Thanks Michael for the good expanation about the "higer order" in 
Ambisonic. I might add that Ambisonic is capable of reproducing also 
the hight component of a sound, if the speaker setup is not just on a 
plane. With eight speakers set up as a cube I do get very nice results 
here, though 12 speakers would even be better. This regards 2nd Order 
though. For first order I do agree that it might be a matter of taste 
if it gets compared with amplitude panning based methods (5,1 Surround, 
Quattro, Stereo etc) of spatialisation. The advantage of higher order 
is more definition and a larger sweet spot . Another cool thing is that 
you do not have to do a new remix for other numbers or setups of 
speakers.

If 2nd order Ambisonic is enhanced with some methods to calculate 
distance clues, also distances of sound can be reproduced, which makes 
it quite stunning in my point of view. The instruments I have been 
announcing at my last mail do this.

There is also lots of information about Ambisonic in general, some 
useful links and a a tutorial at my site.

All the best,

Jan Jacob

sound         |         movement          |          object         |   
        space
sonic architecture       |        site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music 
  

Cool, I am envious. 8 speakers is only a function of four walls, quality,
and economics. It is by no means an ideal. For speakers in a plane it has
been demonstrated that more than 60 degrees of sparation between speakers
produces noticable sourcing. In other words you hear which speaker the sound
is coming from. With 60 degrees or less the sterio effect takes over, and
sound images can more easily locate between speakers. 60 x 6 = 360, which
explains 7.1 systems. Using 8 allows you to place two on each wall in a more
or less square room, thus maximizing seating. Any time you reduce a
theater's seating they have fits.

I have been wondering if there is a better function that could be used to
avoid 'orders' all together. We can do linear speakers now, which were not
possible when ambisonics was first created. Indeed we can do inverse conical
speakers, or inverse parabolics that are flat in the verticle dimension, but
inverse curved in the horizontal. My intuition tells me this arrangement
would be better suited to a more exact time reproduction. Having dispersion
factored into the array design would also facilitate better boundary
condition management for multiple speakers. Of course this makes speaker
design a function of the array type, since specific geometries are being
created.

I can not see successful concert scale surround sound happening for a few
years yet, but it has been a passion of mine for a good 7 years at least.

I think the first group of folks who can do credible surround in an arena or
concert hall with more than a few wooshes stand to make a substantial income
Like the line array speaker system before it, if it works this new thing
will take over professional audio. There is no doubt that this kind of array
would be difficult to fly, and demanding to set up Anyone wanting to try it
is welcome to drop me an email. I am no better at marketing than the Brit's
who came up with Ambisonics, but I love working with the technology.

As a final note, Ambisonics is a technology that is inheritly difficult to
patent because there are litterally infinite array definitions that will
work. I think this is the most substantial reason why it is not being done
on a large scale.

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Jacob Hofmann [mailto:jjh@sonicarchitecture.de]
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:44 AM
To: Csound List
Subject: Re: [Csnd] 2nd order Ambisonic encoding, Spatial Reverb and
Early reflections




Thanks Michael for the good expanation about the "higer order" in
Ambisonic. I might add that Ambisonic is capable of reproducing also
the hight component of a sound, if the speaker setup is not just on a
plane. With eight speakers set up as a cube I do get very nice results
here, though 12 speakers would even be better. This regards 2nd Order
though. For first order I do agree that it might be a matter of taste
if it gets compared with amplitude panning based methods (5,1 Surround,
Quattro, Stereo etc) of spatialisation. The advantage of higher order
is more definition and a larger sweet spot . Another cool thing is that
you do not have to do a new remix for other numbers or setups of
speakers.

If 2nd order Ambisonic is enhanced with some methods to calculate
distance clues, also distances of sound can be reproduced, which makes
it quite stunning in my point of view. The instruments I have been
announcing at my last mail do this.

There is also lots of information about Ambisonic in general, some
useful links and a a tutorial at my site.

All the best,

Jan Jacob

sound         |         movement          |          object         |
        space
sonic architecture       |        site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music


--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

Am I right to say that what generally is used is 2nd order
ambisonics? Is this what is encoded in the b-format, or
can you encode other orders in it?

Victor


At 04:41 03/10/2005, you wrote:
>Cool, I am envious. 8 speakers is only a function of four walls, quality,
>and economics. It is by no means an ideal. For speakers in a plane it has
>been demonstrated that more than 60 degrees of sparation between speakers
>produces noticable sourcing. In other words you hear which speaker the sound
>is coming from. With 60 degrees or less the sterio effect takes over, and
>sound images can more easily locate between speakers. 60 x 6 = 360, which
>explains 7.1 systems. Using 8 allows you to place two on each wall in a more
>or less square room, thus maximizing seating. Any time you reduce a
>theater's seating they have fits.
>
>I have been wondering if there is a better function that could be used to
>avoid 'orders' all together. We can do linear speakers now, which were not
>possible when ambisonics was first created. Indeed we can do inverse conical
>speakers, or inverse parabolics that are flat in the verticle dimension, but
>inverse curved in the horizontal. My intuition tells me this arrangement
>would be better suited to a more exact time reproduction. Having dispersion
>factored into the array design would also facilitate better boundary
>condition management for multiple speakers. Of course this makes speaker
>design a function of the array type, since specific geometries are being
>created.
>
>I can not see successful concert scale surround sound happening for a few
>years yet, but it has been a passion of mine for a good 7 years at least.
>
>I think the first group of folks who can do credible surround in an arena or
>concert hall with more than a few wooshes stand to make a substantial income
>Like the line array speaker system before it, if it works this new thing
>will take over professional audio. There is no doubt that this kind of array
>would be difficult to fly, and demanding to set up Anyone wanting to try it
>is welcome to drop me an email. I am no better at marketing than the Brit's
>who came up with Ambisonics, but I love working with the technology.
>
>As a final note, Ambisonics is a technology that is inheritly difficult to
>patent because there are litterally infinite array definitions that will
>work. I think this is the most substantial reason why it is not being done
>on a large scale.
>
>Michael
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jan Jacob Hofmann [mailto:jjh@sonicarchitecture.de]
>Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:44 AM
>To: Csound List
>Subject: Re: [Csnd] 2nd order Ambisonic encoding, Spatial Reverb and
>Early reflections
>
>
>
>
>Thanks Michael for the good expanation about the "higer order" in
>Ambisonic. I might add that Ambisonic is capable of reproducing also
>the hight component of a sound, if the speaker setup is not just on a
>plane. With eight speakers set up as a cube I do get very nice results
>here, though 12 speakers would even be better. This regards 2nd Order
>though. For first order I do agree that it might be a matter of taste
>if it gets compared with amplitude panning based methods (5,1 Surround,
>Quattro, Stereo etc) of spatialisation. The advantage of higher order
>is more definition and a larger sweet spot . Another cool thing is that
>you do not have to do a new remix for other numbers or setups of
>speakers.
>
>If 2nd order Ambisonic is enhanced with some methods to calculate
>distance clues, also distances of sound can be reproduced, which makes
>it quite stunning in my point of view. The instruments I have been
>announcing at my last mail do this.
>
>There is also lots of information about Ambisonic in general, some
>useful links and a a tutorial at my site.
>
>All the best,
>
>Jan Jacob
>
>sound         |         movement          |          object         |
>         space
>sonic architecture       |        site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
>spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music
>
>
>--
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>
>--
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

Victor Lazzarini
Music Technology Laboratory
Music Department
National University of Ireland, Maynooth 

Just to be pedantic: stereo Ambisonic recordings are UHJ-encoded B-Format, and 
can contain only the horizontal signal (W+X+Y); while "B-Format" embraces the 
four W+X+Y+Z signals i.e. including the height information. On the sursound list 
and elsewhere, everything is "B-Format", and one simply refers to "first-order 
B-Format, "second-order B-Format", and so on. Full 2nd-order B-Format requires 
nine channels, so in channel-count alone is beyond what the DVD spec can 
support. The closest one can get is "G-Fornat", devised by Richard Elen, which 
(deep breath...) is horizontal B-Format decoded to the standard 5.1 layout, and 
which is able to be back-encoded to the original B-Format for possible 
re-decoding to a larger speaker array. Anyone interested in the nitty-gritty of 
Ambisonics etc is strongly encouraged to subscribe to the sursound list, which 
also covers wavefield synthesis, ambiophonics, and all sorts of other esoteric 
stuff.

Richard Dobson



Michael Rempel wrote:

> B format is by definition first order. It is 'most common' because it
> encodes the ambisonic signal in 2 tracks that are stereo compatible. Any
> records or CDs you find will be B format. Audio dvd may be higher order, at
> least it is theoretically possible.
> 
> Michael Rempel

B format is by definition first order. It is 'most common' because it
encodes the ambisonic signal in 2 tracks that are stereo compatible. Any
records or CDs you find will be B format. Audio dvd may be higher order, at
least it is theoretically possible.

Michael Rempel

-----Original Message-----
From: Victor Lazzarini [mailto:Victor.Lazzarini@nuim.ie]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 8:14 AM
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Csnd] 2nd order Ambisonic encoding, Spatial Reverb and
Early reflections


Am I right to say that what generally is used is 2nd order
ambisonics? Is this what is encoded in the b-format, or
can you encode other orders in it?

Victor


At 04:41 03/10/2005, you wrote:
>Cool, I am envious. 8 speakers is only a function of four walls, quality,
>and economics. It is by no means an ideal. For speakers in a plane it has
>been demonstrated that more than 60 degrees of sparation between speakers
>produces noticable sourcing. In other words you hear which speaker the
sound
>is coming from. With 60 degrees or less the sterio effect takes over, and
>sound images can more easily locate between speakers. 60 x 6 = 360, which
>explains 7.1 systems. Using 8 allows you to place two on each wall in a
more
>or less square room, thus maximizing seating. Any time you reduce a
>theater's seating they have fits.
>
>I have been wondering if there is a better function that could be used to
>avoid 'orders' all together. We can do linear speakers now, which were not
>possible when ambisonics was first created. Indeed we can do inverse
conical
>speakers, or inverse parabolics that are flat in the verticle dimension,
but
>inverse curved in the horizontal. My intuition tells me this arrangement
>would be better suited to a more exact time reproduction. Having dispersion
>factored into the array design would also facilitate better boundary
>condition management for multiple speakers. Of course this makes speaker
>design a function of the array type, since specific geometries are being
>created.
>
>I can not see successful concert scale surround sound happening for a few
>years yet, but it has been a passion of mine for a good 7 years at least.
>
>I think the first group of folks who can do credible surround in an arena
or
>concert hall with more than a few wooshes stand to make a substantial
income
>Like the line array speaker system before it, if it works this new thing
>will take over professional audio. There is no doubt that this kind of
array
>would be difficult to fly, and demanding to set up Anyone wanting to try it
>is welcome to drop me an email. I am no better at marketing than the Brit's
>who came up with Ambisonics, but I love working with the technology.
>
>As a final note, Ambisonics is a technology that is inheritly difficult to
>patent because there are litterally infinite array definitions that will
>work. I think this is the most substantial reason why it is not being done
>on a large scale.
>
>Michael
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jan Jacob Hofmann [mailto:jjh@sonicarchitecture.de]
>Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:44 AM
>To: Csound List
>Subject: Re: [Csnd] 2nd order Ambisonic encoding, Spatial Reverb and
>Early reflections
>
>
>
>
>Thanks Michael for the good expanation about the "higer order" in
>Ambisonic. I might add that Ambisonic is capable of reproducing also
>the hight component of a sound, if the speaker setup is not just on a
>plane. With eight speakers set up as a cube I do get very nice results
>here, though 12 speakers would even be better. This regards 2nd Order
>though. For first order I do agree that it might be a matter of taste
>if it gets compared with amplitude panning based methods (5,1 Surround,
>Quattro, Stereo etc) of spatialisation. The advantage of higher order
>is more definition and a larger sweet spot . Another cool thing is that
>you do not have to do a new remix for other numbers or setups of
>speakers.
>
>If 2nd order Ambisonic is enhanced with some methods to calculate
>distance clues, also distances of sound can be reproduced, which makes
>it quite stunning in my point of view. The instruments I have been
>announcing at my last mail do this.
>
>There is also lots of information about Ambisonic in general, some
>useful links and a a tutorial at my site.
>
>All the best,
>
>Jan Jacob
>
>sound         |         movement          |          object         |
>         space
>sonic architecture       |        site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
>spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music
>
>
>--
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>
>--
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

Victor Lazzarini
Music Technology Laboratory
Music Department
National University of Ireland, Maynooth

--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

Pardon me, the sterio compatible format is UHJ, which is B format
translated.

B format is still first order.

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Rempel [mailto:michael_rempel@shaw.ca]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 3:08 PM
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Csnd] 2nd order Ambisonic encoding, Spatial Reverb and
Early reflections


B format is by definition first order. It is 'most common' because it
encodes the ambisonic signal in 2 tracks that are stereo compatible. Any
records or CDs you find will be B format. Audio dvd may be higher order, at
least it is theoretically possible.

Michael Rempel

-----Original Message-----
From: Victor Lazzarini [mailto:Victor.Lazzarini@nuim.ie]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 8:14 AM
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Csnd] 2nd order Ambisonic encoding, Spatial Reverb and
Early reflections


Am I right to say that what generally is used is 2nd order
ambisonics? Is this what is encoded in the b-format, or
can you encode other orders in it?

Victor


At 04:41 03/10/2005, you wrote:
>Cool, I am envious. 8 speakers is only a function of four walls, quality,
>and economics. It is by no means an ideal. For speakers in a plane it has
>been demonstrated that more than 60 degrees of sparation between speakers
>produces noticable sourcing. In other words you hear which speaker the
sound
>is coming from. With 60 degrees or less the sterio effect takes over, and
>sound images can more easily locate between speakers. 60 x 6 = 360, which
>explains 7.1 systems. Using 8 allows you to place two on each wall in a
more
>or less square room, thus maximizing seating. Any time you reduce a
>theater's seating they have fits.
>
>I have been wondering if there is a better function that could be used to
>avoid 'orders' all together. We can do linear speakers now, which were not
>possible when ambisonics was first created. Indeed we can do inverse
conical
>speakers, or inverse parabolics that are flat in the verticle dimension,
but
>inverse curved in the horizontal. My intuition tells me this arrangement
>would be better suited to a more exact time reproduction. Having dispersion
>factored into the array design would also facilitate better boundary
>condition management for multiple speakers. Of course this makes speaker
>design a function of the array type, since specific geometries are being
>created.
>
>I can not see successful concert scale surround sound happening for a few
>years yet, but it has been a passion of mine for a good 7 years at least.
>
>I think the first group of folks who can do credible surround in an arena
or
>concert hall with more than a few wooshes stand to make a substantial
income
>Like the line array speaker system before it, if it works this new thing
>will take over professional audio. There is no doubt that this kind of
array
>would be difficult to fly, and demanding to set up Anyone wanting to try it
>is welcome to drop me an email. I am no better at marketing than the Brit's
>who came up with Ambisonics, but I love working with the technology.
>
>As a final note, Ambisonics is a technology that is inheritly difficult to
>patent because there are litterally infinite array definitions that will
>work. I think this is the most substantial reason why it is not being done
>on a large scale.
>
>Michael
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jan Jacob Hofmann [mailto:jjh@sonicarchitecture.de]
>Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:44 AM
>To: Csound List
>Subject: Re: [Csnd] 2nd order Ambisonic encoding, Spatial Reverb and
>Early reflections
>
>
>
>
>Thanks Michael for the good expanation about the "higer order" in
>Ambisonic. I might add that Ambisonic is capable of reproducing also
>the hight component of a sound, if the speaker setup is not just on a
>plane. With eight speakers set up as a cube I do get very nice results
>here, though 12 speakers would even be better. This regards 2nd Order
>though. For first order I do agree that it might be a matter of taste
>if it gets compared with amplitude panning based methods (5,1 Surround,
>Quattro, Stereo etc) of spatialisation. The advantage of higher order
>is more definition and a larger sweet spot . Another cool thing is that
>you do not have to do a new remix for other numbers or setups of
>speakers.
>
>If 2nd order Ambisonic is enhanced with some methods to calculate
>distance clues, also distances of sound can be reproduced, which makes
>it quite stunning in my point of view. The instruments I have been
>announcing at my last mail do this.
>
>There is also lots of information about Ambisonic in general, some
>useful links and a a tutorial at my site.
>
>All the best,
>
>Jan Jacob
>
>sound         |         movement          |          object         |
>         space
>sonic architecture       |        site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
>spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music
>
>
>--
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>
>--
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

Victor Lazzarini
Music Technology Laboratory
Music Department
National University of Ireland, Maynooth

--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

Well said sir. Except I would add that G-format, or even g+2 format are not
as 'nice' as real ambisonics. The wierdness of non-uniform speaker spacing
is at least partly responsible. It is as good as 5.1 gets, but imho it is
not even close to being as good as 6 speaker true ambisonics.

The only addition is to add the web site to subscribe to sursound.I just
subscribed myself, didnt know about it. Thank you for the info Richard.

http://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound/




-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Dobson [mailto:richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 1:53 PM
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Csnd] 2nd order Ambisonic encoding, Spatial Reverb and
Early reflections


Just to be pedantic: stereo Ambisonic recordings are UHJ-encoded B-Format,
and
can contain only the horizontal signal (W+X+Y); while "B-Format" embraces
the
four W+X+Y+Z signals i.e. including the height information. On the sursound
list
and elsewhere, everything is "B-Format", and one simply refers to
"first-order
B-Format, "second-order B-Format", and so on. Full 2nd-order B-Format
requires
nine channels, so in channel-count alone is beyond what the DVD spec can
support. The closest one can get is "G-Fornat", devised by Richard Elen,
which
(deep breath...) is horizontal B-Format decoded to the standard 5.1 layout,
and
which is able to be back-encoded to the original B-Format for possible
re-decoding to a larger speaker array. Anyone interested in the nitty-gritty
of
Ambisonics etc is strongly encouraged to subscribe to the sursound list,
which
also covers wavefield synthesis, ambiophonics, and all sorts of other
esoteric
stuff.

Richard Dobson



Michael Rempel wrote:

> B format is by definition first order. It is 'most common' because it
> encodes the ambisonic signal in 2 tracks that are stereo compatible. Any
> records or CDs you find will be B format. Audio dvd may be higher order,
at
> least it is theoretically possible.
>
> Michael Rempel


--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

So is the spat3d opcode a 1st-order ambisonics encoder? Or is it
not even ambisonics?

Victor

At 23:07 03/10/2005, you wrote:
>B format is by definition first order. It is 'most common' because it
>encodes the ambisonic signal in 2 tracks that are stereo compatible. Any
>records or CDs you find will be B format. Audio dvd may be higher order, at
>least it is theoretically possible.
>
>Michael Rempel
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Victor Lazzarini [mailto:Victor.Lazzarini@nuim.ie]
>Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 8:14 AM
>To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: [Csnd] 2nd order Ambisonic encoding, Spatial Reverb and
>Early reflections
>
>
>Am I right to say that what generally is used is 2nd order
>ambisonics? Is this what is encoded in the b-format, or
>can you encode other orders in it?
>
>Victor
>
>
>At 04:41 03/10/2005, you wrote:
> >Cool, I am envious. 8 speakers is only a function of four walls, quality,
> >and economics. It is by no means an ideal. For speakers in a plane it has
> >been demonstrated that more than 60 degrees of sparation between speakers
> >produces noticable sourcing. In other words you hear which speaker the
>sound
> >is coming from. With 60 degrees or less the sterio effect takes over, and
> >sound images can more easily locate between speakers. 60 x 6 = 360, which
> >explains 7.1 systems. Using 8 allows you to place two on each wall in a
>more
> >or less square room, thus maximizing seating. Any time you reduce a
> >theater's seating they have fits.
> >
> >I have been wondering if there is a better function that could be used to
> >avoid 'orders' all together. We can do linear speakers now, which were not
> >possible when ambisonics was first created. Indeed we can do inverse
>conical
> >speakers, or inverse parabolics that are flat in the verticle dimension,
>but
> >inverse curved in the horizontal. My intuition tells me this arrangement
> >would be better suited to a more exact time reproduction. Having dispersion
> >factored into the array design would also facilitate better boundary
> >condition management for multiple speakers. Of course this makes speaker
> >design a function of the array type, since specific geometries are being
> >created.
> >
> >I can not see successful concert scale surround sound happening for a few
> >years yet, but it has been a passion of mine for a good 7 years at least.
> >
> >I think the first group of folks who can do credible surround in an arena
>or
> >concert hall with more than a few wooshes stand to make a substantial
>income
> >Like the line array speaker system before it, if it works this new thing
> >will take over professional audio. There is no doubt that this kind of
>array
> >would be difficult to fly, and demanding to set up Anyone wanting to try it
> >is welcome to drop me an email. I am no better at marketing than the Brit's
> >who came up with Ambisonics, but I love working with the technology.
> >
> >As a final note, Ambisonics is a technology that is inheritly difficult to
> >patent because there are litterally infinite array definitions that will
> >work. I think this is the most substantial reason why it is not being done
> >on a large scale.
> >
> >Michael
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jan Jacob Hofmann [mailto:jjh@sonicarchitecture.de]
> >Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:44 AM
> >To: Csound List
> >Subject: Re: [Csnd] 2nd order Ambisonic encoding, Spatial Reverb and
> >Early reflections
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks Michael for the good expanation about the "higer order" in
> >Ambisonic. I might add that Ambisonic is capable of reproducing also
> >the hight component of a sound, if the speaker setup is not just on a
> >plane. With eight speakers set up as a cube I do get very nice results
> >here, though 12 speakers would even be better. This regards 2nd Order
> >though. For first order I do agree that it might be a matter of taste
> >if it gets compared with amplitude panning based methods (5,1 Surround,
> >Quattro, Stereo etc) of spatialisation. The advantage of higher order
> >is more definition and a larger sweet spot . Another cool thing is that
> >you do not have to do a new remix for other numbers or setups of
> >speakers.
> >
> >If 2nd order Ambisonic is enhanced with some methods to calculate
> >distance clues, also distances of sound can be reproduced, which makes
> >it quite stunning in my point of view. The instruments I have been
> >announcing at my last mail do this.
> >
> >There is also lots of information about Ambisonic in general, some
> >useful links and a a tutorial at my site.
> >
> >All the best,
> >
> >Jan Jacob
> >
> >sound         |         movement          |          object         |
> >         space
> >sonic architecture       |        site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
> >spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music
> >
> >
> >--
> >Send bugs reports to this list.
> >To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
> >
> >--
> >Send bugs reports to this list.
> >To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>
>Victor Lazzarini
>Music Technology Laboratory
>Music Department
>National University of Ireland, Maynooth
>
>--
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>
>--
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

Victor Lazzarini
Music Technology Laboratory
Music Department
National University of Ireland, Maynooth 

Victor Lazzarini wrote:

> So is the spat3d opcode a 1st-order ambisonics encoder? Or is it
> not even ambisonics?

It is first order ambisonic, returning the B-format W, X, Y, and Z signals.