
2018-04-14 15:53:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Thanks, Fons. I was hoping it was something as simple as this. I failed to
find anything on the internet that expresses the relationships so simply.
Did I actually miss a page?
Not one I know of. Some of my programs (e.g. Ambdec) do the conversion
when required, so I just took these gain figures from my source code.

Ciao,
--
FA
Jörn Nettingsmeier
2018-04-17 20:46:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fons Adriaensen
Thanks, Fons. I was hoping it was something as simple as this. I failed to
find anything on the internet that expresses the relationships so simply.
Did I actually miss a page?
Not one I know of. Some of my programs (e.g. Ambdec) do the conversion
when required, so I just took these gain figures from my source code.
There is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonic_data_exchange_formats#Reference_table_of_layouts_and_normalisations
, which could use a few eyeballs and probably be made a little friendlier.
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Tuinbouwstraat 180, 1097 ZB Amsterdam, Nederland
Tel. +49 177 7937487

Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio), Tonmeister VDT
http://stackingdwarves.net
Jon Honeyball
2018-04-16 08:15:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The wonderful thing about standards is the opportunity to have lots of them

jon
Post by Jack Reynolds
FuMa is WXYZ and ambiX is WYZX with SN3D normalisation.
I forget the gains off the top of my head, but will have a look and get back if no one else has chipped in.
J
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Bearcat M. Şándor
2018-04-17 17:54:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Is one standard considered better (or more common) than the other?
Post by Jon Honeyball
The wonderful thing about standards is the opportunity to have lots of them
jon
Post by Jack Reynolds
FuMa is WXYZ and ambiX is WYZX with SN3D normalisation.
I forget the gains off the top of my head, but will have a look and get
back if no one else has chipped in.
Post by Jack Reynolds
J
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
edit account or options, view archives and so on.
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
edit account or options, view archives and so on.
--
Bearcat M. Şándor
Feline Soul Systems LLC
Voice: 872.CAT.SOUL (872.228.7685)
Fax: 406.235.7070
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180417/3f25a4d0/attachment.html>
Jack Reynolds
2018-04-17 19:03:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
AmbiX is more common these days
Paul Hodges
2018-04-14 10:42:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
(I am working with separate B-format wavfiles -- not multichannel
wavfiles -- and as far as I can find there are no plugins for this
situation.)
There are many reasons not to use Steinberg's WaveLab for ambisonics
(though it works fine for me, doing just 1st order), but it is standard
practice in WaveLab to have a montage with a file per channel, writing
four separate files for output, but having a four-channel plugin in the
master section. It's how I do /all/ my ambisonic work at present! (it
can also write 4-channel files for distribution).

Paul
--
Paul Hodges
David Pickett
2018-04-14 15:42:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I have never used Steinberg's Wavelab for anything. :) But it sounds
like it has similar drawbacks to the otherwise excellent Samplitude,
which I DO use.

Incidentally, one of the drawbacks of multichannel wavfiles for HOA
is their large size for any reasonable length of musical composition.
At 48kHz, a 9-channel 2nd order file takes c. 74MB for 1 minute of
music. Alternatively, 1GB lasts about 13.5 minutes in 2nd order or
about 30.4 mins in 1st order.

David
Post by Paul Hodges
(I am working with separate B-format wavfiles -- not multichannel
wavfiles -- and as far as I can find there are no plugins for this
situation.)
There are many reasons not to use Steinberg's WaveLab for ambisonics
(though it works fine for me, doing just 1st order), but it is standard
practice in WaveLab to have a montage with a file per channel, writing
four separate files for output, but having a four-channel plugin in the
master section. It's how I do /all/ my ambisonic work at present! (it
can also write 4-channel files for distribution).
Paul
--
Paul Hodges
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Fons Adriaensen
2018-04-14 15:51:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Incidentally, one of the drawbacks of multichannel wavfiles for HOA is their
large size for any reasonable length of musical composition. At 48kHz, a
9-channel 2nd order file takes c. 74MB for 1 minute of music. Alternatively,
1GB lasts about 13.5 minutes in 2nd order or about 30.4 mins in 1st order.
This is one of the reasons why the CAF file format was chosen for Ambix.
It doesn't have the 32-bit file size limit of most other formats (all
size fields are 64-bit).

Ciao,
--
FA
David Pickett
2018-04-14 17:22:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fons Adriaensen
Incidentally, one of the drawbacks of multichannel wavfiles for HOA is their
large size for any reasonable length of musical composition. At 48kHz, a
9-channel 2nd order file takes c. 74MB for 1 minute of music.
Alternatively,
Post by Fons Adriaensen
1GB lasts about 13.5 minutes in 2nd order or about 30.4 mins in 1st order.
This is one of the reasons why the CAF file format was chosen for Ambix.
It doesn't have the 32-bit file size limit of most other formats (all
size fields are 64-bit).
Doesnt this limit one to the Apple environment?

David
Marc Lavallée
2018-04-14 17:38:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Pickett
Post by Fons Adriaensen
Post by David Pickett
Incidentally, one of the drawbacks of multichannel wavfiles for HOA
is their
Post by Fons Adriaensen
Post by David Pickett
large size for any reasonable length of musical composition. At
48kHz, a
Post by Fons Adriaensen
Post by David Pickett
9-channel 2nd order file takes c. 74MB for 1 minute of music.
Alternatively,
Post by Fons Adriaensen
Post by David Pickett
1GB lasts about 13.5 minutes in 2nd order or about 30.4 mins in 1st
order.
Post by Fons Adriaensen
This is one of the reasons why the CAF file format was chosen for Ambix.
It doesn't have the 32-bit file size limit of most other formats (all
size fields are 64-bit).
Doesnt this limit one to the Apple environment?
David
Hi David.

Short answer: no.

More info (and a sample file) here:
http://samplephotovideo.com/2015/12/download-caf-apple-core-audio-format-caf/

Any software using libsndfile (ex: sox, ffmpeg) can read (and possibly
write) CAF files:
http://www.mega-nerd.com/libsndfile/

--
Marc
Jack Reynolds
2018-04-14 18:08:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
RF64 is also an option for 64bit WAV files via libsndfile.
I am attempting to add BW64 to the library for ADM purposes, but it’s taking a while.
J
David Pickett
2018-04-14 18:28:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I can handle those. :)
Post by Jack Reynolds
RF64 is also an option for 64bit WAV files via libsndfile.
I am attempting to add BW64 to the library for ADM purposes, but
it’s taking a while.
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Jon Honeyball
2018-04-16 08:18:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14 Apr 2018, at 16:42, David Pickett <***@fugato.com<mailto:***@fugato.com>> wrote:

Incidentally, one of the drawbacks of multichannel wavfiles for HOA is their large size for any reasonable length of musical composition. At 48kHz, a 9-channel 2nd order file takes c. 74MB for 1 minute of music. Alternatively, 1GB lasts about 13.5 minutes in 2nd order or about 30.4 mins in 1st order

It doesn’t help when some equipment fails to play back more than one file in sequence. The latest deeply cute Sound Devices will only play one file, and not continue on to the next one. So your playback time is limited to some 15 minutes (at best resolution) and it only records polywav.

Talk about gun/foot/shoot…

(confirmed with SD tech support staff at NAB last week in vegas)

Jon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180416/8b7d2bc4/attachment.html>
David Pickett
2018-04-16 08:45:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jon Honeyball
On 14 Apr 2018, at 16:42, David Pickett
Incidentally, one of the drawbacks of multichannel wavfiles for HOA is
their large size for any reasonable length of musical composition. At
48kHz, a 9-channel 2nd order file takes c. 74MB for 1 minute of music.
Alternatively, 1GB lasts about 13.5 minutes in 2nd order or about 30.4
mins in 1st order
It doesn’t help when some equipment fails to play back more than one
file in sequence. The latest deeply cute Sound Devices will only play
one file, and not continue on to the next one. So your playback time
is limited to some 15 minutes (at best
resolution) and it only records polywav.
Post by Jon Honeyball
Talk about gun/foot/shoot…
(confirmed with SSD tech support staff at NAB last week in vegas)
Indeed. The latest Oppo box has the same problem.
But perhaps people only listen to 4 minute singles these days.

I quite understand that the demands made by one
file per track recordings on writing to storage
in real time are currently too great to handle,
whereas boxes like the Alesis HD24 and RME UFX
will store between 24 and 60 hi res tracks using
multitrack files and proprietary storage formats;
but on the other hand, why not either write
soft/firm-ware that will link these together, or
separate them into single files, for playback?

David
Andres Pérez López
2018-04-14 16:04:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear David,

regarding Ambisonics normalization ("level differences"), you might find
interesting the following article by T. Carpentier: "Normalization
Schemes in Ambisonic: Does it Matter?
<http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18645>".

Best,

Andrés
In
AmbiX and FuMa. They are quite similar, but not interchangeable: they
differ by the sequence in which the four channels are arranged..."
Could someone be so kind as to tell me what the exact sequence and
level differences are, so that I can convert first and second order
B-format files between the two standards? (I am working with separate
B-format wavfiles -- not multichannel wavfiles -- and as far as I can
find there are no plugins for this situation.)
Many thanks in advance!
David
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180414/5cadd91c/attachment.html>
Chris Woolf
2018-04-14 10:49:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I'd be very interested to know the argument behind that.

Although bass response is affected by size in speakers I don't know of
any reason for that in microphones.

Chris Woolf
Post by Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
Post by Jack Reynolds
That’s what I thought.
I have also heard that a radius smaller than 15mm or so has
detrimental effects on the low end
The is probably related to the size of the capsules. As you bring the
radius down you have to use smaller capsules and the low frequency
response will suffer (for example, I can see a big difference in low
end response between microphones I have built using 10mm capsules -
array radius of 9.2mm - vs. 14mm capsules - array radius 11mm, but
that is because of the capsules themselves).
-- Fernando
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe
here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Fons Adriaensen
2018-04-14 11:27:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Woolf
I'd be very interested to know the argument behind that.
Although bass response is affected by size in speakers I don't know of any
reason for that in microphones.
This has little to do with response, and all with directivity.

It's perfectly possible to have a tiny mic with excellent bass
response. But it's quite difficult to maintain directivity
as size goes down. Also self-noise will be worse for small
capsules - they just get less acoustic energy.

If the capsules don't provide directivity, then it has to
be obtained by amplifying the differences between capsule
outputs. The required gain (for first order) is proportional
to the ratio wavelenght / capsule distance, so it will be
higher as frequency and/or mic size go down.
There are practical limits to what can be done this way,
and that more or less imposes a minimum practical size.

Ciao,
--
FA
Chris Woolf
2018-04-12 09:20:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Hodges
...
I wonder how the capsules will compare with those on the SPS-200, given
that the projected cost is a mere fraction of that (if the price quoted
in the video is in Australian dollars, then it's only a quarter of the
price of the SPS-200!).
While I have been sceptical in the past about Rode products I have to
admit that many of their more recent ones have been remarkably good for
the price. The company's willingness to commit to a lot of capital
expenditure in automating manufacture, on the presumption of being able
to sell high volumes, has made low cost manufacture possible. They seem
able to compete with Far East pricing, yet maintain Western engineering
values - a scary feat.

They've also bought Peter Schillebeeckx with the Soundfield remnants, so
they do have some proper expertise too.

Only time will tell if the product really works, but it can't be
dismissed out of hand now.

Chris Woolf


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rudy Chalupa
2018-04-16 13:07:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://xkcd.com/927/



-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Honeyball <***@jonhoneyball.com>
To: Surround Sound discussion group <***@music.vt.edu>
Sent: Mon, Apr 16, 2018 4:19 am
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion

The wonderful thing about standards is the opportunity to have lots of them

jon
Post by Jack Reynolds
FuMa is WXYZ and ambiX is WYZX with SN3D normalisation.
I forget the gains off the top of my head, but will have a look and get back if no one else has chipped in.
J
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
***@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180416/b568f1fb/attachment.html>
Dave Hunt
2018-04-18 17:30:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi,

I suppose that the effective answer is that "the most common standard is the standard".

Rather worrying considering the effects this can have on social media.

The two standards we are talking of are both well defined and agreed on, and reasonably equivalent, and conversion between them on a computer, or DSP box is fairly trivial. It could even be done in analogue hardware, though I don't foresee that demand for it would make it commercially viable.

Ambix format is a shift from history, and seems to make most sense mathematically. A bit strange to those of us brought up on FuMa, especially with X delegated to the fourth channel, and "less important" than Z. .

Ciao,

Dave Hunt
Post by Rudy Chalupa
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion
Date: 17 April 2018 18:54:17 BST
Is one standard considered better (or more common) than the other?
Loading...