Re: 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. 

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4ceeccf5$0$3031$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au


> 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. 

Dick Pierce  <dpierce@cartchunk.org> 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."

Bill Graham <weg9@comcast.net> 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."

Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>news:4ceeccf5$0$3031$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
>
>
>> 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."

In rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp, On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:47:54
-0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

>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. 

   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.

Ben Bradley  <ben_u_bradley@etcmail.com> 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."

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:icoh5v$4ip$1@panix2.panix.com...
> 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.

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:icoh5v$4ip$1@panix2.panix.com...
>> 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."

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:NcadnWj0f_l7N3LRnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > 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.