Re: dBFS

Bill Graham wrote:
> 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.
> 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.

-- 
+--------------------------------+
+         Dick Pierce            |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

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.

-- 
+--------------------------------+
+         Dick Pierce            |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

"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?"
mailto://yates@ieee.org          % 'Mission (A World Record)', 
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % *A New World Record*, ELO

"glen herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:icl3f3$jap$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> > 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.

"Randy Yates" <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:m3r5e9fo7g.fsf@ieee.org...
> 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.

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

Mr.T wrote:
> "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)

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...:^) 

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. 

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> 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

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. 

Dick Pierce wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> 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.
>> 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.