Randy Yates wrote:

Laurence Payne writes:


On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:40:48 +1100, "Mr. T" mrt@home wrote:


Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth, no
height.
Surround sound does produce 2 dimensions, width and depth. Still no height.

You've never heard a good stereo system, then? :-)


Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
with only two channels (left ear/right ear)...
Hello! And how about seeing depth with only 2 eyes as well

We should all just stop driving our cars and pilots should stop flying
planes as we as humans beings can not see or hear how far things are in
front of or back of us . . .according to Mr. T

CD

On 14 Jan 2005 14:49:53 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
with only two channels (left ear/right ear)...

We can't. It's just an illusion :-)

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Laurence Payne writes:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:40:48 +1100, "Mr. T" mrt@home wrote:

Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth,
no
height.
Surround sound does produce 2 dimensions, width and depth. Still no
height.

You've never heard a good stereo system, then? :-)

Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
with only two channels (left ear/right ear)...

The ear , it's lobes, and our brains can differntiate being left-right,
front-back, and up-down. In real life sound come at us from all thses
directions. To simulate real-life (if that is your aim) that's where
reproduced sound must come from to give the same illusion, if that is your
aim.

However if the aim of the reproduction technology is to supply all ambinent
information for you, people seem to miss that that the listening area needs
to be somehat anechoic in it's own right - natural ambience adding to what
is 'supplied' invalidating the facsimilie....

geoff

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Laurence Payne writes:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:40:48 +1100, "Mr. T" mrt@home wrote:

Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth,
no
height.
Surround sound does produce 2 dimensions, width and depth. Still no
height.

You've never heard a good stereo system, then? :-)

Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
with only two channels (left ear/right ear

When I have a screeching monster coming at me from behind, I know whether it
is high or low, left or right.

geoff

"Geoff Wood" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Laurence Payne writes:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:40:48 +1100, "Mr. T" mrt@home wrote:

Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth,
no
height.
Surround sound does produce 2 dimensions, width and depth. Still no
height.

You've never heard a good stereo system, then? :-)

Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
with only two channels (left ear/right ear)...

The ear , it's lobes, and our brains can differntiate being left-right,
front-back, and up-down. In real life sound come at us from all thses
directions. To simulate real-life (if that is your aim) that's where
reproduced sound must come from to give the same illusion, if that is your
aim.

But if reproduced sound DOES come from these directions, then it's not
an illusion!

However if the aim of the reproduction technology is to supply all ambinent
information for you, people seem to miss that that the listening area needs
to be somehat anechoic in it's own right - natural ambience adding to what
is 'supplied' invalidating the facsimilie....

I would modify that to say either an anechoic environment OR a system
that inverts that environment during pre-processing is required.
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
, 919-472-1124

In article ,
Mr. T mrt@home wrote:
Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth, no
height.

Decent 2-channel recording/speaker/placement/room combinations image height
and depth. Height seems to happen when the record floor bounce notch isn't
getting masked by what's coming off your floor and ceiling. Depth might be
getting a power response that looks more like you had in the recording
environment. Most speakers have big changes in power response/directivity
with frequency and are not well-behaved off-axis.
--
a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/"Home Page/a
In 1913 the inflation adjusted (in 2003 dollars) exemption for single people
was $54,567, married couples' exemption $72,756, the next $363,783 was taxed
at 1%, and earnings over $9,094,578 were taxed at the top rate of 7%.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
But if reproduced sound DOES come from these directions, then it's not
an illusion!

If it's on a flat plane (such as 5.1 systems) then there is no vertical
information.

geoff

"Drew Eckhardt" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mr. T mrt@home wrote:
Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth, no
height.

Decent 2-channel recording/speaker/placement/room combinations image
height
and depth. Height seems to happen when the record floor bounce notch
isn't
getting masked by what's coming off your floor and ceiling. Depth might
be
getting a power response that looks more like you had in the recording
environment. Most speakers have big changes in power response/directivity
with frequency and are not well-behaved off-axis.


But with an 8-channel(or+) system you can could actually aurally locate DG
standing up on top of the wall doing his thing, instead of just imagine it.


geoff

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:16:32 +1100, "Mr. T" mrt@home wrote:

Two channels are perfectly capable of producing depth. If you don't
think so, then you have a faulty audio system, or a faulty ear/brain
system.

An "illusion" of depth, in a reverberant environment, yes.
A pretty fair facsimile when recorded with a dummy head and playback on
headphones, yes.
Honest to goodness "HiFi" placement with real accuracy in a full 2
dimensions when playing "normal" recordings in a "normal" room. Not
likely.

So, what's the difference between an "illusion" and anything else?

A photo can give an illusion of depth, but it's still two dimensional!
Now using 3D glasses and two images would be similar to using a dummy
head/headphones for audio. You still can't move in the 3 dimensional space.

8 channels and speakers will allow you to do that, therefore real 3D.

MrT.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
with only two channels (left ear/right ear)...

Others have already done it for me.
We can see in 3 dimensions with 2 eyes as well.

MrT.

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On 14 Jan 2005 14:49:53 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
with only two channels (left ear/right ear)...

We can't. It's just an illusion :-)

You probably believe a photo captures a persons soul too :-)

MrT.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
But if reproduced sound DOES come from these directions, then it's not
an illusion!

With a STEREO system, sound from the REAR is *PRODUCED*, NOT "REPRODUCED"

Do you realise the difference?

However if the aim of the reproduction technology is to supply all
ambinent
information for you, people seem to miss that that the listening area
needs
to be somehat anechoic in it's own right - natural ambience adding to
what
is 'supplied' invalidating the facsimilie....

I would modify that to say either an anechoic environment OR a system
that inverts that environment during pre-processing is required.

So you are saying in an "anechoic environment" with speakers only at the
front, sound will actually "come from these directions", other than the
front?

MrT.

"Geoff Wood" wrote in message
...
When I have a screeching monster coming at me from behind, I know whether
it
is high or low, left or right.

With only 2 speakers in front, special tricks have to be pulled to fool your
brain into achieving that.
The techniques used are not too good with music!

MrT.

"Drew Eckhardt" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mr. T mrt@home wrote:
Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth,
no
height.

Decent 2-channel recording/speaker/placement/room combinations image
height
and depth. Height seems to happen when the record floor bounce notch
isn't
getting masked by what's coming off your floor and ceiling. Depth might
be
getting a power response that looks more like you had in the recording
environment. Most speakers have big changes in power response/directivity
with frequency and are not well-behaved off-axis.

Yes, but you are using room reflections and speaker polar response to give
an illusion of depth which is dependent on the room you use to listen,
rather than just the room used to record.

MrT.

"Geoff Wood" wrote in message
...
But with an 8-channel(or+) system you can could actually aurally locate DG
standing up on top of the wall doing his thing, instead of just imagine
it.

And you could still do it no matter where in the room you are.
I'm glad somebody gets it.

MrT.

"Mr. T" mrt@home wrote in message
u...

"Drew Eckhardt" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mr. T mrt@home wrote:
Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth,
no
height.

Decent 2-channel recording/speaker/placement/room combinations image
height
and depth. Height seems to happen when the record floor bounce notch
isn't
getting masked by what's coming off your floor and ceiling. Depth might
be
getting a power response that looks more like you had in the recording
environment. Most speakers have big changes in power
response/directivity
with frequency and are not well-behaved off-axis.

Yes, but you are using room reflections and speaker polar response to give
an illusion of depth which is dependent on the room you use to listen,
rather than just the room used to record.

MrT.

Binaural is so much simpler. Cheaper. Elegant. Too bad it's so rare,
especially these days, when so many people listen to IPods -- with
headphones... Well, earphones, anyway.

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:HM2Gd.595$J6.436@trnddc02...
Binaural is so much simpler. Cheaper. Elegant. Too bad it's so rare,
especially these days, when so many people listen to IPods -- with
headphones... Well, earphones, anyway.

I'd agree with that, except consider how the music is produced that is
played on such machines.
Multi track studio recordings assigned by pan pot. Reverb added by effects
machine.

How many iPod users listen to classical music do you imagine?

MrT.

"Mr. T" mrt@home wrote in message
...

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:HM2Gd.595$J6.436@trnddc02...
Binaural is so much simpler. Cheaper. Elegant. Too bad it's so rare,
especially these days, when so many people listen to IPods -- with
headphones... Well, earphones, anyway.

I'd agree with that, except consider how the music is produced that is
played on such machines.
Multi track studio recordings assigned by pan pot. Reverb added by effects
machine.

Yes, but imagine the effects the producers could invoke if the target was
binaural! Pan pots would be replaced with 3-D joysticks controlling DSP VR
spatial models.

How many iPod users listen to classical music do you imagine?

Not that many, but there's no reason pop music could not be produced in
synthetic 3-D space.

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:45:33 +1300, "Geoff Wood"
wrote:

Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
with only two channels (left ear/right ear)...

The ear , it's lobes, and our brains can differntiate being left-right,
front-back, and up-down. In real life sound come at us from all thses
directions. To simulate real-life (if that is your aim) that's where
reproduced sound must come from to give the same illusion, if that is your
aim.

However if the aim of the reproduction technology is to supply all ambinent
information for you, people seem to miss that that the listening area needs
to be somehat anechoic in it's own right - natural ambience adding to what
is 'supplied' invalidating the facsimilie....

As stereo demonstrably CAN provide depth information, there's little
point in wriggling around trying to prove why it CAN'T :-)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:47:21 +1300, "Geoff Wood"
wrote:

When I have a screeching monster coming at me from behind, I know whether it
is high or low, left or right.

Please leave your sex life out of this :-)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:32:53 +1100, "Mr. T" mrt@home wrote:

A photo can give an illusion of depth, but it's still two dimensional!
Now using 3D glasses and two images would be similar to using a dummy
head/headphones for audio. You still can't move in the 3 dimensional space.

8 channels and speakers will allow you to do that, therefore real 3D.

Yes, stereo requires the listener to sit in the "sweet spot". Will
you allow it to represent depth under that condition?

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:44:35 +1100, "Mr. T" mrt@home wrote:

With a STEREO system, sound from the REAR is *PRODUCED*, NOT "REPRODUCED"

Do you realise the difference?

I realise the difference in process. Do YOU detect the difference in
perception? That's all that matters.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:59:04 GMT, "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss"
wrote:

Unless one is sitting in the midst of an orchestra, there is invariably a
_monophonic_ source of any music heard, performed either collectively or
individually. Live music may be performed stereophonically, but it's heard
monophonically. Though music has been recorded in Stereo for many years,
most

This is why I appreciate Sonic Holography, as developed by Bob Carver --
your ears hear each instrument MONOPHONICALLY, because cross-fed
interference eliminates the false second arrivals of sound that don't exist
in a live performance.
Interesting writeup.

So, there are still people who believe what 'Sideshow Bob' Carver
tells them? Fascinating.................

BTW, the theory behind Sonic Holography is absolute technobbable
********, and there aren't any 'false second arrivals' in a minimalist
stereo recording, e.g. made with a Blumlein crossed pair.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" wrote in message
ink.net

This is why I appreciate Sonic Holography, as developed by Bob Carver
-- your ears hear each instrument MONOPHONICALLY, because cross-fed
interference eliminates the false second arrivals of sound that don't
exist in a live performance.

Sonic Holography was sonic, but it wasn't really holography. It's been
debunked for years.

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:57:32 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


So, there are still people who believe what 'Sideshow Bob' Carver
tells them? Fascinating.................

But wasn't he the guy who said he created tube sound form an SS amp by
simply switch a 2 ohm resistor in circuit? Sounds like he knows what
he is doing in that department, at least.

Per.

"Mr. T" mrt@home writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
But if reproduced sound DOES come from these directions, then it's not
an illusion!

With a STEREO system, sound from the REAR is *PRODUCED*, NOT "REPRODUCED"

Do you realise the difference?

However if the aim of the reproduction technology is to supply all
ambinent
information for you, people seem to miss that that the listening area
needs
to be somehat anechoic in it's own right - natural ambience adding to
what
is 'supplied' invalidating the facsimilie....

I would modify that to say either an anechoic environment OR a system
that inverts that environment during pre-processing is required.

So you are saying in an "anechoic environment" with speakers only at the
front, sound will actually "come from these directions", other than the
front?

Not exactly. I didn't say that an anechoic environment is ALL that is
required.

The basic idea is that if are able to reproduce a signal at the
"virtual" listener's inner ear that is identical to the signal that
arrives in a "physical" listener's inner ear, then the virtual
listener will perceive the exact same acoustic event that the
physical listener perceives.

In order to do this we first record the two signals in the physical listener's
inner ears using in-situ microphones, i.e., we make a binaural recording.

Then on the audio reproduction system we must do two things:

1. Perform interaural crosstalk cancellation so that the listener is only
hearing the left speaker in the left ear and the right speaker in the right
ear;

2. Inverse filter for the following effects:

a. transfer function from the speaker to the outer ear.

b. transfer function from the outer ear to the inner ear.

The function in step 2a is essentially making the room anechoic, so
if it's already anechoic it isn't needed.

The function in step 2b compensates for the head-related transfer
function that imposed by the listener's ear pinnae that causes the
listener to be able to localize the fact that the left loudspeaker
is coming from the left.

That's all. Oh, and since these transfer functions are all major
functions of the virtual listener's head's location, the listener
must keep his head locked vise-like in a specific location.

The type of system we have been alluding to here has been called a
"transaural system" by Dr. Duane Cooper in his work in the area back
in the 80s.
--
% Randy Yates % "Rollin' and riding and slippin' and
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % sliding, it's magic."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% % 'Living' Thing', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
In order to do this we first record the two signals in the physical
listener's
inner ears using in-situ microphones, i.e., we make a binaural recording.

OK, I already mentioned that as a valid technique, provided you accept the
limiatation you cannot move in the 3D space.
By using 8 channels, one can provide a real 3D space where one can freely
move, just as in real life.

MrT.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:45:33 +1300, "Geoff Wood"
wrote:

Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
with only two channels (left ear/right ear)...

The ear , it's lobes, and our brains can differntiate being left-right,
front-back, and up-down. In real life sound come at us from all thses
directions. To simulate real-life (if that is your aim) that's where
reproduced sound must come from to give the same illusion, if that is your
aim.

However if the aim of the reproduction technology is to supply all ambinent
information for you, people seem to miss that that the listening area needs
to be somehat anechoic in it's own right - natural ambience adding to what
is 'supplied' invalidating the facsimilie....

As stereo demonstrably CAN provide depth information, there's little
point in wriggling around trying to prove why it CAN'T :-)

The fact is that it simply can't provide all the depth information. Not
even close.

"Mr. T" mrt@home writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
In order to do this we first record the two signals in the physical
listener's
inner ears using in-situ microphones, i.e., we make a binaural recording.

OK, I already mentioned that as a valid technique, provided you accept the
limiatation you cannot move in the 3D space.
By using 8 channels, one can provide a real 3D space where one can freely
move, just as in real life.

What would keep your ears from localizing these 8 channels just as they do
for 2 (or 5 for that matter)? Using a bunch of speakers is a [very] rough
approximation to a true 3-D acoustic event. But generally, yeah - 8 would
be better than 5, but not as good as 16. Or how about 24?
--
% Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% % 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"Mr. T" mrt@home writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
In order to do this we first record the two signals in the physical
listener's
inner ears using in-situ microphones, i.e., we make a binaural
recording.

OK, I already mentioned that as a valid technique, provided you accept
the
limiatation you cannot move in the 3D space.
By using 8 channels, one can provide a real 3D space where one can freely
move, just as in real life.

What would keep your ears from localizing these 8 channels just as they do
for 2 (or 5 for that matter)? Using a bunch of speakers is a [very] rough
approximation to a true 3-D acoustic event. But generally, yeah - 8 would
be better than 5, but not as good as 16. Or how about 24?

One of the problems I have with two (or more) speaker channels is the
interference patterns that are set up in the listening area. This is easily
heard when moving about while playing monophonic material through a two
channel system. Adding more speakers just makes it worse. I have been
skeptical ever since they tried to shove quadraphonic down our throats 30
years ago. We really dodged a bullet on that one. But it certainly is a
great racket (pun intended) for the manufacturers.

That's why I'm a binaural enthusiast, although I understand the practical
and marketing limitations to that format. At least it directs the original
sound to the target ear without unintended crosstalk. I wonder if anyone has
experimented with coincident speaker systems (i.e. the inverse of the M-S
microphone arrangement) for establishing a 2-D sound field without the
interference patterns.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
What would keep your ears from localizing these 8 channels just as they do
for 2 (or 5 for that matter)? Using a bunch of speakers is a [very] rough
approximation to a true 3-D acoustic event.

Of course, but 8 channels is a better approximation, thats all.

But generally, yeah - 8 would
be better than 5, but not as good as 16. Or how about 24?

Better still if done right. :-)

I can imagine 12 channel (one in each corner and one in the center of each
face)
20 channel (each corner and a center speaker along each edge)
26 channel (both of the above)

But 16 and 24 don't seem to have the same elegence though.

MrT.

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:46:39 GMT, wrote:

As stereo demonstrably CAN provide depth information, there's little
point in wriggling around trying to prove why it CAN'T :-)

The fact is that it simply can't provide all the depth information. Not
even close.

With two speakers I've sometimes heard remarkable realism (whatever
that is :-). As more speakers are added, I've heard some
impressive effects. But never that impressive "solidity" that good
stereo can achieve.

My instinct tells me that adding more channels multiplies the
problems. Like trying to get a flat response by putting 4,5 or 6
drivers in a cabinet.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:46:39 GMT, wrote:

As stereo demonstrably CAN provide depth information, there's little
point in wriggling around trying to prove why it CAN'T :-)

The fact is that it simply can't provide all the depth information. Not
even close.

With two speakers I've sometimes heard remarkable realism (whatever
that is :-). As more speakers are added, I've heard some
impressive effects. But never that impressive "solidity" that good
stereo can achieve.

My instinct tells me that adding more channels multiplies the
problems. Like trying to get a flat response by putting 4,5 or 6
drivers in a cabinet.

And instinct brought forth the idea that leeches were the way to restoring
physical health. Your point???

If one is happy listening to an original performance in an anechoic chamber,
with everyone in front of you, then there is relatively little reason to
have more than 2 channels. There still would be no height information in
the final result.

But is that aesthetic for actually making music? Overwhelmingly, most
musicians who perform on acoustic instruments would violently disagree.
What do you think all the talk about concert hall acoustics is all about?

I would never claim that introducing more channels doesn't introduce some
problems in itself. But if they don't exist, the creation of truly 3
dimensional acoustic field is simply impossible, no matter how much one can
convince themselves otherwise.

Too bad Jim Johnston's work on that was cut short, as what he was doing
appeared to be the the most 'classic' approach to recreating soundfields.
(i.e. rooted in the most basic scientific research about our perception)
Don't expect the commercial market to offer anything like that anytime soon.