Re: dBFS

On 2010-11-24 kludge@panix.com(ScottDorsey) said:
   >dave a  <blkcatREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> wrote:
   >>THX and the whole surround sound movement is one obvious example
   >>of an innovation that was not a hand-me-down.  I'm sure the group
   >>can think of others.
   >I'm not sure I would consider THX an innovation in any way.

I'm not sure I would.  NOt just is it not an innovation, but
the average doofus isn't going to set it up right anyway.
HEll the most quad was to most rednecks was a speaker for
every room in the mobile home.

Most folks can't even get stereo right.  HOw many stereo
systems to we hear where the speakers are wired out of
phase, or placement is weird?




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

0junk4me@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On 2010-11-24 kludge@panix.com(ScottDorsey) said:
>   >dave a  <blkcatREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> wrote:
>   >>THX and the whole surround sound movement is one obvious example
>   >>of an innovation that was not a hand-me-down.  I'm sure the group
>   >>can think of others.
>   >I'm not sure I would consider THX an innovation in any way.
>
> I'm not sure I would.  NOt just is it not an innovation, but
> the average doofus isn't going to set it up right anyway.
> HEll the most quad was to most rednecks was a speaker for
> every room in the mobile home.
>
> Most folks can't even get stereo right.  HOw many stereo
> systems to we hear where the speakers are wired out of
> phase, or placement is weird?
>

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. 

Bill Graham <weg9@comcast.net> 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.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Bill Graham <weg9@comcast.net> 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.
> --scott

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? 

"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:n_Kdnc-GiOOVcXDRnZ2dnUVZ5u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >> 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)


MrT.

In comp.dsp Bill Graham <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
(snip)

> 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? 

As previously noted, it is called binaural recording.

-- glen

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

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.
>
I can buy a pair of "glasses" here for a couple of hundred pounds or so 
which have two LCD screens and some oprical gimmickry where the lenses 
would be, which plug into the video output of an MP4 player. It 
shouldn't be too hard to build them to take a different input to each 
screen for full "in your face" 3D. "Eyephones", anyone?


-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Nov 25, 7:52&#4294967295;am, John Williamson <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> 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.
>
> I can buy a pair of "glasses" here for a couple of hundred pounds or so
> which have two LCD screens and some oprical gimmickry where the lenses
> would be, which plug into the video output of an MP4 player. It
> shouldn't be too hard to build them to take a different input to each
> screen for full "in your face" 3D. "Eyephones", anyone?
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

Look up iGlasses. They demonstrated 3D in glasses to me in 2001, using
a Philips TriMedia processor to render 3D from normal flat video.

Chris
======================
Chris Bore
BORES SIgnal Processing
www.bores.com

Bill Graham <weg9@comcast.net> 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

-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."