Mind Stretchers
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
For the record (so to speak) - when I use the term "stereo" I am using it as
shorthand for any and all loudspeaker based auditory perspective systems.
This would include 3 channel, DD 5.1 surround sound, or any number of
speakers placed around a room to try and reconstruct a sound field that
mimics the original. I realize that to some, "stereo" means strictly two
channel, but that is not what I mean. But if I use "surround" or
"multichannel" in all discussions, people will think I am limiting the
discussion to more than two channels, which I am not. Stereo can work with
two or more speakers and the general principles apply to all of these.
Mr. Eickmeier, you have a lonn history of taking a term,
redefining it for the purposes of some agenda, without
letting anyone else know about your surreptitious redefinition,
and then proceeding to argue from that point.
For the record, "surround sound" was NEVER designed as a means
of recreating the original sound field. Things like 5.1 surround
and the like were developed as effects systems used in conjunction
with video and the like. James Jophnston has elsewhere described
how completely innappropriate surrtound-sound systems are for
recreating sound fields. Perhaps you might want to research
the subject before you hold forth on it.
As to the "definition" of stereo sound, you may well like to
redefinf it however you like, but you should note that there's
an 80 jump on your claim to the definition, and should you
disagree, you might want to take it up with the kind folks
at Bell Labs.
I hope that most of you are listening in surround sound to all recordings,
even two channel. If so, you are at least partially agreeing with me on the
reconstruction principle. If not, I've got my work cut out for me....
Yes, among other things, you have a LOT of reading up to
do, not the least of which is on fundamental definitions.
--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
|