[William Sommerwerck]

Gary, I'm going to explain this one last time. And that's it.

1. There are two recording/playback technologies that are known to more or
less accurately render directionality (and therefore spatiality) -- binaural,
and Ambisonics. (There might be comparably good WFS systems.) These represent
a standard against which other forms of recording and playback can be judged.

2. As someone else pointed out, Michael Gerzon's research into surround
psychoacoustics is the current "reference" for such things. Is it necessarily
complete and correct? Almost certainly not. But he did develop a "meta-theory"
of directional hearing which can be applied to a range of recording and
listening conditions. *

3. All we're interested in is accuracy. (De gustibus, etc.) Anyone is free to
record and/or play back in any way they like, and if they like what they get,
fine. But liking something doesn't mean it's accurate.

4. You can argue all you like, but at some point you have to do the following
things:

a. You have to demonstrate that your playback technology /accurately/
reproduces the original ambient field (at least subjectively).

b. You then have to connect your technology with existing, accepted
theories --
either as extensions of them, or corrections to them.

Once you've done these things, then others will be willing to give your ideas
serious consideration. If you are not working to these ends, then you are
wasting your time and ours.

Please, please, please -- make an effort to understand my e-mail signature.

* I haven't studied the theory, and am blindly accepting the truth of its
validity.

http://decoy.iki.fi/dsound/ambisonic.../data/6827.pdf


"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right questions."
-- Edwin Land