As one who is developing his own recipe for a "poor-man's 3D" (actually 2D) reverb solution in stereo (using Precedence and Breeze plugins), I'll be fascinated to hear demos of VSL's forthcoming MIR 3D.
Have to say I've never been particularly enamoured of any kind of surround sound solution. Gamers are probably the biggest potential market for ambisonics, because (theoretically) it can help the player's own internal 3D situational awareness. But in listening to orchestral music, I've never felt any want or need for that kind of situational awareness - indeed it can sometimes be an unwelcome distraction. Perhaps I'm odd in that way, or maybe just not a terribly good consumer. (Well, at least Harry Gregson-Williams seems to have a similar opinion.)
Nevertheless, I certainly do love a rich and interesting stereo field, most especially one in which the direct sound from each instrument, section or subsection (usually a dry mono source, although a little wetness - as in the Synchron close/mid mics - seems to help rather than hinder) is placed in the azimuth/distance field by differences of time and HRTF (Head-Related Transfer Function) in each channel of the stereo outcome. Simply-modelled HF air absorption, along with the plain old-fashioned loudness/distance law can also help HRTF in conjuring a pretty fair sense of distance.
Stereo-to-stereo reverb (I much prefer today's algorithmic type) is then icing on the cake. I like to have two aizimuth generator/HRTF plugins and two stereo-to-stereo reverb plugins for each instrument section, which I find helps enormously with the sense of 2D placement. And I like to put slight algorthmic differences in each of the pair of reverbs.
But I'm very curious to hear what difference to the stereo field can be made by today's ambisonics. I've been happy enough to posit that direct sound paths are primarily what the ear uses for azimuth detection and for best (HRTF-derived) sense of distance, while the whole sound including (stereo-to-stereo) reverb gives the ear other, more general clues about distances. Does ambisonics treat reflected paths such that the ear receives yet more, definite clues about exact placement of the sources, as compared to the solution I've described above?
