194,610 users have contributed to 42,925 threads and 257,982 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 3 new thread(s), 9 new post(s) and 118 new user(s).
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).
5.(1).2_DT_8U002722_canonical_basic.json.zip-1696259642226-e1kbx.zipI 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. ;-)
.... 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.
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.
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-)
.... oh, and here's the JSON with the coefficients I used to create the Output Format I posted above (s. attachment).
Thanks again for making that coefficients file and posting it! That is very enlightening. Plays back on my system and sounds great. I think your coefficients has a bit better stereo separation then the one I did last night, due to more triangles 😉 Other subtle changes you made to the gain settings and radius of each vortex... Thank you.
I guess the reason you have the TRR and TRL faders duped is because your DAW only supports 5.1.4 or something of that nature...so you're having to approximate a 5.1.2 playback on that daw channel configuration. On my system, I will be using 5.1.2 channel configuration, so I shouldn't have to dupe any audio to two faders in the matrix. I actually won't even see the TRR or TRL matrix faders in my case. it just labels the two ceiling speakers as TSR and TSL, intended to be at 90 degrees azimuth rather then 45.
Thanks again for the follow up Dietz!
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.
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!
