[Sean[_6_]]

On Nov 8, 6:11=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
To add my own take here, it seems to me we can eliminate the "circle"
quite simply, though perhaps not very practically. =A0Bur conceptually
all we have to do is have a specification for the recording monitor
and the listening room such that the home speakers will reflect
accurately the sound through the studio monitors. =A0Then the recording
engineer does what he does and when satisfied with the monitor sound
releases the recording. =A0The listener who's system meets the spec can
then be assured that they are at least hearing the sound the engineer
intended. =A0Then if they don't like it they can apply further
equalization.

If the engineer makes a recording of a symphony that sounds, on the
studio monitors in the studio, like the live sound, then the home
listener will hear that. =A0If the engineer wants to create an aural
landscape that is completely nonexistent then he is free to do so, and
the listener with a system that meets the spec will at least know that
he is hearing what the engineer intended, whatever that was.

Surely it should not be beyond modern technology to manufacture
speakers to a solid specification just as they do with amplifiers.
Even back in the 1970's the BBC could manufacture a line of speakers
such that any random two would create a stereo image well within
spec. =A0I doubt if the ability is missing. =A0I imagine that what is
missing is the will.

Maybe we need Dolby to lay down a loudspeaker spec for stereo sound?

Thank you, Ed. You understand what the circle of confusion is, and
what the solution is for breaking it.Please explain it to Scott.


[ Although this edges on provocation, I am allowing it because of
the unusual and specific circumstances. -- dsr ]

[Scott[_6_]]

On 24 Nov, 06:57, Sean wrote:
On Nov 8, 6:11=3DA0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:





To add my own take here, it seems to me we can eliminate the "circle"
quite simply, though perhaps not very practically. =3DA0Bur conceptuall=
y
all we have to do is have a specification for the recording monitor
and the listening room such that the home speakers will reflect
accurately the sound through the studio monitors. =3DA0Then the recordi=
ng
engineer does what he does and when satisfied with the monitor sound
releases the recording. =3DA0The listener who's system meets the spec c=
an
then be assured that they are at least hearing the sound the engineer
intended. =3DA0Then if they don't like it they can apply further
equalization.

If the engineer makes a recording of a symphony that sounds, on the
studio monitors in the studio, like the live sound, then the home
listener will hear that. =3DA0If the engineer wants to create an aural
landscape that is completely nonexistent then he is free to do so, and
the listener with a system that meets the spec will at least know that
he is hearing what the engineer intended, whatever that was.

Surely it should not be beyond modern technology to manufacture
speakers to a solid specification just as they do with amplifiers.
Even back in the 1970's the BBC could manufacture a line of speakers
such that any random two would create a stereo image well within
spec. =3DA0I doubt if the ability is missing. =3DA0I imagine that what =
is
missing is the will.

Maybe we need Dolby to lay down a loudspeaker spec for stereo sound?

Thank you, Ed. You understand what the circle of confusion is, and
what the solution is for breaking it.Please explain it to Scott.

=A0 =A0[ Although this edges on provocation, I am allowing it because of
=A0 =A0 =A0the unusual and specific circumstances. -- dsr ]- Hide quoted =
text -



Really? So Sean, you are willing to let Dolby Labs determine the
standards and dictate how your speakers will be designed for the sake
of this standardization? And you are willing to pay them a licencing
fee for this?