Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
manipulate 24 bit audio to increment amplitude by 1 dBFS | Tech | |||
Line Input Level for 0 dBFS? | Pro Audio | |||
dBfs scales, EBU r68 or DIN ? | Pro Audio | |||
dBfs scales, EBU r68 or DIN ? | Pro Audio | |||
Classical program ff = ?dbFS | Pro Audio |