[KH]

On 5/23/2012 5:15 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2012 04:01:02 -0700, KH wrote
(in ):
snip
This may be true with binaural,

I fail to see how it could.

Since a good binaural setup has a pair of high-quality omnidirectional mikes
mounted in a dummy head which has been designed to mimic the dimensions and
the acoustical properties of a skin-covered human head, it probably comes
closer to the ideal capture medium than any other microphone technique.
However, binaural playback only works through headphones, and the quality of
the playback depends, in large measure, on the quality of the headphones.

Even so, binaural recordings cannot differentiate between sounds coming from
directly in front of the dummy head or directly behind.

That's pretty much my point. You can come closer, but still no cigar.

snip
This "holes punched in the walls" theory you seem to want to ascribe to
the world at large is something I've never heard anyone believe in or
allude to. It's a faulty image, one fraught with wave interference
problems if nothing else. My "image" of stereo is creating a realistic,
continuous sound image exactly analogous to a live venue. Never totally
achieved, but pretty close at times.

The "windows on a performance" analogy works only to explain the listener='s
relationship to the sound source - and then only in the most fundamental way
(it assumes very directional speakers with no back-wave). It cannot be used
to describe the recorded performance's relationship with the listening room
at all.

And pitiful speakers those would be indeed. I think one misconception
that Gary exhibits is a belief that there *is* some point or
presentation that would be universally agreed upon as "most realistic".
To a large extent that, as you've alluded to in this thread already,
is largely a matter of preference (whether image size, pinpoint imaging,
etc.) depending upon, in large part, the factors each individual
listener finds most central to the illusion. The fact that there are
various audiophile groups that, respectively, find box, horn, dipole,
and omnidirectional (e.g. MBL's - for the rich) to be most realistic
would tend to support that conclusion rather well IMO.

I think if we were to generalize anything to "all" audiophiles, it would
be that *they* recognize that the recording is the first, and most
fundamentally challenging part of the whole process. It is clear, to
most IMO, that the effectiveness of anything done on the playback side
of the process, no matter how innovative, or clever, will always be
limited by the information contained in the recorded signal.

Keith