Re: dBFS

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:icpheh$qbo$1@panix2.panix.com...
> 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.

Right, and also requires people to want to bother. I'm not saying it will
never happen of course, but it's still a while off IMO.


> 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?

Because there was NO improvement at all for the consumer, just added
expense.


>And Elcaset, and half-track 1/4" for home use?

Well I at least used 4 track 1/4" R-R for MANY years. That was a huge
improvement over cassette at least. Unfortunately Elcaset was too big, and
too expensive for the masses (and provided little benefit for those of us
with R-R) But more importantly was far too late, and the digital age killed
it stone dead.

MrT.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> 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

Yes. True stereo is a wonderful thing. For years, I took photos with a 
Stereo Realist camera. It took two color slides at the same time through two 
lenses that were 2-1/2 inches apart, and the photo lab would mount them both 
on the same cardboard frame so you could view them together in a stereo 
viewer. the realism was astounding, but of course, they were stills, and not 
motion pictures. I understand that building the same thing into a movie 
camera would be very expensive, and it would be virtually impossible to show 
it to an audience in a movie theater. Today, however, television makes such 
a thing a lot more plausable. You could build a stereo viewer that you could 
peer into in your living room, and with two seperate TV channels, (one for 
each eye) you could produce and transmit stereo video programs to the 
viewing public. I really don't know why somebody hasn't done this. 

Ben Bradley wrote:
> 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.

Yes. Do you remember, "Excursions in stereo" on the FM radio? I forget the 
name of the moderator now, but he went on to become quite famous in the 
radio/TV business..... 

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:

> Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed?  

Umm, because they were snake oil? 
-- 
Randy Yates                      % "Midnight, on the water... 
Digital Signal Labs              %  I saw...  the ocean's daughter." 
mailto://yates@ieee.org          % 'Can't Get It Out Of My Head' 
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % *El Dorado*, Electric Light Orchestra

In article <m3mxovmd14.fsf@ieee.org>, Randy Yates  <yates@ieee.org> wrote:
>kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
>> Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed?  
>
>Umm, because they were snake oil? 

Snake oil usually does pretty well in the market.  Look at Bose.  
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 27/11/2010 07:38, Randy Yates wrote:
> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
>> Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed?
>
> Umm, because they were snake oil?

DVD-A is/was hardly snake oil,any more than SACD, which (unlike DVD-A) 
employs DSD, unless you consider multi-channel surround as snake oil. 
The fact that the great public at large seems not to consider surround 
important at all except for the (mostly) relatively primitive examples 
of it in films, does nothing to invalidate consumer audio delivery 
formats supporting multi-channel audio (albeit horizontal-only). Of 
course, there is little point in buying recordings in either format if 
you are only going to play them in stereo. In which case, DSD is much 
the same distillation of snake oil as Dolby 5.1.


Richard Dobson

"Richard Dobson" <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
message news:kyaIo.163215$MZ3.37442@newsfe29.ams2
> On 27/11/2010 07:38, Randy Yates wrote:
>> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>
>>> Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed?
>>
>> Umm, because they were snake oil?
>
> DVD-A is/was hardly snake oil,any more than SACD, which
> (unlike DVD-A) employs DSD, unless you consider
> multi-channel surround as snake oil.

You seem to be badly confused. DVD-A and DSD are a whole different thing 
than multichannel.  They failed, while multichannel has been mainstream in 
the home for at least a decade, and were mainstream in theatres for at least 
a decade before that.  One of the lesser reasons that DVD-A and DSD failed 
was their inconsistent handling of multichannel.

>The fact that the
> great public at large seems not to consider surround
> important at all except for the (mostly) relatively
> primitive examples of it in films, does nothing to
> invalidate consumer audio delivery formats supporting
> multi-channel audio (albeit horizontal-only).

Now you seem to be stealthily changing issues by means of synonyms. 
Multichannel and surround are actually two different things. Multichannel 
generally means > 2 channels, while surround refers to speakers next to or 
behind the listener.   The popularity of "sound bar" speakers tells me that 
multichannel, specificially trying to do rght by the center channel is 
selling well. They also tell me that weak to non-existent reproduction of 
surround effects is not a deal-breaker.

>  Of course,
> there is little point in buying recordings in either
> format if you are only going to play them in stereo. In
> which case, DSD is much the same distillation of snake
> oil as Dolby 5.1.

Which formats are "either format"?If you're referring to DSD and DVD-A, then 
we know that they were as much 2-chanel formats as anything. If you mean 
Dolby Digital and Dolby TrueHD then you're ignoring the fact that they are 
often and perhaps even generally comptible with 2-channel playback. 

On 27/11/2010 17:36, Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Richard Dobson"<richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk>  wrote in
> message news:kyaIo.163215$MZ3.37442@newsfe29.ams2
>> On 27/11/2010 07:38, Randy Yates wrote:
>>> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>>
>>>> Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed?
>>>
>>> Umm, because they were snake oil?
>>
>> DVD-A is/was hardly snake oil,any more than SACD, which
>> (unlike DVD-A) employs DSD, unless you consider
>> multi-channel surround as snake oil.
>
> You seem to be badly confused. DVD-A and DSD are a whole different thing
> than multichannel.

Actually, I have no interest in or opinion on DSD (which stands in 
contra-distinction to PCM - nothing to do with surround as such). DVD-A 
and SACD were/are delivery formats for (among other things) surround 
sound audio (with the option of higher sample rates than CD), delivered 
  virtually exclusively for the 5.1 speaker layout. That is arguably 
their only real point of interest, unless you are the type who 
incessantly argues the pros and cons of this or that sample rate, etc.


  They failed, while multichannel has been mainstream in
> the home for at least a decade, and were mainstream in theatres for at least
> a decade before that.  One of the lesser reasons that DVD-A and DSD failed
> was their inconsistent handling of multichannel.
>

Begs the question of what "consistent" means. 5.1 is simply a delivery 
format to a defined speaker layout. The audio content may be anything 
from five independent discrete signals, to a B-Format decoded horzontal 
soundfield, via any number of variations of pair-wise intensity panning.
That is decided by the artist/engineer, not by the delivery format. 
Surround sound artists are limited by the available multi-channel 
reproduction formats.


>> The fact that the
>> great public at large seems not to consider surround
>> important at all except for the (mostly) relatively
>> primitive examples of it in films, does nothing to
>> invalidate consumer audio delivery formats supporting
>> multi-channel audio (albeit horizontal-only).
>
> Now you seem to be stealthily changing issues by means of synonyms.
> Multichannel and surround are actually two different things. Multichannel
> generally means>  2 channels, while surround refers to speakers next to or
> behind the listener.

Or above and below. It that really all you think surround means - the 
location of a few extra speakers? It is really the content - as above, 
either discrete per-speaker signals, or some number of arbitrary 
pair-wise panned phantom images (which doesn't work well for lateral 
images, which is why so much film surround audio is so poor), or a more 
or less complete representation of the soundfield. 5.1 being so 
irregular a layout, it is very difficult to achieve a "consistent" 
surround image with it. A regular layout such as a hexagon or cube (for 
with-height reproduction) is so much better. There is a whole world of 
surround sound audio technology out there (by no means predicated on a 
dominant front stage) that people who know only about 5.1 are hardly 
aware of at all.


>>   Of course,
>> there is little point in buying recordings in either
>> format if you are only going to play them in stereo. In
>> which case, DSD is much the same distillation of snake
>> oil as Dolby 5.1.
>
> Which formats are "either format"?If you're referring to DSD and DVD-A,


I was referring to DVD-A v SACD.  I guess DVD-A recordings are pretty 
scarce, but SACD (which would seem to have largely won the format war) 
is still very much an active medium, with a steady stream of new 
releases each year. But in no way can either DVD-A or SACD be considered 
snake oil - they do exactly what they are defined to do, which is to 
deliver surround sound/multi-channel audio; within (or despite) the 
limits imposed by the compromised 5.1 layout.

One useful advantage of the DVD-A format is that you can DIY using 
standard DVD authoring tools and DVD blanks. SACD production is a whole 
different can of worms.

Richard Dobson

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:icr8ds$3ag$1@panix2.panix.com...
> >> Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed?
> >
> >Umm, because they were snake oil?
>
> Snake oil usually does pretty well in the market.  Look at Bose.

Dead right, but it does require a lot of marketing, and there wasn't nearly
enough for DVD-A and DSD. For some reason their heart just wasn't in the con
that time.

MrT.

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:icr8ds$3ag$1@panix2.panix.com...
>> >> Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed?
>> >
>> >Umm, because they were snake oil?
>>
>> Snake oil usually does pretty well in the market.  Look at Bose.
>
>Dead right, but it does require a lot of marketing, and there wasn't nearly
>enough for DVD-A and DSD. For some reason their heart just wasn't in the con
>that time.

I'm not sure I'd call surround playback a con per se, at least no more than
any other recording system.  But it's true that surround audio-only playback
failed back in the seventies, mostly due to the program material, and so I
am not really all that surprised that it has failed again.

People don't want accurate reproduction, they want gimmicks.  
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."