Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default dBFS

On 11/25/2010 8:29 AM, Dick Pierce wrote:

A lot of us on this group remember quite clearly paying
for each and every call, having to gather up a king's
ransom to call 100 miles much less a couple of states
away, being forbidden from actually owning a telephone,
which came with a round thingy on it, party lines and
paying, in terms of real dollars, about ten times what
I pay now for a land-line service that provides me with
far more actually useful services than even existed
back then.


I have a limited phone service that charges me 9 cents for a
local call (no time limit), but I make so few phone calls
that it saves me quite a bit over an "unlimited" service. I
remember that a long distance call was a special thing,
nearly always to call a family member on a holiday or some
special occasion. If it wasn't for all the taxes and fees,
I'd be paying $25/month for a dial tone, all the local calls
I need, and DSL. My long distance service is 3 cents/minute
but the buggers have just started charging me a buck for any
month in which I make a LD call (because "all the companies
do that").

Oh, and the phone on the wall in my control room has a round
thingy on it, and an actual clanging bell, too.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
  #162   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Randy Yates Randy Yates is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 839
Default dBFS

"Mr.T" MrT@home writes:
[...]
Dummy head binaural recordings have been done for decades, but never really
caught on. I don't think the average classical music listener wants to use
headphones all the time, and dummy head recordings don't work well with
normal speakers, or pop music production methods.


FYI, binaural reproduction over speakers has been called "transaural
processing." Dr. Duane Cooper had some interesting research on it back
in the 80s or so.
--
Randy Yates % "Watching all the days go by...
Digital Signal Labs % Who are you and who am I?"
% 'Mission (A World Record)',
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % *A New World Record*, ELO
  #163   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default dBFS


"glen herrmannsfeldt" wrote in message
...
Dummy head binaural recordings have been done for decades, but never

really
caught on. I don't think the average classical music listener wants to

use
headphones all the time, and dummy head recordings don't work well with
normal speakers, or pop music production methods.
(Sort of like 3D movies that have been done for half a century, and they

are
still trying to push the idea as something new. But wearing glasses is

still
the same drawback for many, whether colored, polarised or LCD shutter)


Yes, but with the popularity of portable MP3 players, it might
just be about time, as, it seems, 3D movies are catching on,
and maybe 3D home video.



But how many people listen to classical music on their MP3 players? Would be
a very small market I think! As I already said, dummy head recordings don't
work well with pop music production methods.
And I am not at all convinced 3D television will catch on this time around
either. Just another chance to sell some more equipment before the novelty
wears off again for another decade or two IMO.

MrT.



  #164   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default dBFS


"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
FYI, binaural reproduction over speakers has been called "transaural
processing." Dr. Duane Cooper had some interesting research on it back
in the 80s or so.


But I guess we can assume it didn't catch on if no one has even heard of it?
:-)

MrT.


  #165   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default dBFS


"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
A lot of us on this group remember quite clearly paying
for each and every call, having to gather up a king's
ransom to call 100 miles much less a couple of states
away, being forbidden from actually owning a telephone,
which came with a round thingy on it, party lines and
paying, in terms of real dollars, about ten times what
I pay now for a land-line service that provides me with
far more actually useful services than even existed
back then.


Yep, technology has improved in many other areas too, computers have dropped
in price and increased in performance far more than telephony. It would be
really sad if we were stuck with the same computers, and same phone service
we had 50 years ago. Many would argue audio (music) technology hasn't made
as much improvement though, but costs have certainly reduced, in real terms
at least.

MrT.




  #166   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Richard Dobson Richard Dobson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default dBFS

On 25/11/2010 14:54, Randy Yates wrote:
"Mr.T"MrT@home writes:
[...]
Dummy head binaural recordings have been done for decades, but never really
caught on. I don't think the average classical music listener wants to use
headphones all the time, and dummy head recordings don't work well with
normal speakers, or pop music production methods.


FYI, binaural reproduction over speakers has been called "transaural
processing." Dr. Duane Cooper had some interesting research on it back
in the 80s or so.


Things have moved on a bit since then. The current state of the art is
Ambiophonics, developed by Ralph Glasgal:

http://www.ambiophonics.org

In a nutshell -- uses an almost adjacent pair of speakers (with
typically a baffle between them), together with crosstalk cancellation.


It is regularly discussed and described on the sursound list, needless
to say.

Richard Dobson
  #167   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default dBFS

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
A lot of us on this group remember quite clearly paying
for each and every call, having to gather up a king's
ransom to call 100 miles much less a couple of states
away, being forbidden from actually owning a telephone,
which came with a round thingy on it, party lines and
paying, in terms of real dollars, about ten times what
I pay now for a land-line service that provides me with
far more actually useful services than even existed
back then.


Yep, technology has improved in many other areas too, computers have dropped
in price and increased in performance far more than telephony. It would be
really sad if we were stuck with the same computers, and same phone service
we had 50 years ago.


Did we seem sad b efore all this tech arrived?

Many would argue audio (music) technology hasn't made
as much improvement though, but costs have certainly reduced, in real terms
at least.

MrT.


The limits of analog signal handling were approached long ago.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman
  #168   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

Mr.T wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
This is what I was talking about when I said it was what drove our
automobile manufacturers out of business.. I hope the audio equipment
manufacturers don't make the same mistake. Don't give the public
what it wants....Make them believe that what you want to build is
what they want through Madison Avenue hype.


It's worked pretty well for Apple!

MrT.


Yeah, but part of Apple's money comes from the desperation of computer
owners who are sick of fighting with Microsoft's screwed up operating
system.

  #169   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

Mr.T wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Yes. To me, the first step in "true stereo" is to buy a decent
headset. Then, you have to drive each earpiece with two totally
seperated channels of sound.

That's not stereo, that's binaural. Different idea altogether.


Oh. Well then, I don't know the difference. To me true stereo would
be what you normally hear. IOW, if you put a dummy seated front and
center in Carneige Hall, and put a microphone in his left ear and
record whatever that mic picks up on the "left" channel. and another
mike in his right ear, and record that on the "right" channel, and
then deliver those two channels to my ears via two transmission
channels and my stereo headset, then I am getting as near as is
possible what I would be hearing were I to fly to New York and buy a
ticket to Carneigy Hall and sit front and center for the real
performance. And to me, it doesn't get any better than this. If this
isn't "true stereo" then what is?



Dummy head binaural recordings have been done for decades, but never
really caught on. I don't think the average classical music listener
wants to use headphones all the time, and dummy head recordings don't
work well with normal speakers, or pop music production methods.
(Sort of like 3D movies that have been done for half a century, and
they are still trying to push the idea as something new. But wearing
glasses is still the same drawback for many, whether colored,
polarised or LCD shutter)


Oh, I agree. I didn't say that the manufacturers should abandon what they
are doing and build what I want them to build. I am simply saying that
that's what I thought of as, "true stereo". The listeneing public wants all
this 5 and 7 channel stuff that they mix down from putting each musician in
his own soundproofed room....And that's OK with me. But it isn't what I
think of when I talk about, "true stereo" In my true stereo world, speakers
don't exist. (except for the tiny ones in my headset...:^)

  #170   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
In comp.dsp Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
(snip)

Dummy head binaural recordings have been done for decades, but never
really caught on. I don't think the average classical music listener
wants to use headphones all the time, and dummy head recordings
don't work well with normal speakers, or pop music production
methods. (Sort of like 3D movies that have been done for half a
century, and they are still trying to push the idea as something
new. But wearing glasses is still the same drawback for many,
whether colored, polarised or LCD shutter)


Yes, but with the popularity of portable MP3 players, it might
just be about time, as, it seems, 3D movies are catching on,
and maybe 3D home video.

-- glen


The only " true stereo" television I ever saw was in a radiation lab, where
they handled radioactive materials remotely with robot arms and hands, and
needed the stereo so they could judge distance and not drop stuff. They had
two cameras 2-1/2 inches apart, and two seperte channels....One for each
eye. The picture you got was just like being there, and when you put your
hand in the glove and reached out to pick up something, the robot arm
reached out just like you did. All this red and green glasses stuff they
were showing the kids in the movies was a joke compared to that.



  #171   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Oh. Well then, I don't know the difference. To me true stereo would
be what you normally hear. IOW, if you put a dummy seated front and
center in Carneige Hall, and put a microphone in his left ear and
record whatever that mic picks up on the "left" channel. and another
mike in his right ear, and record that on the "right" channel, and
then deliver those two channels to my ears via two transmission
channels and my stereo headset, then I am getting as near as is
possible what I would be hearing were I to fly to New York and buy a
ticket to Carneigy Hall and sit front and center for the real
performance. And to me, it doesn't get any better than this. If this
isn't "true stereo" then what is?


True stereo is a system specifically designed to provide an accurate
and clear stereo image which extends beyond the speakers when played
on
a 2-speaker system arranged as an equilateral triangle with the
listener's head. Alternately a three-speaker system can also be
considered stereo but the geometry gets a little different. The idea
is that the wavefront is recreated more or less. Recordings made in
stereo must be played back with this system; if played back on
headphones there is a severe hole in the middle.

Binaural systems attempt to recreate the pressure of sound in the ears
rather than recreating a wavefront. They work very well, but
recordings made this way can only be played back in headphones. If
played back on speakers, they become mush.

If you are interested in binaural recording, check out John Sunier's
website, the Binaural Source.
--scott


Yes.... I agree, normal room speakers would have no place in my definition
of true stereo. Headphones are necessary to deliver the sound to my ears.
Furthermore, I wouldn't be getting real stereo, because the shape of the
ears would be compromised. You can tell from which direction a sound is
coming, even if you are deaf in one ear. The shape of the external ear,
enables you to do this with the other ear, and headphones interfere with
that.

  #172   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

Dick Pierce wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Yes. To me, the first step in "true stereo" is to buy a decent
headset. Then, you have to drive each earpiece with two totally
seperated channels of sound.

That's not stereo, that's binaural. Different idea altogether.

Oh. Well then, I don't know the difference. To me true stereo would
be what you normally hear. IOW, if you put a dummy seated front and
center in Carneige Hall, and put a microphone in his left ear and
record whatever that mic picks up on the "left" channel. and another
mike in his right ear, and record that on the "right" channel, and
then deliver those two channels to my ears via two transmission
channels and my stereo headset, then I am getting as near as is
possible what I would be hearing were I to fly to New York and buy a
ticket to Carneigy Hall and sit front and center for the real
performance. And to me, it doesn't get any better than this. If this
isn't "true stereo" then what is?


Scott already told you, it's binaural.


I understand that. You have defined, "binaural". But bear in mind that this
is a, "pro audio" definition, and not a wording that an amateur like me, who
doesn't need to memorize such definitions, but rather goes with the plain
English he was taught by 75 years of living, will use. I'm not saying my
definition is better. I am just saying that it is a definition I understand.
Perhaps the words, "true stereo" have been trashed by overuse by Madison
Avenue salesmen, and that's why the term "binaural" has come to be in use. I
don't know. I just know that the term true stereo satisfies me because it
rather well describes what I mean when I search for hearing reality.
Actually, a better, "true stereo" would be accomplished as follows. You
would have to record each musician in an orchestra with a seperate channel.
Then, you would have to build another, local, Carneige hall on my property.
Then, you would have to position a speaker on the stage of my Carneige Hall
in the exact relative place that the performance musician had when the
recording in the real hall was made. And then, I could listen to the
performance without a headset, and the shape of my external ears would come
into play. This is, of course, impractical, but it would be, to me, more
"true stereo" than anything we have discussed so far.

  #173   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

Dick Pierce wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Even when I was a little kid, I was annoyed at the phone company for
letting local calls go untimed without any extra charge. My friends
mom used to talk all day for basically, nothing. Even when she could
look out the window and see the person she was talking to. Even at
that age, I realized that the long distance callers in the business
world were paying for all that meaningless talk.


You ain't that old, are you?

A lot of us on this group remember quite clearly paying
for each and every call, having to gather up a king's
ransom to call 100 miles much less a couple of states
away, being forbidden from actually owning a telephone,
which came with a round thingy on it, party lines and
paying, in terms of real dollars, about ten times what
I pay now for a land-line service that provides me with
far more actually useful services than even existed
back then.


When I was a kid, back in the 1940's, We got an operator that said, "number
please", when we picked up the telephone. If your number was in town, you'd
pay nothing extra to make the call, regardless of how long you talked.
However, most lines were party lines, and it was common curtesy to end your
conversation and hang up if someone else picked up and wanted to use the
phone. Other than the basic fee, you only had to pay extra for long distance
calls. I thought at that time, that the phone company should have charged by
the minute for even those local calls, but looking back on it now, perhaps
that wouldn't have been possible, since the operator was too busy to time
the calls, and they didn't have any computers then.

  #174   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

Dick Pierce wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

Yes. To me, the first step in "true stereo" is to buy a decent
headset. Then, you have to drive each earpiece with two totally
seperated channels of sound.

Stereo TV would have to do the same. You need a TV set for each eye,
and drive each one with a different camera with their lenses 2-1/2
inches apart. Anything else is just BS.


You're kidding, of course. Yes? Please?

As mentioned elsewhere, binaural technique is well established,
go look it up.

But your "eyephones"? Really?

What both technique miss, and, having in fact, experienced
eyephones in several very sophisticated goggle-based 3-d
displays far beyond what is available to consumer, miss VERY
badly, is the fact that a REAL soundfield and a REAL scene
is staionary while you move through it. Wat happens in binaural
is that with your head absolutely stationary, the illusion can
be very good, but move your head for any reason, like to look
at (or to better sample) that sound "over there," the whole image
moves with you. It can be disturbingly disorienting.

It's much worse with your stereo TV "concept:" There's a deep
physiological connection between what you eye's are telling you,
what your balance organs are telling you and what your head and
neck muscles are doing.

The end result of your "stereo TV" concept is often your lunch
in your lap.


Not at all. As I mentioned elsewhere, they use exactly that kind of stereo
system in radiation labs where they are handling radioactive materials with
robot arms from a remote location. They feed a seperate picture to each eye,
from two cameras placed 2-1/2 inches apart, just as your eyes are 2-1/2
inches apart. You are able to judge the distance just as you can in real
life.

  #175   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/25/2010 8:29 AM, Dick Pierce wrote:

A lot of us on this group remember quite clearly paying
for each and every call, having to gather up a king's
ransom to call 100 miles much less a couple of states
away, being forbidden from actually owning a telephone,
which came with a round thingy on it, party lines and
paying, in terms of real dollars, about ten times what
I pay now for a land-line service that provides me with
far more actually useful services than even existed
back then.


I have a limited phone service that charges me 9 cents for a
local call (no time limit), but I make so few phone calls
that it saves me quite a bit over an "unlimited" service. I
remember that a long distance call was a special thing,
nearly always to call a family member on a holiday or some
special occasion. If it wasn't for all the taxes and fees,
I'd be paying $25/month for a dial tone, all the local calls
I need, and DSL. My long distance service is 3 cents/minute
but the buggers have just started charging me a buck for any
month in which I make a LD call (because "all the companies
do that").

Oh, and the phone on the wall in my control room has a round
thingy on it, and an actual clanging bell, too.


Be thankful you don't have to turn a crank to get the operator's
attention....:^)



  #176   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

Mr.T wrote:
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
A lot of us on this group remember quite clearly paying
for each and every call, having to gather up a king's
ransom to call 100 miles much less a couple of states
away, being forbidden from actually owning a telephone,
which came with a round thingy on it, party lines and
paying, in terms of real dollars, about ten times what
I pay now for a land-line service that provides me with
far more actually useful services than even existed
back then.


Yep, technology has improved in many other areas too, computers have
dropped in price and increased in performance far more than
telephony. It would be really sad if we were stuck with the same
computers, and same phone service we had 50 years ago. Many would
argue audio (music) technology hasn't made as much improvement
though, but costs have certainly reduced, in real terms at least.

MrT.


If we didn't have the computers, we wouldn't have the telephone service. I
read way back in the 80's that if it weren't for the digit dialing system,
every woman in the US between the ages of 18 and 80 would have to work for
the telephone company.

  #177   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
glen herrmannsfeldt glen herrmannsfeldt is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default dBFS

In comp.dsp Bill Graham wrote:
(snip)

If we didn't have the computers, we wouldn't have the telephone service. I
read way back in the 80's that if it weren't for the digit dialing system,
every woman in the US between the ages of 18 and 80 would have to work for
the telephone company.


Much of the telephone switching system previously worked without
computers, at least not what we call computers today. Stepper
relays were pretty important, and not really computers.

They were probably used for billing pretty early, though.

-- glen
  #178   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default dBFS

On 11/26/2010 2:04 AM, Bill Graham wrote:

Be thankful you don't have to turn a crank to get the
operator's attention....:^)


I wish I could turn a crank to get the attention of the
Verizon tech support people every now and then. The generate
a hundred volts or so, don't they? Verizon will do, and tell
you, anything before they will admit that the problem is on
their end, but in the end, it always is.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
  #179   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default dBFS

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message



But how many people listen to classical music on their
MP3 players?


Lots of college kids.

Would be a very small market I think! As I
already said, dummy head recordings don't work well with
pop music production methods.


Not really compatible with multiple-close micing.

And I am not at all convinced 3D television will catch on
this time around either.


Unlike SACD and DVD-A, it is at least detectible in blind tests.

Just another chance to sell some
more equipment before the novelty wears off again for
another decade or two IMO.



My 60" Mitsubishi DLP-based 1024i HDTV is currently selling for $699 home
delivered here in Detroit. The 3D upgrade for it costs $300. 3D is going to
have to come down in price to find a mass market. The *magic* price point
is still AFAIK $200.


  #180   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default dBFS

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message


And I am not at all convinced 3D television will catch on
this time around either.


Unlike SACD and DVD-A, it is at least detectible in blind tests.


You might need to explain that a bit more....



--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk


  #181   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default dBFS

"Adrian Tuddenham"
wrote in message
nvalid.invalid

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message


And I am not at all convinced 3D television will catch
on this time around either.


Unlike SACD and DVD-A, it is at least detectible in
blind tests.


You might need to explain that a bit more....


There are now any number of well-publicized carefully-done listening tests
that demonstrate the ineffectivness of increasing word sizes and sampling
rates beyond those used in the CD-A format, *for the purposes of final
distribution to the end-user*. That says that the alleged benefits the SACD
and DVD-A formats (both consumer dsitribution formats) are not detectible in
blind tests. Hand-picking program material does not seem to help.

I've seen 3D TV demonstrated, and its one of those things that you don't
really need a blind test to distinguish from 2D TV with an appropriate
choice of program material. I strongly suspect that variations and
alternatives in some of the technical details of how 3D TV is implemented
may benefit from some carefully-controlled testing.



  #182   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default dBFS

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham"
wrote in message
nvalid.invalid

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message


And I am not at all convinced 3D television will catch
on this time around either.


Unlike SACD and DVD-A, it is at least detectible in
blind tests.


You might need to explain that a bit more....


[...]
I've seen 3D TV demonstrated, and its one of those things that you don't
really need a blind test to distinguish from 2D TV


I would have thought that a blind test made it impossible to distinguish
one from the other, as you could not see either of them.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
  #183   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default dBFS

Dick Pierce wrote:

What both technique miss, and, having in fact, experienced
eyephones in several very sophisticated goggle-based 3-d
displays far beyond what is available to consumer, miss VERY
badly, is the fact that a REAL soundfield and a REAL scene
is staionary while you move through it. Wat happens in binaural
is that with your head absolutely stationary, the illusion can
be very good, but move your head for any reason, like to look
at (or to better sample) that sound "over there," the whole image
moves with you. It can be disturbingly disorienting.

It's much worse with your stereo TV "concept:" There's a deep
physiological connection between what you eye's are telling you,
what your balance organs are telling you and what your head and
neck muscles are doing.


This is true, BUT there are some folks working on similar ideas where they
measure the head position using MEMS gyros and shift the sound sources around
in the virtual field (using a mathematical transform representing the acoustical
response of the head to sources from different directions). Much of this
technology was first developed by NASA for portable flight simulators, but
some of the gamer folks are adopting it.

The end result of your "stereo TV" concept is often your lunch
in your lap.


In the case of gaming consoles and flight simulators this is often the goal.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #184   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default dBFS

Bill Graham wrote:

The only " true stereo" television I ever saw was in a radiation lab, where
they handled radioactive materials remotely with robot arms and hands, and
needed the stereo so they could judge distance and not drop stuff. They had
two cameras 2-1/2 inches apart, and two seperte channels....One for each
eye. The picture you got was just like being there, and when you put your
hand in the glove and reached out to pick up something, the robot arm
reached out just like you did. All this red and green glasses stuff they
were showing the kids in the movies was a joke compared to that.


If you have never seen real polarized stereo films, you need to watch one.
It is a very different experience.

When all those 1950s 3-D films were originally screened on their first run,
they were shown in polarized formats. This required either two linked
projectors with a bicycle chain keeping them in synch and polarizers on
the lenses, or a single-strip system where a mirror box would be placed
in front of the screen the direct the top and bottom halves of the frame
(each one image) through different polarizers and onto the screen. It also
required a silver screen that would reflect the image properly polarized.

Because this arrangement was not possible at smaller theatres, when those
films went on their second run out into the hinterlands they were often shown
in anaglyph red-green or red-blue format. The anaglyph systems looked
terrible and nobody at the studios ever took them as anything other than
a poor stepchild of regular polarized-image 3-D.

You will occasionally still see those old films shown in proper polarized
3-D now and then. I work at a science fiction convention up in Boston where
a couple years ago we ran It Came From Outer Space in proper 3-D. It was
a very different thing than the anaglyph and folks in the audience were amazed
by it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #185   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default dBFS

Bill Graham wrote:

If we didn't have the computers, we wouldn't have the telephone service. I
read way back in the 80's that if it weren't for the digit dialing system,
every woman in the US between the ages of 18 and 80 would have to work for
the telephone company.


I suppose you could call a #5 crossbar a "computer" even though it's not
a von neumann machine....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


  #186   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default dBFS

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u


But how many people listen to classical music on their
MP3 players?


Lots of college kids.

Would be a very small market I think! As I
already said, dummy head recordings don't work well with
pop music production methods.


Not really compatible with multiple-close micing.


Actually, it's possible to do hybrid methods. Listen to Lou Reed's album
"Streetnoise" some time. It's not really binaural and it's not really stereo
per se but the binaural effects work out well.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #187   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Ben Bradley[_2_] Ben Bradley[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default dBFS

In rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp, On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:47:54
-0800, "Bill Graham" wrote:

Dick Pierce wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Yes. To me, the first step in "true stereo" is to buy a decent
headset. Then, you have to drive each earpiece with two totally
seperated channels of sound.

That's not stereo, that's binaural. Different idea altogether.
Oh. Well then, I don't know the difference. To me true stereo would
be what you normally hear. IOW, if you put a dummy seated front and
center in Carneige Hall, and put a microphone in his left ear and
record whatever that mic picks up on the "left" channel. and another
mike in his right ear, and record that on the "right" channel, and
then deliver those two channels to my ears via two transmission
channels and my stereo headset, then I am getting as near as is
possible what I would be hearing were I to fly to New York and buy a
ticket to Carneigy Hall and sit front and center for the real
performance. And to me, it doesn't get any better than this. If this
isn't "true stereo" then what is?


Scott already told you, it's binaural.


I understand that. You have defined, "binaural". But bear in mind that this
is a, "pro audio" definition, and not a wording that an amateur like me, who
doesn't need to memorize such definitions, but rather goes with the plain
English he was taught by 75 years of living, will use. I'm not saying my
definition is better. I am just saying that it is a definition I understand.


I heard the word binaural fairly often on that "Audiophile
Audition" radio show that was on the local classical station many
years ago. Those guys were really into it.
  #188   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default dBFS

Ben Bradley wrote:

I heard the word binaural fairly often on that "Audiophile
Audition" radio show that was on the local classical station many
years ago. Those guys were really into it.


That was John Sunier, whose website "Binaural Source" I recommended. He is
a good source for binaural recordings and information.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #189   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default dBFS


"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Yeah, but part of Apple's money comes from the desperation of computer
owners who are sick of fighting with Microsoft's screwed up operating
system.


Nope, that doesn't explain why Linux is not popular, and iPods, iPads,
iPhones etc. are.
It's simply about the marketing of hype over substance. Many people are
willing to pay a HUGE premium for that it seems.

MrT.


  #190   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default dBFS


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
You will occasionally still see those old films shown in proper polarized
3-D now and then. I work at a science fiction convention up in Boston

where
a couple years ago we ran It Came From Outer Space in proper 3-D. It was
a very different thing than the anaglyph and folks in the audience were

amazed
by it.


Right, but not amazing enough for it to become common place in over 50
years. Many "improvements" have been tried with films over the last 50 years
or so. Many were pretty amazing as a novelty. (the whole point after all)
But for a regular movie, not much has become "must have" technology for the
masses since the widespread change from monochrome to color film.
I still remember when we had a proper "Cinerama" theatre, with the first
films using 3 projectors. The wrap around screen was pretty "amazing" at the
time. But even the invention of single camera/projector Cinerama didn't save
what was an unnecessary idea for most films. It did make "2001" pretty
spectacular though, and it has never seemed the same on a normal screen
unfortunately, for those of us who remember.

MrT.




  #191   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default dBFS

"Bill Graham" wrote in message


Yeah, but part of Apple's money comes from the
desperation of computer owners who are sick of fighting
with Microsoft's screwed up operating system.


Obvious excluded-middle thinking. Just because altenatives exist and some
people prefer various of them does not prove that any of them are fouled-up.
Completely ignores the relevance of preferences.


  #192   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Randy Yates Randy Yates is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 839
Default dBFS

Dick Pierce writes:
[...]
Yes, you're right. It does not prove that. Instead, we can rely
on an entire universe of data supporting the assertion that
windows is fu**ed up.


Can you say "linux"? Next year marks five years as linux for my main
OS. I've never wanted to go back.
--
Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow,
Digital Signal Labs % you still wander the fields of your
% sorrow."
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
  #193   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default dBFS

Which part of "part" says "completely" to you?

I recently posted something on a Web site or UseNet group that went
something like this...

"Most people interpret "one or two", "a few", "some", "many", "a lot", and
"most" as meaning ALL."

I've never understood this, and still don't.


  #194   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default dBFS

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
In comp.dsp Bill Graham wrote:
(snip)

If we didn't have the computers, we wouldn't have the telephone service. I
read way back in the 80's that if it weren't for the digit dialing system,
every woman in the US between the ages of 18 and 80 would have to work for
the telephone company.


Much of the telephone switching system previously worked without
computers, at least not what we call computers today. Stepper
relays were pretty important, and not really computers.

They were probably used for billing pretty early, though.

Here in the UK, strowger exchanges used a pulse counter driven by a
central clock gated by the line voltage. The clock frequency varied
according to time and whether it was a long distance line, and at the
end of every accounting period, someone took photos of all the meter
readings, with a couple of dozen (hundred?) on each frame. Then dozens,
if not hundreds or thousands, of women sat down and compared this
month's reading with the last one and worked out the bill. Then someone
invented the digital exchange.....

--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #195   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default dBFS


"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
If we didn't have the computers, we wouldn't have the telephone service. I
read way back in the 80's that if it weren't for the digit dialing system,
every woman in the US between the ages of 18 and 80 would have to work for
the telephone company.


Nope, because few people could afford to make phone calls, certainly not all
those ladies you think would be working the switchboards!

MrT.




  #196   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default dBFS


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
I suppose you could call a #5 crossbar a "computer" even though it's not
a von neumann machine....


You could also call a Strowger switch a "computer" in that case.

MrT.


  #197   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default dBFS


"Chris Bore" wrote in message
...
* to what reference level, over what interval, and with what
sampling, does dBFS refer?
I think the answer is probably: "Nobody knows." or at least: "Nobody
agrees"


Seems to me they DO when talking about a digital system. 0dBFS is when all
the bits available are used for a single sample.
It's only when you interface with the analog world that confusion arises,
BECAUSE definitions are crucial!

MrT.



  #198   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default dBFS

Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
You will occasionally still see those old films shown in proper polarized
3-D now and then. I work at a science fiction convention up in Boston

where
a couple years ago we ran It Came From Outer Space in proper 3-D. It was
a very different thing than the anaglyph and folks in the audience were

amazed
by it.


Right, but not amazing enough for it to become common place in over 50
years. Many "improvements" have been tried with films over the last 50 years
or so. Many were pretty amazing as a novelty. (the whole point after all)
But for a regular movie, not much has become "must have" technology for the
masses since the widespread change from monochrome to color film.


Much of this is because it is very, very expensive to show this stuff
properly. It requires a lot more equipment and people in the booth and
it requires very careful setup and alignment before each new film (and
some amount of fiddling even between reels).

In order to become commonplace, the technology has to become very cheap to
make and to use, and that is currently becoming the case with the new digital
3D systems. It certainly wasn't the case back in the fifties.

I still remember when we had a proper "Cinerama" theatre, with the first
films using 3 projectors. The wrap around screen was pretty "amazing" at the
time. But even the invention of single camera/projector Cinerama didn't save
what was an unnecessary idea for most films. It did make "2001" pretty
spectacular though, and it has never seemed the same on a normal screen
unfortunately, for those of us who remember.


People will never opt for a better quality presentation or format over a
less expensive one. Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed? And Elcaset,
and half-track 1/4" for home use?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #199   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default dBFS

Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
I suppose you could call a #5 crossbar a "computer" even though it's not
a von neumann machine....


You could also call a Strowger switch a "computer" in that case.


Absolutely. The signalling is digital too, even if the traffic being
switches is not.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #200   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default dBFS


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
But how many people listen to classical music on their
MP3 players?


Lots of college kids.


Not many I know listen to classical music on their iPods, but there may be a
few I guess. Obviously not enough to make producing such recordings
profitable, or it would be more common.


Would be a very small market I think! As I
already said, dummy head recordings don't work well with
pop music production methods.


Not really compatible with multiple-close micing.


As I said.

And I am not at all convinced 3D television will catch on
this time around either.


Unlike SACD and DVD-A, it is at least detectible in blind tests.


NOT in "BLIND tests" surely :-)


Just another chance to sell some
more equipment before the novelty wears off again for
another decade or two IMO.



My 60" Mitsubishi DLP-based 1024i HDTV is currently selling for $699 home
delivered here in Detroit. The 3D upgrade for it costs $300. 3D is going

to
have to come down in price to find a mass market. The *magic* price point
is still AFAIK $200.


It's not so much about cost as available source material and viewing
convenience. People would pay *FAR* more than $200 IF they really thought
they wanted it. I know I sure would!
But since there is little to watch, and I can't see the need, I'm not
looking to buy at any price. Neither are any of my friends. Of course IF a
major technology improvement occurs, AND source material is widely produced,
that would change.
I won't hold my breathe just yet.

MrT.



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
manipulate 24 bit audio to increment amplitude by 1 dBFS genlock Tech 14 April 4th 05 04:20 PM
Line Input Level for 0 dBFS? Len Moskowitz Pro Audio 12 December 5th 04 03:41 PM
dBfs scales, EBU r68 or DIN ? Jakeman Pro Audio 2 November 21st 04 10:00 PM
dBfs scales, EBU r68 or DIN ? Jakeman Pro Audio 0 November 21st 04 07:18 PM
Classical program ff = ?dbFS WillStG Pro Audio 21 November 15th 03 12:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:31 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"