"ScottW" wrote in message
...
On Monday, October 28, 2013 3:39:14 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. 5.1 and 7.1 were developed
for cinema
sound playback in the home, not for accurate sound field reproduction. I
don't think
that there is a real definitive answer to that question. Ideally, we're
probably talking
an infinite number of channels, and practically speaking, far fewer. How
many seems to
be a matter for much speculation.
The number required is going to largely depend upon the space in which the
"sound field" is being recreated.
I briefly (a week) worked in an RF anechoic chamber (which was also a very
effective acoustic chamber) and found that stereo just didn't work at modest
distances from the speakers. Mono was far better IMO. I'd guess that to
overcome the impact of any space (or room)...infinite is probably the right
answer.
ScottW
Not infinite. The Philips company in Eindhoven did this with - I forget
exactly - about 24 channels. they could create any space that they had the
data for, and make the recording sound like it was there.
But this is not the goal of normal reproduction. What we are doing is using
the recorded ambience and trying to mix it with the acoustics of a normal,
good sounding room to make that room sound more like the origiinal. As Scott
has observed, we do NOT want to eliminate the real room from the
reproduction because we need the real acoustics to anchor the stereo sound
in a real space for it to externalize and sound real to our normal, natural
hearing.
Ralph Glasgal tries for a "you are there" realism by using his Ambiophonics
system to do loudspeaker binaural in surround sound. I have not heard it,
but it sounds like a noble attempt to extract even more of the recorded
acoustic.
http://www.ambiophonics.org/
Gary Eickmeier