Skip to main content
Sound Design

Return to Answer

added 2 characters in body
Source Link
Daniel Courville
Daniel Courville
  • 61
  • 3

Hum... I'm afraid you'll get very few answers, if any. Why? Tools. Or the lack of them.

Let's begin. Pro Tools: apart from Soundfield's Surround Zone and the new Harpex decoder, nothing else. So, for using Ambisonics in PT, you need audio from a soundfield-type mic (either in A or B Format) or a mix already done in B-Format. So far, there's no B-Format encoder for Pro Tools (but that might change in the near future).

If youryou're using a VST-based DAW (Nuendo, Cubase, Reaper) there's more choice, but the offering is uneven, depending on the OS. I'd venture to say that the Mac OS has an advantage here. But then, who is using Nuendo professionally on Mac OS for mixing for film/TV? And from those few, who has the time and energy to design a new workflow to accommodate Ambisonics?

Don't get me wrong, if there's an Ambisonics advocate here, it's me. But it's far easier to use Ambisonics in electroacoustic music, sound art and installations, than in an "industrial" process like mixing for film/TV.

You should try to get your hands on Scott Hirsch's 2010 NYU master thesis entitled Integrating Ambisonics into the Post-Production Mixing Workflow.

You should also get in touch with Jean-Marc L'Hotel and Dorian Darcourt in France who recently worked on a film entirely done in Ambisonics. If you read French: http://www.afsi.eu/news/projection-avec-son-en-relief-du-film-je-vous-ecris-du-havre

Hum... I'm afraid you'll get very few answers, if any. Why? Tools. Or the lack of them.

Let's begin. Pro Tools: apart from Soundfield's Surround Zone and the new Harpex decoder, nothing else. So, for using Ambisonics in PT, you need audio from a soundfield-type mic (either in A or B Format) or a mix already done in B-Format. So far, there's no B-Format encoder for Pro Tools (but that might change in the near future).

If your using a VST-based DAW (Nuendo, Cubase, Reaper) there's more choice, but the offering is uneven, depending on the OS. I'd venture to say that the Mac OS has an advantage here. But then, who is using Nuendo professionally on Mac OS for mixing for film/TV? And from those few, who has the time and energy to design a new workflow to accommodate Ambisonics?

Don't get me wrong, if there's an Ambisonics advocate here, it's me. But it's far easier to use Ambisonics in electroacoustic music, sound art and installations, than in an "industrial" process like mixing for film/TV.

You should try to get your hands on Scott Hirsch's 2010 NYU master thesis entitled Integrating Ambisonics into the Post-Production Mixing Workflow.

You should also get in touch with Jean-Marc L'Hotel and Dorian Darcourt in France who recently worked on a film entirely done in Ambisonics. If you read French: http://www.afsi.eu/news/projection-avec-son-en-relief-du-film-je-vous-ecris-du-havre

Hum... I'm afraid you'll get very few answers, if any. Why? Tools. Or the lack of them.

Let's begin. Pro Tools: apart from Soundfield's Surround Zone and the new Harpex decoder, nothing else. So, for using Ambisonics in PT, you need audio from a soundfield-type mic (either in A or B Format) or a mix already done in B-Format. So far, there's no B-Format encoder for Pro Tools (but that might change in the near future).

If you're using a VST-based DAW (Nuendo, Cubase, Reaper) there's more choice, but the offering is uneven, depending on the OS. I'd venture to say that the Mac OS has an advantage here. But then, who is using Nuendo professionally on Mac OS for mixing for film/TV? And from those few, who has the time and energy to design a new workflow to accommodate Ambisonics?

Don't get me wrong, if there's an Ambisonics advocate here, it's me. But it's far easier to use Ambisonics in electroacoustic music, sound art and installations, than in an "industrial" process like mixing for film/TV.

You should try to get your hands on Scott Hirsch's 2010 NYU master thesis entitled Integrating Ambisonics into the Post-Production Mixing Workflow.

You should also get in touch with Jean-Marc L'Hotel and Dorian Darcourt in France who recently worked on a film entirely done in Ambisonics. If you read French: http://www.afsi.eu/news/projection-avec-son-en-relief-du-film-je-vous-ecris-du-havre

Source Link
Daniel Courville
Daniel Courville
  • 61
  • 3

Hum... I'm afraid you'll get very few answers, if any. Why? Tools. Or the lack of them.

Let's begin. Pro Tools: apart from Soundfield's Surround Zone and the new Harpex decoder, nothing else. So, for using Ambisonics in PT, you need audio from a soundfield-type mic (either in A or B Format) or a mix already done in B-Format. So far, there's no B-Format encoder for Pro Tools (but that might change in the near future).

If your using a VST-based DAW (Nuendo, Cubase, Reaper) there's more choice, but the offering is uneven, depending on the OS. I'd venture to say that the Mac OS has an advantage here. But then, who is using Nuendo professionally on Mac OS for mixing for film/TV? And from those few, who has the time and energy to design a new workflow to accommodate Ambisonics?

Don't get me wrong, if there's an Ambisonics advocate here, it's me. But it's far easier to use Ambisonics in electroacoustic music, sound art and installations, than in an "industrial" process like mixing for film/TV.

You should try to get your hands on Scott Hirsch's 2010 NYU master thesis entitled Integrating Ambisonics into the Post-Production Mixing Workflow.

You should also get in touch with Jean-Marc L'Hotel and Dorian Darcourt in France who recently worked on a film entirely done in Ambisonics. If you read French: http://www.afsi.eu/news/projection-avec-son-en-relief-du-film-je-vous-ecris-du-havre