[Mxsmanic]

Arny Krueger writes:

Wrong - its a hyperbola. Reference cited in another post.

I stand corrected. Nevertheless, a hyperbola contains an infinite number of
points, just like a circle. So you have no way of unambiguously locating the
sound source.

[Mxsmanic]

None writes:

Politeness, or lack of politeness, doesn't change those simple
facts, nor does it magically eliminate all the well-known and
experimentally verified effects of the skull, pinnae, ear canals,
etc. ...

Agreed.

If you continue to make a spectacle of your ignorance, you
have no justification in whining when it's pointed out to you.

I am absolutely certain of what I am saying. It is based on very simple
principles that are very easy to understand.

[Mxsmanic]

John Williamson writes:

If you have a problem doing this with most sounds, then maybe you need
your hearing checked. Problems locating sounds are often an early sign
of approaching deafness or damage to one or both cochleas. Or, more
likely, a build up of wax in one or both ears.

Try a double-blind test and see how well you can locate sound sources, even
with perfect hearing. Remember, no head movement allowed.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

Umm.... _all_ imaging is by inference. Come to think of it, all hearing is
too.

You can make certain deductions accurately from the information available.
Moving the head provides additional information that can make more extensive
deductions possible, which in turn makes it much easier to accurately
determine the location of sound sources. Without head movement, some
information is missing, and no unambiguous determination can be made.

Professional audio depends on this, so I'm surprised that people argue about
it.

But... you're not actually here to learn about audio, you're here to
deliberately start flame wars.

No, but I refuse to adopt an incorrect position just to please others who
persist in denying the correct position. I don't care how much experience they
have, what's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong.

[Mxsmanic]

Arny Krueger writes:

They can be, but they need not. Example: Binaural recording.

That's still ambiguous if the head doesn't move during recording. There can
still be ambiguities with a moving head, but they are greatly diminished.

People instinctively turn their heads to locate sounds. Why would they do
that, if movement of the head were not necessary?

[Luxey]

On Thursday, 5 April 2012 14:22:46 UTC+2, Arny Krueger wrote:

The Holy Grail of recording might be finding a way to make both kinds of
recordings at the same time which seems possible, but apparently there is
not enough market for binaural recordings to put them into the mainstream
marketplace.

oh well,
1. why would there be target market at all? Just record it that way and continue sell as "ordinary" recording.
2. Don't use use expression binaural, but 3D instead, and sell everything that comes along. Analogus to 3D TV and crap. Count on lack of consumer's inteligency and hype words.
3. Would binaural cues survive mp3 encoding? May be cure for the industry - "Download mp3 and loose 3D!".

[Luxey]

On Thursday, 5 April 2012 14:02:52 UTC+2, Arny Krueger wrote:
..............

Anything from own experience?

[John Williamson]

Mxsmanic wrote:
John Williamson writes:

Don't forget to allow for the fact that due to the shape of the ear, the
frequency response of each ear differs as the sound source changes
direction, which means that the two points of intersection can be
differentiated by the differing frequency content of the sound at each ear.

But attempting to locate sound sources in this way involves inference, not
deduction, so it does not reliably and unambiguously locate a sound source.

In my case, the processing is done automatically by my ears and brain
before I become conciously aware of the sound.

If this were not true, much of professional audio would have no reason to
exist. If human hearing really could locate sound sources reliably, then
speakers and headphones would sound terribly artificial.

They do. If you had ever recorded any sound and played the recording
back, you would know this.

We've all had millions of years of evolution and most of us have had a
lifetime's experience of decoding these changes, so as a result, you can
locate any sound quite closely in the 360 degrees without moving our
heads, although some sounds with a long attack and in certain frequency
bands can be (very) hard to locate. Vertical location is more difficult,
but can still often be done, although it may need slight head movement.

Head movement changes the game entirely. But without it, there can be no
unambiguous localization of sound sources. The more unfamiliar the sound or
situation, the more unreliable inferences will be.

The only way to entirely eliminate all head movement is to clamp it in
position. Even breathing will move the head enough in a lot of cases.

Not practical. So I need a tool that can isolate the sounds.

This is why many motor vehicle engineers have a stethoscope in their
toolbox.

Yes, or something similar. A plastic tube might even be sufficient.

It often is, when the right tool isn't to hand, or a rigid rod can do a
similar job.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
No, what it's all about is accurate reproduction. Headphones eliminate
room acoustics, but they produce an "in the head" effect, unless you
introduce crosstalk and head-shadowing. Which, oddly, do not appear
on any controller I'm aware of.

That's merely because the original recordings are made to be reproduced
on speakers.

You got it backwards. The processing is needed for conventional
recordings.

Processing is needed either way, it's just different processing.
--scott

I'm not sure what processing you're talking about, but the basic idea goes
something like this:

Stereophonic (loudspeaker based auditory perspective) recordings are made to
be reproduced on speakers in another acoustic space. The microphones can be
any number, for various reasons and techniques and purposes, and are placed
relatively close to the instruments because they will be played back on
speakers that are placed a distance from you in the playback space. Note
carefully all and sundry that this is NOT a "two speakers/two ears/ two
microphones" system, nor are any micrphones placed at an ideal listener
position, such as back in the audience. On playback, the various channels go
to speakers placed all around you, in an attempt to physically place those
sounds where they belong in your space. Your ears are free to hear all
speakers and the room they are in, for greatest realism, and for multiple
listeners.

Binaural recordings are more of a "you are there" system, wherein the
signals that impinge on the dummy head (mxmaniac) are reproduced on
headphones so that those signals will be fed directly to the two ears and
eliminate all playback room acoustic interference. The dummy head is placed
at a typical listener position so that it receives the complete sound
picture of the original PLUS the original room acoustics. Great idea, but
has some problems, as noted above.

A common sense way of saying all this is that stereo (surround) reproduced
the object itself - the sound field produced by the instruments and some of
the original acoustics, and binaural reproduces ear signals. The two systems
are mutually exclusive, but are continually confused with each other due to
the fact that we have done stereo with two channels for so long now.

Gary Eickmeier

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Tom McCreadie writes:

Sorry, but a time difference - which is proportional to a distance
difference
between the sound source and the two ears - will place the source on a
hyperbola.

A hyperbola contains multiple points, too.

So does a straight line.

So the source is still not unambiguously located.

The possibility of unambiguous location is vastly improved by the graph
*not* being circles.

You're running away from the serious error that you made. You said that
unambiguous location was inherently impossible. Tam true.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger writes:

Wrong - its a hyperbola. Reference cited in another post.

I stand corrected.

Good move.

Nevertheless, a hyperbola contains an infinite number of
points, just like a circle.

A straight line contains an infinite number of points. Using your logic, the
intersection of two straight lines is never unambigious. Come on guy, you
admitted your mistake, why not just stop right there!

So you have no way of unambiguously locating the sound source.

Now, you made the same mistake all over again.

shaking head

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/5/2012 1:11 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

No, you have to think of sound waves as a phenomenon that takes some
time to
happen. A 50 Hz wave doesn't just "arrive" - it takes 1/50th of a second
to
happen. Nor is it just one cycle. I think we all know that drivers would
have to be separated by several feet for anything to be audible at all,
that
then it would be for reasons other than time alignment.

HITLER!!!!!!!

/uncontrolled maniacal laughter...

Worrying about time alignment with loudspeakers in a room is so unimportant
it IS laughable. See

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=4457

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

Hey - I didn't realize it when I wrote this joke, but there is an actual
interview of Peter Belt's wife May in the current issue of Stereophile! Is
that rich or what?

Gary Eickmeier

[None]

"Mrs Maniac" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier writes:
A brief read of the literature will show what Bill is saying

QUACKS, FARTS, AND REFUSES TO READ THE LITERATURE

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger writes:

Wrong - its a hyperbola. Reference cited in another post.

I stand corrected.

Good move.

Nevertheless, a hyperbola contains an infinite number of
points, just like a circle.

A straight line contains an infinite number of points. Using your logic,
the intersection of two straight lines is never unambigious. Come on guy,
you admitted your mistake, why not just stop right there!

So you have no way of unambiguously locating the sound source.

Now, you made the same mistake all over again.

shaking head

Kind of silly to distinguish the circle from the hyperbola when you are
talking about localization of sound sources. We can't tell distance that
accurately, so all we can talk about really is direction, making the shape
of the set of points ambiguous.

Gary Eickmeier

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Luxey" wrote in message
news:8200913.561.1333703837224.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynej18...

On Thursday, 5 April 2012 14:22:46 UTC+2, Arny Krueger wrote:

The Holy Grail of recording might be finding a way to make both kinds of
recordings at the same time which seems possible, but apparently there is
not enough market for binaural recordings to put them into the mainstream
marketplace.

oh well,

Its something that could be easily done with multichannel physical media or
downloads.

1. why would there be target market at all? Just record it that way and
continue sell as "ordinary" recording.

Presumably binaural recordings have the potential to provide a more
immersive and thus potentially pleasurable listening experience. I've heard
several examples including one that operated in real time, and I could be a
fan.

2. Don't use use expression binaural, but 3D instead, and sell everything
that comes along. Analogus to 3D TV and crap. Count on lack of consumer's
inteligency and hype words.

I'm not against using words that more people understand accurately as it
applies to them. I seem to recall "3D" being applied to ordinary stereo LPs
back in the day, and that was a joke! This time, the application even has
some truth in it.

3. Would binaural cues survive mp3 encoding? May be cure for the
industry - "Download mp3 and loose 3D!".

AFAIK binaural recordings survive MP3 coding at sufficient bitrates very
well.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Luxey" wrote in message
news:28927601.509.1333704186276.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbvi18...
On Thursday, 5 April 2012 14:02:52 UTC+2, Arny Krueger wrote:
..............

Anything from own experience?

Yes, I've done some playback of recordings and live sound outdoors.

[Mxsmanic]

Arny Krueger writes:

So does a straight line.

Yes. The point being that with just two ears that do not move, you cannot
localize a sound source unambiguously. You can determine that it must be along
a certain line or curve (or actually along a certain surface or within a
certain volume), but that's all.

Turning your head immediately produces a dramatic increase in available
information, and allows you to constrain the possible locations for the source
to a much smaller volume.

The possibility of unambiguous location is vastly improved by the graph
*not* being circles.

You're running away from the serious error that you made.

Circle vs. hyperbola? I think not. And if you want to play the pedantry game,
keep in mind that we are actually talking about three dimensions, so we are
dealing with surfaces or volumes, not lines or curves.

You said that unambiguous location was inherently impossible. Tam true.

It _is_ true, if you don't move your head. Even if you move your head, it
won't necessarily remove all ambiguity, but it dramatically improves your
ability to constrain the potential locations to a smaller volume.

Pretend that what you hear is represented by two irregular splotches on a
screen, each of constant brightness and color. If you don't move your head,
all you see is these two splotches. But if you move your head, they "paint" a
large pictures, and the more you move your head, the clearer the picture
becomes. Same principle.

[Mxsmanic]

John Williamson writes:

In my case, the processing is done automatically by my ears and brain
before I become conciously aware of the sound.

That has no influence on the accuracy of the conclusions that your brain might
reach.

They do. If you had ever recorded any sound and played the recording
back, you would know this.

They sound fine to me, within limits.

The only way to entirely eliminate all head movement is to clamp it in
position. Even breathing will move the head enough in a lot of cases.

Breathing will not produce enough movement to substantially improve
localization. And the point is that movement is required for accurate
localization. How the head might or might not be mobilized is irrelevant.

It often is, when the right tool isn't to hand, or a rigid rod can do a
similar job.

Actually this thread has inspired me on that point. I don't have any money to
buy fancy gear, but a simple, short plastic tube might help me to figure out
which fan is making the noise. That shouldn't be too expensive.

[Mxsmanic]

Arny Krueger writes:

A straight line contains an infinite number of points.

So does a curve.

Using your logic, the intersection of two straight lines is never
unambigious.

Nobody said that straight lines are involved. These are curves, and curves can
intersect more than once. It's the fact that they can have multiple
intersections that makes localization ambiguous.

[Mxsmanic]

Gary Eickmeier writes:

Kind of silly to distinguish the circle from the hyperbola when you are
talking about localization of sound sources. We can't tell distance that
accurately, so all we can talk about really is direction, making the shape
of the set of points ambiguous.

So localization is not possible without uncertainty with a non-moving head.
QED.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic wrote:

People instinctively turn their heads to locate sounds. Why would they do
that, if movement of the head were not necessary?

This is discussed in one of the texts I have cited which you refuse to read.

For a really interesting project, watch what cats do to localize sounds.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Stereophonic (loudspeaker based auditory perspective) recordings are made to
be reproduced on speakers in another acoustic space. The microphones can be
any number, for various reasons and techniques and purposes, and are placed
relatively close to the instruments because they will be played back on
speakers that are placed a distance from you in the playback space. Note
carefully all and sundry that this is NOT a "two speakers/two ears/ two
microphones" system, nor are any micrphones placed at an ideal listener
position, such as back in the audience. On playback, the various channels go
to speakers placed all around you, in an attempt to physically place those
sounds where they belong in your space. Your ears are free to hear all
speakers and the room they are in, for greatest realism, and for multiple
listeners.

Right.

However, in the case of panpotted stereo where we are working with isolated
tracks mixed together, the mixing operator is basically positioning everything
in space using artificial reverb, natural reverb from distant mikes, and
panpots.

In that case of panpotted stereo, because all of the positioning is being done
by the mixer, if the mixer chooses to monitor over headphones he will come up
with a very different mix, one which is optimized to have imaging and space
for headphones.

The panpotted stereo case is very different than natural two-microphone
stereophonic mixes. The two-microphone stereophony gets the imaging from
the room and the placement... but again if you monitor on headphones, you
will find yourself placing the microphones in a location that will sound
best on headphones, rather than on speakers.

Binaural recordings are more of a "you are there" system, wherein the
signals that impinge on the dummy head (mxmaniac) are reproduced on
headphones so that those signals will be fed directly to the two ears and
eliminate all playback room acoustic interference. The dummy head is placed
at a typical listener position so that it receives the complete sound
picture of the original PLUS the original room acoustics. Great idea, but
has some problems, as noted above.

It works very well. And, in fact, if you take a dummy head and you place
it far forward of where you would normally place it for a binaural recording,
it can be possible to use it to make a recording which sounds accurate on
speakers. However, in this case you're using the dummy head really as a
baffled omni pair rather than as an actual dummy head.

A common sense way of saying all this is that stereo (surround) reproduced
the object itself - the sound field produced by the instruments and some of
the original acoustics, and binaural reproduces ear signals. The two systems
are mutually exclusive, but are continually confused with each other due to
the fact that we have done stereo with two channels for so long now.

This is true, however it's important to separate the hardware from the
techniques from the playback method. Because it's possible to use hardware
intended for one playback method to make a recording intended for another
one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

/uncontrolled maniacal laughter...

Worrying about time alignment with loudspeakers in a room is so unimportant
it IS laughable. See

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=4457

Well, it _is_ important in the sense that if you have multiple loudspeaker
drivers emitting the same signals (as happens over the crossover region
and with stereo playback), comb filtering between them can become an issue.

In this case it's not the group delay that is the issue but the comb filtering
that comes from the group delay.

Best example I ever heard was the Altec A-5s with about three feet between
woofer and tweeter, and a first order crossover so there was substantial
overlap between them. As you raised and lowered your ears by a few feet,
you could hear substantial differences in vocal quality... and the effect
remained outdoors so it wasn't a room issue. The solution to that one was
a third-order crossover, since you couldn't reseat the treble horn inside
the bass horn like you could with the A-7.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Luxey]

петак, 06. април 2012. 14..21.49 UTC+2, Arny Krueger је напи�ао/ла:
I'm not against using words that more people understand accurately as it
applies to them. I seem to recall "3D" being applied to ordinary stereo LPs
back in the day, and that was a joke! This time, the application even has
some truth in it.

I remember the other way arround. 3D slides packs, a bit different for each eye, they were called "Stereo Pictures".

As for the marketing, my point is do not market it, just sell it. it will always be good enough to listen on speakers. One who want's binaural will know when to use earphones. And pity, if in the end I was to market it, my marketing idea is unapplicable.

[Trevor]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Not practical. So I need a tool that can isolate the sounds.

This is why many motor vehicle engineers have a stethoscope in their
toolbox.

Yes, or something similar. A plastic tube might even be sufficient.

It often is, when the right tool isn't to hand, or a rigid rod can do a
similar job.

Yes, the long bladed screwdriver has performed that function for me and
thousands of other mechanics when nothing else is at hand.

Trevor.

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

On 4/6/2012 10:24 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:

People instinctively turn their heads to locate sounds. Why would they do
that, if movement of the head were not necessary?

This is discussed in one of the texts I have cited which you refuse to read.

For a really interesting project, watch what cats do to localize sounds.
--scott

Damn, I just did that experiment while reading through
this thread with my cat sitting on my lap. :-)
==

Now, some key questions [for Mx... (who is in my kill file)]:
Why would cats do that?

Next: Why might people do something similar?

Then finally: How might that apply to music listening?
==

Extra credit: Apply Edwin Land's retinex vision evolution
to the acoustic arena. Discuss your thoughts on that
concept.
==

Later...
Ron Capik
--

[William Sommerwerck]

Extra credit: Apply Edwin Land's retinex vision evolution to
the acoustic arena. Discuss your thoughts on that concept.

You /do/ know your science history! I remember reading his Scientific
American article more than 50 years ago.

By the way, if you hold your head still, there can be front/back confusion
about localization. But as far as either hemisphere is concerned, you don't
have to turn your head to determine the azimuth.

[Mxsmanic]

William Sommerwerck writes:

By the way, if you hold your head still, there can be front/back confusion
about localization. But as far as either hemisphere is concerned, you don't
have to turn your head to determine the azimuth.

Front/back confusion is a 180-degree error in azimuth.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck writes:

By the way, if you hold your head still, there can be front/back
confusion about localization. But as far as either hemisphere is
concerned, you don't have to turn your head to determine the
azimuth.

Front/back confusion is a 180-degree error in azimuth.

Read what I wrote.

[Mxsmanic]

William Sommerwerck writes:

Read what I wrote.

I do that on the first pass, so no reminder is necessary.

[None]

"Mrs Maniac" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck writes:
Read what I wrote.
I do that on the first pass, so no reminder is necessary.

A comedy of buffoons! A writer who doesn't write clearly is
misunderstood by a reader who has poor reading comprehension
skills. The writer, with his pompous misconception that he's
always right, offers self-satisfied condescension. The reader,
likewise in denial of his erroneous tendencies, responds with
his usual simpleton air-headedness.

Apparently, the writer thinks that if he understood what he
wrote, he's successful. And the reader thinks that he doesn't
get it, then he's successful. Neither of them is actually interested
in communication. Quantum physics can only go so far, to
explain how such a vast quantity of granite can be contained
in two microcephalic skulls.

Sometimes this newsgroup is a great source of technical
information about audio recording. Other times, I get myself
a bowl of popcorn, and enjoy the sitcom. Life is grand!

[William Sommerwerck]

Read what I wrote.

I do that on the first pass, so no reminder is necessary.

A comedy of buffoons! A writer who doesn't write clearly is
misunderstood by a reader who has poor reading comprehension
skills.

I wrote with perfect clarity. However, I was making the point indirectly --
in a way that should have been clear to anyone who actually thinks on
occasion -- rather than wasting time spelling it out.

There is a basic law of writing that goes "Do not write to be understood.
Write so that you cannot be misunderstood." If I and others always wrote
that way (at least in UseNet), there would be no time to do anything else.


Apparently, the writer thinks that if he understood what
he wrote, he's successful.

WRONG! Not I. I'm not perfect. As a technical writer, I often have to
rewrite something that was incomplete or misleading.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
....
I wrote with perfect clarity
....
Not I. I'm not perfect.

Hehe. Pass the popcorn!

As a technical writer, I often have to
rewrite something that was incomplete or misleading.

Gee, here on Usenet, you just pretend that your poor
writing is the fault of the reader. Technical writer? Thanks
for the laugh!

[Gary Eickmeier]

"None" wrote in message
m...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
...
I wrote with perfect clarity
...
Not I. I'm not perfect.

Hehe. Pass the popcorn!

As a technical writer, I often have to
rewrite something that was incomplete or misleading.

Gee, here on Usenet, you just pretend that your poor
writing is the fault of the reader. Technical writer? Thanks
for the laugh!

Who the hell are you, hiding behind a pseudonym?

Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...

Gee, here on Usenet, you just pretend that your poor writing
is the fault of the reader. Technical writer? Thanks for the laugh!

If you saw the documentation I wrote, you wouldn't laugh.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"None" wrote in message
m...

Gee, here on Usenet, you just pretend that your poor writing
is the fault of the reader. Technical writer? Thanks for the laugh!

If you saw the documentation I wrote, you wouldn't laugh.

No, all I've seen (as far as I know) is what you write here.
Clarity doesn't seem to be your forte, and your accuracy is
no better than your understanding. You're too hung up on
the fiction that you're always right to actually correct yourself
on the numerous occasions when you're wrong. You must be
an editor's nightmare.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

If you saw the documentation I wrote, you wouldn't laugh.

I've not read your work, but I'm pretty sure my eyes would glaze
over. I don't do well with technical minutia. I have to really force it.
And that's not your writing in particular, just technical writing in
general.

Point taken. Holding the reader's attention without sending him to
Slumberland is a challenge.

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"None" wrote in message
m...

Gee, here on Usenet, you just pretend that your poor writing
is the fault of the reader. Technical writer? Thanks for the laugh!

If you saw the documentation I wrote, you wouldn't laugh.

No, all I've seen (as far as I know) is what you write here.
Clarity doesn't seem to be your forte, and your accuracy is
no better than your understanding. You're too hung up on
the fiction that you're always right to actually correct yourself
on the numerous occasions when you're wrong. You must be
an editor's nightmare.

It's obvious who you are, so...

Your idea of "right" and "wrong" differs radically from mine. I'm rarely
wrong about anything, and when I am, I /almost/ always admit it. What you
call a lack of clarity is most-often your highly parochial viewpoint.

I am a nightmare, but not to editors. Bad writers hate me, because they
won't listen when I tell them what they need to do to clean up their work.

I write user documentation that readers can actually understand. I have been
told so by the readers.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

It's obvious who you are, so...

So? That's not very clear.

Your idea of "right" and "wrong" differs radically from mine.

Uh huh.

I'm rarely wrong about anything,

Uh huh.

and when I am, I /almost/ always admit it.

Uh huh.

So you invent your own definition of what's correct, such
that you can claim that you're always correct. Instead of
admitting when you're wrong, you stick your head up your
own private definitions. Since you refuse to admit when
you're wrong, you avoid correcting yourself. Are you aware
how like Mrs Maniac you are in this?

Hehe. Pass the popcorn!