Hi,

VSL has deliberately chosen _not_ to implement a full-featured coefficient designer for spherical Ambisonics decoding directly in MIR 3D. Such an advanced tool requires some time to get used to and would have overloaded an already very feature-rich application like MIR 3D by far. Please understand that we therefore cannot and will not provide detailed support for AllRADecoder - it is an application released and supported by the smart people at IEM Graz.

Nevertheless, I will try to create a dedicated 5.(1).2 JSON file for MIR 3D during the next days. I must admit that I've never heard of anyone working in this format (... in fact, none of the DAWs I work with support it), but your reasoning about CPU consumption makes sense. You would still need to open MIR 3D in a format with a higher channel count for it to work, and you might need to re-route the channels derived from MIR 3D to match Dear VR Monitor's input configuration.

Best,

PS: You might be better off in general by a coefficient-based 5.1 plus two capsules pointing towards the ceiling.

.... oh, and here's the JSON with the coefficients I used to create the Output Format I posted above (s. attachment).

I did try 5.1.4 and it killed my CPU also.  

The 5.1.2 one I made works fine though in terms of CPU, unless there is some sonic problem with it because I don't know anything about ambisonics...  

The LogicPro CPU is getting hit by having too many channels per plugin being processed.  With 100 tracks of that, it turns into 1200 audio channels at 7.1.4.  Regardless of the fact that using a downmix reduces how much audio is actually being transmitted on a subset of those channels, it brought my system to its knees.

Its nearly cut in half with 5.1.2.  So it makes a big difference for me here.  My home atmos system is also 5.1.2, so I don't find that format to be that odd at all!

Of course I can also just use 5.1.  Or even Quad!  In the quad case, you didn't provide a 3D-to-quad downmix...there is just the original mic array for quad...but may be ok if I wanted to do that, or 5.1 if I want to use your improved downmixing.  Eventually I will setup quad loudspeakers in my studio, but I'm not likely to add center channel or LFE in there.

But I quite like the sound I am getting from 5.1.2 through binaural headphones, which is the best my machine can handle.

I didn't find it that difficult to use the AllRADecoder...  Since you are unable to comment on what I did, I will just have to be ok with it and stop wondering if I did anything stupid.  ;-)

@Another User said:

.... oh, and here's the JSON with the coefficients I used to create the Output Format I posted above (s. attachment).

 

Thanks I will check that out too.  My initial impression after reading what you did is that this would not have as good of a sonic impression as a true ambisonic 5.1.2 because I think the ambisonics engine would take what normally might end up in the 5.1.4 front-ceiling, and with 5.1.2 spread it out to both the side-ceiling and front...such that it will sound somewhat in between.  Obviously more speakers in the array means more precision, but with lack of such speakers...then that is the better option.   Mearly downmixing the 5.1.4 virtual speaker array to 5.1.2 of course blurs the true fore-aft spatiality.

@Another User said:

My home atmos system is also 5.1.2, so I don't find that format to be that odd at all!

No doubt about that - it's just not supported by the DAWs mentioned above, sorry. 😊 Makes it quite a bit harder for me to do preset work in that format.

@Another User said:

My home atmos system is also 5.1.2, so I don't find that format to be that odd at all!

No doubt about that - it's just not supported by the DAWs mentioned above, sorry. 😊 Makes it quite a bit harder for me to do preset work in that format.

makes sense!  B-)

ps I wish I could figure out how to make screenshots show up on the actual posts like you did above...  

@Dietz said:

PS: You might be better off in general by a coefficient-based 5.1 plus two capsules pointing towards the ceiling. 

I wanted to ask you about this too though.  Are you suggesting that I should consider taking the above VMO and add two virtual microphones pointing towards the ceiling, in combination with the 5.1.2 coefficients file for virtual loudspeakers?

No, this would be a different approach. 

@Dietz said:

No, this would be a different approach. 

When I get my actual studio setup with some rears for "quad" it sounds like I might want to look into something similar like that though, will cross that bridge later... Really loving the sound of 5.1.2 in binaural headphones for now!