In article , KH
wrote:
On 4/29/2013 4:56 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Dick Pierce wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
snip
No, once again, Mr. Eickmeier is confused about what
Mr. Pierce said. Please stop blaming him for your confusion.
Mr. Pierce,
I started this whole new thread because of your astonishing statements in
the previous thread, in the post already quoted, that:
Astonishing to you, apparently. More about that below:
snip
"The reason carefully done (and VERY inconvenient) binaural works
is because it works VERY hard to try to preserve as much of the
utility of the listener's HRTF as possible."
And so what we have here is a fuzzy confusion between stereophonic and
binaural,
And, I submit, the confusion is yours.
once again thinking that the idea is to encode signals that when
they enter the ears will decode all incident angles that were recorded
And once again, you miss the obvious - the *angles* were NOT recorded.
and
fool the listener into hearing the original space.
What I have been hammering at is that the stereophonic system does not work
by recording and reproducing ear signals,
Whatever that means...
but rather by recording and
reproducing sound fields in rooms. Pierce says that the reason that stereo
doesn't work all that well is because almost all directional information is
lost and can never be resurrected again.
Which is, again, demonstrably true if you substitute "all" for "almost
all", which would be the accurate way to characterize Mr Pierce's
statements.
I point out that we are not playing
the recorded channels into our ears, we are playing them on speakers
arranged where we want the sound to come from, in our playback space. Big
difference.
Not nearly as big as you'd like to imply. According to this concept,
headphones simply cannot produce any stereo sound right?
Headphones can produce binaural sound fairly realistically, Stereo? Not
so much. Headphones will give you two channels, sure, but they won't
produce a sound stage like speaker will, with the ensemble spread out
before you from wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling, or front-to-back. Center
placed sounds like vocals, then to end up inside the listener's head
instead of front-and-center, and that's not very stereo-like. So, I'd
say no. headphones don't produce anything that I would call stereo.
Spot evaluation: Record a single instrument with a single microphone. Put a
loudspeaker in your listening room in a position that is geometrically
similar to where the source was in the original room. Now NAIL IT DOWN SO IT
CAN'T MOVE. Now play the sound that you recorded. Can you tell where the
instrument is?
Of course you can. And *why* is that? What mechanism allows you to
localize that sound? Yep, the old HRTF that "has nothing to do with
stereo" in your world. Without it, and two (or more) ears, you could
not localize it.
Did the recording contain any information about where it was
originally?
Nope. Now you're getting close...
Did the recording have any HRTF in it? Head shadowing? Anything
to do with the human hearing mechanism?
Nope. So you can tell where it *is*, but not where it *was*. If it's
front left, that's where you hear it. Doesn't matter that it was far
right in the recording. This is synthesis, not reproduction. You need
to understand the difference.
I think Mr. Eickmeier understands that difference. He also understands
that "where it was" is simply not important to the illusion that stereo
seeks to produce. Do you understand that?
Now make a stereo recording, maybe three instruments placed left, center,
and right. Play the recording on speakers that you have arranged in front of
you in positions that are geometrically similar to the original. Even in a
two channel recording, can you tell where the instruments are? Left, center,
and right? Is there any ambiguity about it, even though the stereo pair
could not tell which of 360 possible planes those sounds came from? So how
did you choose to make the sound come from right there and there?
Once again, you put it where you wanted to hear it *from*, and your ears
and HRTF allow you to localize the sounds. You think this an epiphany?
Seriously? That, of course has zero to do with where it was in the
performance.
No. And from his context, I don't see how anyone could think that this
explanation is any kind of epiphany. It is merely an attempt to explain
the localization of a stereo image within a room to a number of people
who seem duty bound to argue points about this subject that are
abundantly clear to everyone except the highly contentious amongst us.
I will leave the spatial reverberance part for another post,
Well yes of course, because your model breaks down completely at this
point. You can choose where the left channel is placed, but where do
you *place* the reverberant information? You don't know where it was,
it had no unique location such that you can place a speaker with
'geometric accuracy', and you can't separate the reverberant from the
direct in the signals you bounce around. so you just bounce it all
around everywhere - you have no other options.
Actually, Mr. Eickmeier wasn't talking about his "theory" here. He was
talking about first one and then two VERY generic speakers and how they
form the locus of any directionality that a recording or live broadcast
of an event can provide.
---
news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
---