STEREO: Scam of the Century?


The birth of Stereo brought about the death of real musical appreciation.
Before Stereo, there was High Fidelity: an enhancement of recorded music.
Hi-fi brought new realism to recorded music. Stereo brought new audio tricks
but _less_ (italics in original) musical realism. Stereo is such a given, so
accepted and _expected_, that no one questions it, let alone criticizes it.

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
live music is heard from a single definable origin, by two ears mounted on a
single head, attached to one body. Ears working in a pair act as range finders
for sound, as do two eyes seeing a single object. Thus, most music, whether
played by symphony orchestra, solo pianist, or bagpiper, is heard _binaurally_,
whether the sound source is an ensemble or a single voice. "Stereophonic"
refers to the source, rather than the receptor. "Monaural", as applied to
musical listening, is a misnomer. It means "head by only one ear", a condition
exclusively to the aurally challenged.

If a sound source is stationary, it will be heard emanating from its point of
origin. This applies to any ensemble, as well as single sound. Stereo
supporters proclaim that each instrument of an orchestra can be defined and,
thus, better appreciated. They obviously listen to music for analysis rather
than enjoyment. The dynamics of music require a balance of melody, harmony, and
rhythm. When a homogenization of the three elements occurs, as with Stereo
reproduction (and even more democratically with digitally processed Stereo), a
great performance becomes a clockwork chatter. Every nuance is heard with equal
clarity, yet there is no strength of character provided by key passages cutting
through a harmonious wash. A flute becomes as stentorian as a trumpet,: a
triangle as distracting as a timpani roll. That is not listening to music. It's
listening to individual sounds quarreling with each other to be heard. More
than anything else though, it gives a consumer an opportunity to demonstrate
his expensive equipment.

The scam of Stereo was sold by proving its worth, which was a simple matter
when presented to simple consumers. The sounds of passing trains, pipe organs
(the only musical instrument capable of being played _and_ heard
stereophonically), birds, storms, race cars, swarms of crickets, troops passing
in review, and ping pong matches, convinced anyone who had two functioning ears
that just about _anything_ sounded better in Stereo (or quadraphonic or
octaphonic, for that matter). And it does. Just about anything, that is, but
singing, speaking, or music.

I find it interesting that of all audible sounds, the overall quality of the
aforementioned three has significantly declined since the advent of Stereo. Is
it coincidence, or a cultural tradeoff?

I recognize certain limited applications of Stereo. If I want to listen to
Alpine horns blowing on a glacier with my left ear, and the villagers singing
down below with my right ear, then I can really appreciate stereo, thank you
very much. Otherwise, give me one nice big speaker, one nice little speaker,
and sufficient power to drown out unwanted conversation, and I'm perfectly
satisfied. And one thing i almost forgot: good music.

"R78Skijoo" wrote ...
STEREO: Scam of the Century?

The birth of Stereo brought about the death of real musical
appreciation. Before Stereo, there was High Fidelity: an
enhancement of recorded music. Hi-fi brought new realism
to recorded music. Stereo brought new audio tricks but _less_
(italics in original) musical realism. Stereo is such a given, so
accepted and _expected_, that no one questions it, let alone
criticizes it.
.....

Reasonably well written. But what a hot steaming pile.
Thanks for entering, but try a more reaslistic (or at least
believable) premise next time.

R78Skijoo wrote:
STEREO: Scam of the Century?

The birth of Stereo brought about the death of real musical
appreciation.
Before Stereo, there was High Fidelity: an enhancement of recorded
music.
Hi-fi brought new realism to recorded music. Stereo brought new audio
tricks
but _less_ (italics in original) musical realism. Stereo is such a
given, so
accepted and _expected_, that no one questions it, let alone
criticizes it.

Quite an impassioned article. One of the things I really liked
about it is how it is totally unencumbered by fact. That makes
it much easier to plead your case with such conviction.

For example, in your very first paragraph, you state, quite
unambiguously:

Stereo is such a given, ... that no one questions it,
let alone criticizes it.

Indeed, an existance proof, all by itself, that your viewpoint
is not corrupted by any attempt on your part to engage in any
research into the topic. Had you decided to go that route and
see if, in fact, your assertions had any parallel in fact, you
certainly would have found your position compromised, and we
shan't have that.

You have, in fact, ignored a rather enormous body of research
on the topic that has been published since at least the 1930's
pointing out the shortcomings of the medium.

Your subsequent assertion that music is essentially a "monophonic
source" itself, is a crowning achievement in logic, if you're
willing to ignore the messy detail that it is patently absurd
in the face of an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary.

But, as we discovered, fact and evidence are quite explicitly
avoided in your tome, precisely because it does weaken your
theory just a bit. Well, not just a bit, but totally.

Overall, a great job. And you can avoid the uncomfortable task
of reconciling your hypothesis with physical reality simply
by continuing to ignore that reality. It's that easy!

If stereo is a scam, then exactly what would you call Home Theatre? It
would be a scam of enormous proportions !!!

5.1 channels.. etc what a load of crap.............

Unless I'm mistaken this is an article by the Church of Satan guy,
Anton LaVey.

In , on 01/10/05
at 12:15 AM, (R78Skijoo) said:

The birth of Stereo brought about the death of real musical
appreciation.

[ ... ]

With each new technology or style, some embrace the change, some
enshrine the status quo.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

R78Skijoo wrote:

A lot of stuff...

The book 'Flatland' comes to mind.

"R78Skijoo" wrote in message

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
live music is heard from a single definable origin, by two ears mounted on
a
single head, attached to one body. Ears working in a pair act as range
finders


Great troll - a lot of effort went into that !

geoff

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 20:48:54 -0500, "James Nipper"
wrote:

If stereo is a scam, then exactly what would you call Home Theatre? It
would be a scam of enormous proportions !!!

5.1 channels.. etc what a load of crap.............

I tend to agree :-)
5.1 is currently being used for freakish effects, not to attempt
realism. Like stereo was in the early days. "Hey! Listen to that
express train travel across the room!". Stereo grew up quickly.
I expect surround will too.

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message

"R78Skijoo" wrote ...
STEREO: Scam of the Century?

The birth of Stereo brought about the death of real musical
appreciation. Before Stereo, there was High Fidelity: an
enhancement of recorded music. Hi-fi brought new realism
to recorded music. Stereo brought new audio tricks but _less_
(italics in original) musical realism. Stereo is such a given, so
accepted and _expected_, that no one questions it, let alone
criticizes it.
....

Reasonably well written. But what a hot steaming pile.
Thanks for entering, but try a more realistic (or at least
believable) premise next time.

Agreed.

"James Nipper" wrote in message


If stereo is a scam, then exactly what would you call Home Theatre?

A rought approximation. Very rough.

It would be a scam of enormous proportions !!!

No scam, just rough approximations.

5.1 channels.. etc what a load of crap.............

Reality is multichannel - at least one channel per musician, and then
some...

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.


--
Best Regards,

Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-

In article ,
says...


STEREO: Scam of the Century?

Mercyfully snipped drivel


LOL, whatta maroon! Someone who knows nothing about audio but a bit about how
to troll a newsgroup.

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

Arny Krueger wrote:
"James Nipper" wrote in message



If stereo is a scam, then exactly what would you call Home Theatre?


A rought approximation. Very rough.


It would be a scam of enormous proportions !!!


No scam, just rough approximations.


5.1 channels.. etc what a load of crap.............


Reality is multichannel - at least one channel per musician, and then
some...


Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3 of
them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2 channels to
reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?

CD

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

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.


I suppose that depends on the venue and the material.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

Codifus wrote:

Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3 of
them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2 channels to
reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?

Do you really believe that 2 channel actually gives one a realistic
representation of the reverberant field in back of you?

If you are referring to studio recordings only, then your view is more
correct.

I forgot who said it, but someone a long time ago thought the proper
number of channnels was three-mic'd in a wye configuration and played
back in a delta. Never did it, but if someone will loan me a Nagra-D
and three nice condenser mic's (BLUE is fine if Neumanns aren't handy)
we can rig it up. Worth a shot anyway.

wrote in message
...
Codifus wrote:

Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3 of
them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2 channels to
reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?

Do you really believe that 2 channel actually gives one a realistic
representation of the reverberant field in back of you?

A completely dead room and a speaker in each corner, (8 speakers) should
give a proper *3* dimensional soundfield if recorded for that. Plus sub
woofers if necessary. 7.1 is simply a variation.
(BTW mono is a point source and zero dimensions, stereo being only one
dimension, and quad is 2 dimensions)

If you are referring to studio recordings only, then your view is more
correct.

Not really. For multi-track recordings using one channel per instrument, it
will depend totally on where the sound is panned to. Could need mono,
stereo, 4 ch, 5.1, 7.1.

MrT.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I forgot who said it, but someone a long time ago thought the proper
number of channnels was three-mic'd in a wye configuration and played
back in a delta. Never did it, but if someone will loan me a Nagra-D
and three nice condenser mic's (BLUE is fine if Neumanns aren't handy)
we can rig it up. Worth a shot anyway.

How are the mics and speakers set up in *3* dimensional space? I can see how
this system might work for two dimensions if you ignore hieght though.

MrT.

If you want some good discussion of multi-channel audio, you really owe it
to yourself to read the very well written quadraphonic section at
www.wendycarlos.com. This is the same Wendy Carlos, A.K.A Walter Carlos, of
Switched On Bach fame. She discusses the pros and cons of the various
encoding/matrixing schemes, proper speaker placement and psycho-acoustic
principles from the standpoint of a very well-seasoned artist and recordist.
In other words, opinion based on years of experience and musical training.

Note: I have not been able to reach www.wendycarlos.com today due to DNS
errors. I am aware of several web sites that have been up and down over the
last several days due to DDoS attacks. You might need to try again later.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:41:00 -0500, Codifus
wrote:

Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3 of
them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2 channels to
reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?

2 channels reproduce 2 dimensions - a flat plane. To reproduce height,
you need additional channels - although conventional surround sound
doesn't actually do this, it's still just 2-dimensional for some
stoopid reason.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

The originator of this thread evidently had some free time over the
weekend:

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...om &lr=&hl=en

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

In article ,
Codifus wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"James Nipper" wrote in message



If stereo is a scam, then exactly what would you call Home Theatre?


A rought approximation. Very rough.


It would be a scam of enormous proportions !!!


No scam, just rough approximations.


5.1 channels.. etc what a load of crap.............


Reality is multichannel - at least one channel per musician, and then
some...


Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3 of
them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2 channels to
reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?

CD

Only if you hold your head still and if you know the exact acoustics of
the room. Surround sound can improve realism in a more robust manner
than DSP effects.

Of course the surround sound has to be done properly. The Dolby tricks
to simulate additional channels often does more harm than good. 5.1 can
be amazing and immersing if the sound engineers really know what they're
doing, or annoying if they don't. Sometimes surround sound is used for
an artistic effect rather than realism, and that can be a good or bad
thing too depending on the skill.

"Codifus" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


Reality is multichannel - at least one channel per musician, and then
some...

Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3 of
them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2 channels
to reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?

Binaural works, and that's 2 channel. If you are willing to listen with
headphones or earphones and not move your head from the one spot in the
performance space where the corresponding dummy head was placed, than that's
how you can have good dimensional sonic realism with just 2 channels.

If you want to use speakers, and/or move around in the listening space,
and/or have different sonic perspectives in the performance space, then just
2 channels doesn't seem to offer very much.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Codifus" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:



Reality is multichannel - at least one channel per musician, and then
some...


Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3 of
them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2 channels
to reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?


Binaural works, and that's 2 channel. If you are willing to listen with
headphones or earphones and not move your head from the one spot in the
performance space where the corresponding dummy head was placed, than that's
how you can have good dimensional sonic realism with just 2 channels.

If you want to use speakers, and/or move around in the listening space,
and/or have different sonic perspectives in the performance space, then just
2 channels doesn't seem to offer very much.


Fair enough. I'll admitt that even though I feel we need only 2 channels
to reproduce 3 dimensions, with stereo speakers, you have to be sitting
in the sweet spot just to really get a sense of depth. The filed tends
to collapse if you sit anywhere else.

CD

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:41:00 -0500, Codifus
wrote:


Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3 of
them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2 channels to
reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?


2 channels reproduce 2 dimensions - a flat plane. To reproduce height,
you need additional channels - although conventional surround sound
doesn't actually do this, it's still just 2-dimensional for some
stoopid reason.
Because all the speakers in the surround system are (ideally) located in
the same plane. Sometime in the future, if consumers can stand adding
yet more speakers to their system, maybe George Lucas and his THX crew,
while producing Star Wars 27, or Sony with their 3D IMAX, will come out
with a 12.2 spec; all the same speakers in the 6.1 spec, but also a
duplicated set of speakers sitting 3 feet higher than the others. The
extra subwoofer is just there so that the bass could keep up with all
those speakers.

True 3-D space and a whole lot of speakers

CD

"Codifus" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Codifus" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:



Reality is multichannel - at least one channel per musician, and
then some...


Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3
of them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2
channels to reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?


Binaural works, and that's 2 channel. If you are willing to listen
with headphones or earphones and not move your head from the one
spot in the performance space where the corresponding dummy head was
placed, than that's how you can have good dimensional sonic realism
with just 2 channels. If you want to use speakers, and/or move around in
the listening
space, and/or have different sonic perspectives in the performance
space, then just 2 channels doesn't seem to offer very much.

Fair enough. I'll admitt that even though I feel we need only 2
channels to reproduce 3 dimensions, with stereo speakers, you have to
be sitting in the sweet spot just to really get a sense of depth. The
filed tends to collapse if you sit anywhere else.

I think that it might be possible to create a good sound field with a
relatively small number of speakers. However I see the need for more than 2
channels on the recorded media to suit a wider range of listening
situations.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:48:03 -0500, Codifus
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:41:00 -0500, Codifus
wrote:


Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3 of
them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2 channels to
reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?


2 channels reproduce 2 dimensions - a flat plane. To reproduce height,
you need additional channels - although conventional surround sound
doesn't actually do this, it's still just 2-dimensional for some
stoopid reason.
Because all the speakers in the surround system are (ideally) located in
the same plane. Sometime in the future, if consumers can stand adding
yet more speakers to their system, maybe George Lucas and his THX crew,
while producing Star Wars 27, or Sony with their 3D IMAX, will come out
with a 12.2 spec; all the same speakers in the 6.1 spec, but also a
duplicated set of speakers sitting 3 feet higher than the others. The
extra subwoofer is just there so that the bass could keep up with all
those speakers.

True 3-D space and a whole lot of speakers

You don't need that many, just six placed correctly to include height.
Sony have actually produced some experimental 6-channel recordings of
this type, but of course this is incompatible with conventional 'flat'
5.1 systems.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

You don't need that many, just six placed correctly to include height.
Sony have actually produced some experimental 6-channel recordings of
this type, but of course this is incompatible with conventional 'flat'
5.1 systems.

I second that and I might add: Telarc and Chesky.

And of course 2+2+2 recording of MDG. Actually the only
6-channel system I have auditioned so far. Quite impressive.

http://www.divox.com/news/twotwotwo/ttte.html
http://www.mdg.de/indexeng.htm

Cheers,

Franco

R78Skijoo wrote:
STEREO: Scam of the Century?


snip of some "stuff"

I recognize certain limited applications of Stereo. If I want to listen to
Alpine horns blowing on a glacier with my left ear, and the villagers singing
down below with my right ear, then I can really appreciate stereo, thank you
very much. Otherwise, give me one nice big speaker, one nice little speaker,
and sufficient power to drown out unwanted conversation, and I'm perfectly
satisfied. And one thing i almost forgot: good music.

Troll.

Reasonably well written. But what a hot steaming pile.
Thanks for entering, but try a more realistic (or at least
believable) premise next time.

Agreed.

To paraphrase Dr. McCoy in Star Trek IV: The neo-Luddite mentality is the
only real constant in the Universe.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
2 channels reproduce 2 dimensions - a flat plane. To reproduce height,
you need additional channels - although conventional surround sound
doesn't actually do this, it's still just 2-dimensional for some
stoopid reason.

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.

MrT.

"RWG" wrote in message
...
To paraphrase Dr. McCoy in Star Trek IV: The neo-Luddite mentality is the
only real constant in the Universe.

Nah, greed is.

MrT.

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
2 channels reproduce 2 dimensions - a flat plane. To reproduce height,
you need additional channels - although conventional surround sound
doesn't actually do this, it's still just 2-dimensional for some
stoopid reason.

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.

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.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
2 channels reproduce 2 dimensions - a flat plane. To reproduce
height, you need additional channels - although conventional
surround sound doesn't actually do this, it's still just
2-dimensional for some stoopid reason.

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.

Two channels are perfectly capable of producing depth.

Agreed, because of the presence of a temporal dimenision.


If you don't think so, then you have a faulty audio system, or a faulty
ear/brain
system.

Perhaps surprisingly a perception of change of height can be stimulated by
shifting the timbre in a way that approximates the HRTF changes that take
place as a source rises and/or falls.

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..
2 channels reproduce 2 dimensions - a flat plane. To reproduce height,
you need additional channels - although conventional surround sound
doesn't actually do this, it's still just 2-dimensional for some
stoopid reason.

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.

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.

2, 4 or 5.1 speakers in a flat plane is still 2 dimensional.

For accurate 3D sound we need at least 8 channels (plus sub if you like)
with 'Height' being the missing dimension so far. FLB (front left bottom)
FLT (front left top), FRB, FRT, etc, etc you get the idea.

Maybe that's the next marketing step. I'm still stuck on stereo though.


geoff




geoff

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
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.

MrT.

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? :-)

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?

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)...
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
, 919-472-1124