AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have read people who swear this format is better than Logic7 or Triefield. What makes Ambisonic differerent? I have never heard it. Is it better for HT use than the other two?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,549 Posts
"Is it better for HT use than the other two?"


No, it requires Ambiosonic encoded material to work.


Logic 7 and Trifield work with existing material.


Shawn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,047 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bone
I have read people who swear this format is better than Logic7 or Triefield. What makes Ambisonic differerent? I have never heard it. Is it better for HT use than the other two?
You have only read one person who swears this. lwang (who posts as lingw on HTF) is fond of proseletizing this discarded format at every opportunity. In addition to his erroneous grasp of the subject (confusing its function as a soundfield encoding process with transport formats like Dolby Digital), he neglects to mention key limitations of the format, such as the fact that it requires the use of a special microphone at the recording end (and the only source of such B-format recordings is the obscure Nimbus label, which produced no recordings you've ever heard of). Before you swallow his opinions as gospel, you might want to check his debates with people who are actually knowledgeable in both the theory and implementation of ambisonics and its creator, Michael Gerzon. Some enlightening discussions can be found at:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...s&pagenumber=3

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...s&pagenumber=2


You're wasting your time here.


Cheers,

Philip Brandes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,735 Posts
I participated in the beginning of that thread, but sensed that any reasonable information to counter or correct information about ambisonic sound was not penentrating. This format is dependent on very specific placment of the microphones during the recording process, and has produced very little in the way of popular software.


As Shawn and Phillip clearly illustrate in their responses, Meridian and Lexicon have decoding algorithims that work and enhance (in most cases) the listening experience for 99 percent of software available today. In addition, they tend to create a listening experience that can be enjoyed by more than one person, though this is dependent on speaker/listener placement and room acoustics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,284 Posts
Chris,


Don't waste you time here, this is a HT based forum.


Go to surround sound mailing list where they are estatic about Ambisonic:

http://mail.music.vt.edu/pipermail/sursound/


I usually search that site via google by
site:mail.music.vt.edu ambisonic


Don,


In that thread, you misunderstood me, I did not say 4 speakers were required, but 4 channels to carry the Ambisonic information. Playback could be with as many playback channels as your decoder have.



To capture the sound from 3-dimensions, you have to use the soundfield microphone. But that is not absolutely necessarily. Multi-miked or studio recordings could encode in ambisonic format by utilizing Gerzon's Ambisonic mixer, which pans both ILD and ITD simultanously and outputs in Ambisonic format.

Quote:
You have only read one person who swears this. lwang (who posts as lingw on HTF) is fond of proseletizing this discarded format at every opportunity. In addition to his erroneous grasp of the subject (confusing its function as a soundfield encoding process with transport formats like Dolby Digital), he neglects to mention key limitations of the format, such as the fact that it requires the use of a special microphone at the recording end (and the only source of such B-format recordings is the obscure Nimbus label, which produced no recordings you've ever heard of). Before you swallow his opinions as gospel, you might want to check his debates with people who are actually knowledgeable in both the theory and implementation of ambisonics and its creator, Michael Gerzon.
No need to point out in all the errors in this paragraph, besides the fact it wasn't written by someone who believes in Ambisonic and thinks today's pan-pot surround is good enough.


Ambisonic also has a 2ch to B-format suitable for Ambisonic decoding. It is called SuperStereo. I use it to only check out how it sounds, but rarely leave it on for serious listening. I usually leave it on Trifield mode on my Meridian.



Chesky's best recording to date, Swing Live, was recorded using the Ambisonic Soundfield microphone and pre-decoded into his custom 6 ch format. He could have done it in G+2 format (std 5.1) but he believes his speaker at 1st reflection is better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,549 Posts
Lwang,


"Don't waste you time here, this is a HT based forum. "


And he asked about ambisonics for a 'HT use.' Can you point out a single movie encoded in ambisonics?


Shawn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,284 Posts
sfogg,


I know, Chris is looking for processor in a 100% HT environment. No need to try to convert someone already in the other camp.


BTW, Ambisonic works on DPL source since its UHJ format (putting WXY channels into 2ch CD) utilizes similar matrixing to DPL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,549 Posts
Lwang,


"No need to try to convert someone already in the other camp. "


Then why did you try to?


Ambisonic is completely useless (nothing encoded) in the HT context Chris asked about.


"BTW, Ambisonic works on DPL source since its UHJ format (putting WXY channels into 2ch CD) utilizes similar matrixing to DPL."


How does this mean Ambisonic will 'work' on a Dolby Surround (there is no such thing as a DPL source) source?


UHJ format encodes the Ambisonic information into a 2 channel source in a matrix like you said. But upon decoding the UHJ format first matrixes out the Ambisonic info (the additional channels) them applies Ambisonic processing on that.


To apply Ambisonic processing on Dolby Surround material doesn't sound like a useful exercise.


There are however plenty of matrixes which can decode Dolby Surround material and enhance it far better then Pro Logic decoding.


Logic 7, TriField, DPLII, 6-Axis and so on all come to mind.


Shawn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
After much study, the help of these forums and the chance to audition a Lexicon MC-12 I believe I have rounded down my choices down to the Lexicon MC-12 and the Meridian 861. I have not had the chance to audition the 861 yet but since I am 100% HT I think these are my two best options. Has anyone had the chance to hear both of these units in an HT enviroment? What did you think? The Lex I heard was great! Does the difference in sound warrant the extra money for the Meridian? Is there anything about the Meridians price that has to do with it's ability to work in conjunction with the other Meridian equipment? It just seems like you are paying an awful lot if you are not using their digital speakers etc. I have no problem spending the extra money if the HT sound is much better. I do not think features or options can warrant a big difference between the two since they both are excellent in this regards-so it just rounds down to a question of sound. And I do mean movie sound ,not music.


Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,151 Posts
Quote:
...I believe I have rounded down my choices down to the Lexicon MC-12 and the Meridian 861.
Your two choices are, IMHO, the two best processors on the market currently. Now the hard part...
Quote:
Does the difference in sound warrant the extra money for the Meridian?
Only you can decide on the sound quality. At these prices you should really trust your ears and listen, listen, listen. Since a level-matched double-blind test is probably out of the question, heh, I suggest spending as much time with each processor that you can. Play around with the surround modes and adjustments as much as possible.
Quote:
It just seems like you are paying an awful lot if you are not using their digital speakers etc.
Good point; all those encrypted digital outputs don't come cheap. But even if you don't use their digital speakers, the 861 still has a lot going for it as a pre/pro.
Quote:
I do not think features or options can warrant a big difference between the two since they both are excellent in this regards-so it just rounds down to a question of sound.
They both sound excellent. However, don't dismiss the difference in features just yet. Their two feature sets might be similar but one of them will more closely match what you're looking for and end up being more useful to you in the end. Examine the features, flexibility and adjustability of each processor carefully. After all, once you get it home you'll be living with and using this thing for hopefully a very long time (and through many changes in the consumer electronics industry). And also carefully examine the user interface: how easy it is to set up, to change parameters, to configure new source inputs, to add additional speakers, etc.


In any case, you settled on the two best so you can't lose either way. And remember, trust your ears.


Good Luck,

Sanjay
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top