dBFS
Ben Bradley wrote:
In rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp, On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:47:54
-0800, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Dick Pierce wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Yes. To me, the first step in "true stereo" is to buy a decent
headset. Then, you have to drive each earpiece with two totally
seperated channels of sound.
That's not stereo, that's binaural. Different idea altogether.
Oh. Well then, I don't know the difference. To me true stereo would
be what you normally hear. IOW, if you put a dummy seated front and
center in Carneige Hall, and put a microphone in his left ear and
record whatever that mic picks up on the "left" channel. and
another mike in his right ear, and record that on the "right"
channel, and then deliver those two channels to my ears via two
transmission channels and my stereo headset, then I am getting as
near as is possible what I would be hearing were I to fly to New
York and buy a ticket to Carneigy Hall and sit front and center
for the real performance. And to me, it doesn't get any better
than this. If this isn't "true stereo" then what is?
Scott already told you, it's binaural.
I understand that. You have defined, "binaural". But bear in mind
that this is a, "pro audio" definition, and not a wording that an
amateur like me, who doesn't need to memorize such definitions, but
rather goes with the plain English he was taught by 75 years of
living, will use. I'm not saying my definition is better. I am just
saying that it is a definition I understand.
I heard the word binaural fairly often on that "Audiophile
Audition" radio show that was on the local classical station many
years ago. Those guys were really into it.
Yes. Do you remember, "Excursions in stereo" on the FM radio? I forget the
name of the moderator now, but he went on to become quite famous in the
radio/TV business.....
|