[Scott[_6_]]

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 5:23:12 AM UTC-7, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 7:45:42 PM UTC-4, Scott wrote:
=20
=20
You can't separate them. Spacial perception heavily relies on temporal =
character of sound. You can't "hear angles." You can hear temporal differen=
ces between the right and left ear in sound coming from an angle which your=
brain will process as sound coming from an angle. Spacial perception relie=
s on temporal information.
=20
Thank you for writing in few words what typically takes me many. Must be =
the German in me - never use one word where three-or-more will do better.=
=20
=20
But the point of all this is that how sound is delivered in a listening r=
oom from linear motors driven by electronic impulses is nothing like what h=
appens in a concert venue, unless the instruments are electronically reinfo=
rced (which is not uncommon in these troubled times). The sound is some ana=
log of the original noise that has been processed (engineered) into a shape=
to be delivered via the motors with hopefully pleasing results.=20
=20
It may be possible to enable the motors to provide noise that is 'spatial=
ly' closer to the original if the room has that capacity and the motors are=
capable of directional delivery and the signal is there to be delivered. B=
ut it would require additional levels of processing, and probably additiona=
l channels. I am not so sure whether conventional binaural signals have tha=
t information in the correct form. This is where experimentation under real=
-world conditions will separate the theory from the actual.=20
=20
I, at least, have experimented with the more brute-force approaches, pass=
ive and active. They are best described as "interesting", but not really so=
mething I would set out to accomplish in every venue. Often it is distracti=
ng, for a fact, and very nearly never riveting.=20
=20
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

I honestly think real imaging is not what most people think it is. We have =
the aid of visual cues in live concerts and this goes a long way towards cr=
eating our perception of aural imaging. IMO "accurate" imaging in playback,=
that being imaging that is just like what we hear in concert, would be con=
sidered very inadequate. IME the imaging we get from playback is far more c=
lear and specific. And I think that it needs to be to compensate for the la=
ck of visual cues. Stereo recording and playback can create a pretty amazin=
g aural illusion of imaging and spaciousness. I don't think there is any ne=
ed to "fix" it. It works quite well as is. We can never recreate the concer=
t experience in the playback room. It's a dragon chase.