Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

STEREO: Scam of the Century?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 3:15:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

STEREO: Scam of the Century?


The birth of Stereo brought about the death of real musical appreciation.
Before Stereo, there was High Fidelity: an enhancement of recorded music.
Hi-fi brought new realism to recorded music. Stereo brought new audio tricks
but _less_ (italics in original) musical realism. Stereo is such a given, so
accepted and _expected_, that no one questions it, let alone criticizes it.

Unless one is sitting in the midst of an orchestra, there is invariably a
_monophonic_ source of any music heard, performed either collectively or
individually. Live music may be performed stereophonically, but it's heard
monophonically. Though music has been recorded in Stereo for many years, most
live music is heard from a single definable origin, by two ears mounted on a
single head, attached to one body. Ears working in a pair act as range finders
for sound, as do two eyes seeing a single object. Thus, most music, whether
played by symphony orchestra, solo pianist, or bagpiper, is heard _binaurally_,
whether the sound source is an ensemble or a single voice. "Stereophonic"
refers to the source, rather than the receptor. "Monaural", as applied to
musical listening, is a misnomer. It means "head by only one ear", a condition
exclusively to the aurally challenged.

If a sound source is stationary, it will be heard emanating from its point of
origin. This applies to any ensemble, as well as single sound. Stereo
supporters proclaim that each instrument of an orchestra can be defined and,
thus, better appreciated. They obviously listen to music for analysis rather
than enjoyment. The dynamics of music require a balance of melody, harmony, and
rhythm. When a homogenization of the three elements occurs, as with Stereo
reproduction (and even more democratically with digitally processed Stereo), a
great performance becomes a clockwork chatter. Every nuance is heard with equal
clarity, yet there is no strength of character provided by key passages cutting
through a harmonious wash. A flute becomes as stentorian as a trumpet,: a
triangle as distracting as a timpani roll. That is not listening to music. It's
listening to individual sounds quarreling with each other to be heard. More
than anything else though, it gives a consumer an opportunity to demonstrate
his expensive equipment.

The scam of Stereo was sold by proving its worth, which was a simple matter
when presented to simple consumers. The sounds of passing trains, pipe organs
(the only musical instrument capable of being played _and_ heard
stereophonically), birds, storms, race cars, swarms of crickets, troops passing
in review, and ping pong matches, convinced anyone who had two functioning ears
that just about _anything_ sounded better in Stereo (or quadraphonic or
octaphonic, for that matter). And it does. Just about anything, that is, but
singing, speaking, or music.

I find it interesting that of all audible sounds, the overall quality of the
aforementioned three has significantly declined since the advent of Stereo. Is
it coincidence, or a cultural tradeoff?

I recognize certain limited applications of Stereo. If I want to listen to
Alpine horns blowing on a glacier with my left ear, and the villagers singing
down below with my right ear, then I can really appreciate stereo, thank you
very much. Otherwise, give me one nice big speaker, one nice little speaker,
and sufficient power to drown out unwanted conversation, and I'm perfectly
satisfied. And one thing i almost forgot: good music.

More about : stereo scam century

Anonymous
January 10, 2005 3:15:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"R78Skijoo" wrote ...
> STEREO: Scam of the Century?

> The birth of Stereo brought about the death of real musical
> appreciation. Before Stereo, there was High Fidelity: an
> enhancement of recorded music. Hi-fi brought new realism
> to recorded music. Stereo brought new audio tricks but _less_
> (italics in original) musical realism. Stereo is such a given, so
> accepted and _expected_, that no one questions it, let alone
> criticizes it.
.....

Reasonably well written. But what a hot steaming pile.
Thanks for entering, but try a more reaslistic (or at least
believable) premise next time.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 3:15:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

R78Skijoo wrote:
> STEREO: Scam of the Century?
>
> The birth of Stereo brought about the death of real musical
appreciation.
> Before Stereo, there was High Fidelity: an enhancement of recorded
music.
> Hi-fi brought new realism to recorded music. Stereo brought new audio
tricks
> but _less_ (italics in original) musical realism. Stereo is such a
given, so
> accepted and _expected_, that no one questions it, let alone
criticizes it.

Quite an impassioned article. One of the things I really liked
about it is how it is totally unencumbered by fact. That makes
it much easier to plead your case with such conviction.

For example, in your very first paragraph, you state, quite
unambiguously:

Stereo is such a given, ... that no one questions it,
let alone criticizes it.

Indeed, an existance proof, all by itself, that your viewpoint
is not corrupted by any attempt on your part to engage in any
research into the topic. Had you decided to go that route and
see if, in fact, your assertions had any parallel in fact, you
certainly would have found your position compromised, and we
shan't have that.

You have, in fact, ignored a rather enormous body of research
on the topic that has been published since at least the 1930's
pointing out the shortcomings of the medium.

Your subsequent assertion that music is essentially a "monophonic
source" itself, is a crowning achievement in logic, if you're
willing to ignore the messy detail that it is patently absurd
in the face of an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary.

But, as we discovered, fact and evidence are quite explicitly
avoided in your tome, precisely because it does weaken your
theory just a bit. Well, not just a bit, but totally.

Overall, a great job. And you can avoid the uncomfortable task
of reconciling your hypothesis with physical reality simply
by continuing to ignore that reality. It's that easy!
Related resources
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 3:15:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Unless I'm mistaken this is an article by the Church of Satan guy,
Anton LaVey.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 7:05:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In <20050109191516.11079.00000046@mb-m02.aol.com>, on 01/10/05
at 12:15 AM, r78skijoo@aol.com (R78Skijoo) said:

>The birth of Stereo brought about the death of real musical
>appreciation.

[ ... ]

With each new technology or style, some embrace the change, some
enshrine the status quo.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 12:16:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

R78Skijoo <r78skijoo@aol.com> wrote:

A lot of stuff...

The book 'Flatland' comes to mind.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 12:16:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:10u3m2qpnq88rfb@corp.supernews.com
> "R78Skijoo" wrote ...
>> STEREO: Scam of the Century?
>
>> The birth of Stereo brought about the death of real musical
>> appreciation. Before Stereo, there was High Fidelity: an
>> enhancement of recorded music. Hi-fi brought new realism
>> to recorded music. Stereo brought new audio tricks but _less_
>> (italics in original) musical realism. Stereo is such a given, so
>> accepted and _expected_, that no one questions it, let alone
>> criticizes it.
> ....
>
> Reasonably well written. But what a hot steaming pile.
> Thanks for entering, but try a more realistic (or at least
> believable) premise next time.

Agreed.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 3:04:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article <20050109191516.11079.00000046@mb-m02.aol.com>, r78skijoo@aol.com
says...
>
>
>STEREO: Scam of the Century?
>
<Mercyfully snipped drivel>
>

LOL, whatta maroon! Someone who knows nothing about audio but a bit about how
to troll a newsgroup.

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 8:59:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

> Unless one is sitting in the midst of an orchestra, there is invariably a
> _monophonic_ source of any music heard, performed either collectively or
> individually. Live music may be performed stereophonically, but it's heard
> monophonically. Though music has been recorded in Stereo for many years,
most


This is why I appreciate Sonic Holography, as developed by Bob Carver --
your ears hear each instrument MONOPHONICALLY, because cross-fed
interference eliminates the false second arrivals of sound that don't exist
in a live performance.
Interesting writeup.


--
Best Regards,

Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 10:54:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

I forgot who said it, but someone a long time ago thought the proper
number of channnels was three-mic'd in a wye configuration and played
back in a delta. Never did it, but if someone will loan me a Nagra-D
and three nice condenser mic's (BLUE is fine if Neumanns aren't handy)
we can rig it up. Worth a shot anyway.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 1:56:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"R78Skijoo" <r78skijoo@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> Unless one is sitting in the midst of an orchestra, there is invariably a
> _monophonic_ source of any music heard, performed either collectively or
> individually. Live music may be performed stereophonically, but it's heard
> monophonically. Though music has been recorded in Stereo for many years,
> most
> live music is heard from a single definable origin, by two ears mounted on
> a
> single head, attached to one body. Ears working in a pair act as range
> finders


Great troll - a lot of effort went into that !

geoff
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 4:35:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:InzEd.2872$KJ2.1383@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

>> Unless one is sitting in the midst of an orchestra, there is
>> invariably a
>> _monophonic_ source of any music heard, performed either collectively
>> or individually. Live music may be performed stereophonically, but it's
>> heard monophonically. Though music has been recorded in Stereo for many
>> years,
> most
>
>
> This is why I appreciate Sonic Holography, as developed by Bob Carver --
> your ears hear each instrument MONOPHONICALLY, because cross-fed
> interference eliminates the false second arrivals of sound that don't
> exist in a live performance.
>

I suppose that depends on the venue and the material.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 5:50:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:

> Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3 of
> them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2 channels to
> reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?

Do you really believe that 2 channel actually gives one a realistic
representation of the reverberant field in back of you?

If you are referring to studio recordings only, then your view is more
correct.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 6:35:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

The originator of this thread evidently had some free time over the
weekend:

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?safe=images&as_uau...

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 9:50:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

If you want some good discussion of multi-channel audio, you really owe it
to yourself to read the very well written quadraphonic section at
www.wendycarlos.com. This is the same Wendy Carlos, A.K.A Walter Carlos, of
Switched On Bach fame. She discusses the pros and cons of the various
encoding/matrixing schemes, proper speaker placement and psycho-acoustic
principles from the standpoint of a very well-seasoned artist and recordist.
In other words, opinion based on years of experience and musical training.

Note: I have not been able to reach www.wendycarlos.com today due to DNS
errors. I am aware of several web sites that have been up and down over the
last several days due to DDoS attacks. You might need to try again later.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 10:08:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:41:00 -0500, Codifus <codifus@optonline.net>
wrote:

>Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3 of
>them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2 channels to
>reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?

2 channels reproduce 2 dimensions - a flat plane. To reproduce height,
you need additional channels - although conventional surround sound
doesn't actually do this, it's still just 2-dimensional for some
stoopid reason.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 10:33:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:crulg4$31a8$1@news.interpublic.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:


>> Reality is multichannel - at least one channel per musician, and then
>> some...

> Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3 of
> them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2 channels
> to reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?

Binaural works, and that's 2 channel. If you are willing to listen with
headphones or earphones and not move your head from the one spot in the
performance space where the corresponding dummy head was placed, than that's
how you can have good dimensional sonic realism with just 2 channels.

If you want to use speakers, and/or move around in the listening space,
and/or have different sonic perspectives in the performance space, then just
2 channels doesn't seem to offer very much.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 12:39:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:crulg4$31a8$1@news.interpublic.com
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Reality is multichannel - at least one channel per musician, and then
>>>some...
>
>
>>Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3 of
>>them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2 channels
>>to reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?
>
>
> Binaural works, and that's 2 channel. If you are willing to listen with
> headphones or earphones and not move your head from the one spot in the
> performance space where the corresponding dummy head was placed, than that's
> how you can have good dimensional sonic realism with just 2 channels.
>
> If you want to use speakers, and/or move around in the listening space,
> and/or have different sonic perspectives in the performance space, then just
> 2 channels doesn't seem to offer very much.
>
>
Fair enough. I'll admitt that even though I feel we need only 2 channels
to reproduce 3 dimensions, with stereo speakers, you have to be sitting
in the sweet spot just to really get a sense of depth. The filed tends
to collapse if you sit anywhere else.

CD
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 12:48:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:41:00 -0500, Codifus <codifus@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3 of
>>them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2 channels to
>>reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?
>
>
> 2 channels reproduce 2 dimensions - a flat plane. To reproduce height,
> you need additional channels - although conventional surround sound
> doesn't actually do this, it's still just 2-dimensional for some
> stoopid reason.
Because all the speakers in the surround system are (ideally) located in
the same plane. Sometime in the future, if consumers can stand adding
yet more speakers to their system, maybe George Lucas and his THX crew,
while producing Star Wars 27, or Sony with their 3D IMAX, will come out
with a 12.2 spec; all the same speakers in the 6.1 spec, but also a
duplicated set of speakers sitting 3 feet higher than the others. The
extra subwoofer is just there so that the bass could keep up with all
those speakers.

True 3-D space and a whole lot of speakers;)

CD
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 2:59:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:cs0o62$jvd$1@news.interpublic.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:crulg4$31a8$1@news.interpublic.com
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Reality is multichannel - at least one channel per musician, and
>>>> then some...
>>
>>
>>> Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3
>>> of them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2
>>> channels to reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?
>>
>>
>> Binaural works, and that's 2 channel. If you are willing to listen
>> with headphones or earphones and not move your head from the one
>> spot in the performance space where the corresponding dummy head was
>> placed, than that's how you can have good dimensional sonic realism
>> with just 2 channels. If you want to use speakers, and/or move around in
>> the listening
>> space, and/or have different sonic perspectives in the performance
>> space, then just 2 channels doesn't seem to offer very much.

> Fair enough. I'll admitt that even though I feel we need only 2
> channels to reproduce 3 dimensions, with stereo speakers, you have to
> be sitting in the sweet spot just to really get a sense of depth. The
> filed tends to collapse if you sit anywhere else.

I think that it might be possible to create a good sound field with a
relatively small number of speakers. However I see the need for more than 2
channels on the recorded media to suit a wider range of listening
situations.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 8:01:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

<jjnunes@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:laHEd.1352$m31.13656@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3 of
> > them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2 channels to
> > reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?
>
> Do you really believe that 2 channel actually gives one a realistic
> representation of the reverberant field in back of you?

A completely dead room and a speaker in each corner, (8 speakers) should
give a proper *3* dimensional soundfield if recorded for that. Plus sub
woofers if necessary. 7.1 is simply a variation.
(BTW mono is a point source and zero dimensions, stereo being only one
dimension, and quad is 2 dimensions)

> If you are referring to studio recordings only, then your view is more
> correct.

Not really. For multi-track recordings using one channel per instrument, it
will depend totally on where the sound is panned to. Could need mono,
stereo, 4 ch, 5.1, 7.1.

MrT.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 8:04:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

<calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105415667.894077.174670@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I forgot who said it, but someone a long time ago thought the proper
> number of channnels was three-mic'd in a wye configuration and played
> back in a delta. Never did it, but if someone will loan me a Nagra-D
> and three nice condenser mic's (BLUE is fine if Neumanns aren't handy)
> we can rig it up. Worth a shot anyway.

How are the mics and speakers set up in *3* dimensional space? I can see how
this system might work for two dimensions if you ignore hieght though.

MrT.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 9:15:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:48:03 -0500, Codifus <codifus@optonline.net>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:41:00 -0500, Codifus <codifus@optonline.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Reality is multi-dimensional, but we humans can only hear and see 3 of
>>>them because of our 2 ears and 2 eyes. Since we only need 2 channels to
>>>reproduce 3 dimensions, isn't surround sound over-kill?
>>
>>
>> 2 channels reproduce 2 dimensions - a flat plane. To reproduce height,
>> you need additional channels - although conventional surround sound
>> doesn't actually do this, it's still just 2-dimensional for some
>> stoopid reason.
>Because all the speakers in the surround system are (ideally) located in
>the same plane. Sometime in the future, if consumers can stand adding
>yet more speakers to their system, maybe George Lucas and his THX crew,
>while producing Star Wars 27, or Sony with their 3D IMAX, will come out
>with a 12.2 spec; all the same speakers in the 6.1 spec, but also a
>duplicated set of speakers sitting 3 feet higher than the others. The
>extra subwoofer is just there so that the bass could keep up with all
>those speakers.
>
>True 3-D space and a whole lot of speakers;)

You don't need that many, just six placed correctly to include height.
Sony have actually produced some experimental 6-channel recordings of
this type, but of course this is incompatible with conventional 'flat'
5.1 systems.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 9:52:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

R78Skijoo wrote:
> STEREO: Scam of the Century?


>> snip of some "stuff" <<

> I recognize certain limited applications of Stereo. If I want to listen to
> Alpine horns blowing on a glacier with my left ear, and the villagers singing
> down below with my right ear, then I can really appreciate stereo, thank you
> very much. Otherwise, give me one nice big speaker, one nice little speaker,
> and sufficient power to drown out unwanted conversation, and I'm perfectly
> satisfied. And one thing i almost forgot: good music.

Troll.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 10:35:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> You don't need that many, just six placed correctly to include height.
> Sony have actually produced some experimental 6-channel recordings of
> this type, but of course this is incompatible with conventional 'flat'
> 5.1 systems.

I second that and I might add: Telarc and Chesky.

And of course 2+2+2 recording of MDG. Actually the only
6-channel system I have auditioned so far. Quite impressive.

http://www.divox.com/news/twotwotwo/ttte.html
http://www.mdg.de/indexeng.htm

Cheers,

Franco
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 6:17:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

>> Reasonably well written. But what a hot steaming pile.
>> Thanks for entering, but try a more realistic (or at least
>> believable) premise next time.
>
> Agreed.

To paraphrase Dr. McCoy in Star Trek IV: The neo-Luddite mentality is the
only real constant in the Universe.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 8:40:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bot6u0dbbgvsullmfmem546o370bm0ter1@4ax.com...
> 2 channels reproduce 2 dimensions - a flat plane. To reproduce height,
> you need additional channels - although conventional surround sound
> doesn't actually do this, it's still just 2-dimensional for some
> stoopid reason.

Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth, no
height.
Surround sound does produce 2 dimensions, width and depth. Still no height.

MrT.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 8:40:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:40:48 +1100, "Mr. T" <mrt@home> wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bot6u0dbbgvsullmfmem546o370bm0ter1@4ax.com...
>> 2 channels reproduce 2 dimensions - a flat plane. To reproduce height,
>> you need additional channels - although conventional surround sound
>> doesn't actually do this, it's still just 2-dimensional for some
>> stoopid reason.
>
>Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth, no
>height.
>Surround sound does produce 2 dimensions, width and depth. Still no height.

Two channels are perfectly capable of producing depth. If you don't
think so, then you have a faulty audio system, or a faulty ear/brain
system.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 8:40:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gjbdu0pbeanpjve72kqagen0206sc9p93e@4ax.com
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:40:48 +1100, "Mr. T" <mrt@home> wrote:
>
>> "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:bot6u0dbbgvsullmfmem546o370bm0ter1@4ax.com...
>>> 2 channels reproduce 2 dimensions - a flat plane. To reproduce
>>> height, you need additional channels - although conventional
>>> surround sound doesn't actually do this, it's still just
>>> 2-dimensional for some stoopid reason.
>>
>> Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No
>> depth, no height.
>> Surround sound does produce 2 dimensions, width and depth. Still no
>> height.
>
> Two channels are perfectly capable of producing depth.

Agreed, because of the presence of a temporal dimenision.


> If you don't think so, then you have a faulty audio system, or a faulty
> ear/brain
> system.

Perhaps surprisingly a perception of change of height can be stimulated by
shifting the timbre in a way that approximates the HRTF changes that take
place as a source rises and/or falls.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 8:44:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"RWG" <rgarrison1@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cs40kq$5ur$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
> To paraphrase Dr. McCoy in Star Trek IV: The neo-Luddite mentality is the
> only real constant in the Universe.

Nah, greed is.

MrT.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:40:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gjbdu0pbeanpjve72kqagen0206sc9p93e@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:40:48 +1100, "Mr. T" <mrt@home> wrote:
>
>>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:bot6u0dbbgvsullmfmem546o370bm0ter1@4ax.com...
>>> 2 channels reproduce 2 dimensions - a flat plane. To reproduce height,
>>> you need additional channels - although conventional surround sound
>>> doesn't actually do this, it's still just 2-dimensional for some
>>> stoopid reason.
>>
>>Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth, no
>>height.
>>Surround sound does produce 2 dimensions, width and depth. Still no
>>height.
>
> Two channels are perfectly capable of producing depth. If you don't
> think so, then you have a faulty audio system, or a faulty ear/brain
> system.

2, 4 or 5.1 speakers in a flat plane is still 2 dimensional.

For accurate 3D sound we need at least 8 channels (plus sub if you like)
with 'Height' being the missing dimension so far. FLB (front left bottom)
FLT (front left top), FRB, FRT, etc, etc you get the idea.

Maybe that's the next marketing step. I'm still stuck on stereo though.


geoff




geoff
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 5:31:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article <41e61852$0$20980$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
Mr. T <mrt@home> wrote:
>Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth, no
>height.

Decent 2-channel recording/speaker/placement/room combinations image height
and depth. Height seems to happen when the record floor bounce notch isn't
getting masked by what's coming off your floor and ceiling. Depth might be
getting a power response that looks more like you had in the recording
environment. Most speakers have big changes in power response/directivity
with frequency and are not well-behaved off-axis.
--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
In 1913 the inflation adjusted (in 2003 dollars) exemption for single people
was $54,567, married couples' exemption $72,756, the next $363,783 was taxed
at 1%, and earnings over $9,094,578 were taxed at the top rate of 7%.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 9:16:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gjbdu0pbeanpjve72kqagen0206sc9p93e@4ax.com...
> Two channels are perfectly capable of producing depth. If you don't
> think so, then you have a faulty audio system, or a faulty ear/brain
> system.

An "illusion" of depth, in a reverberant environment, yes.
A pretty fair facsimile when recorded with a dummy head and playback on
headphones, yes.
Honest to goodness "HiFi" placement with real accuracy in a full 2
dimensions when playing "normal" recordings in a "normal" room. Not likely.

MrT.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 9:56:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:40:48 +1100, "Mr. T" <mrt@home> wrote:

>Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth, no
>height.
>Surround sound does produce 2 dimensions, width and depth. Still no height.

You've never heard a good stereo system, then? :-)
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 9:56:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> writes:

> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:40:48 +1100, "Mr. T" <mrt@home> wrote:
>
> >Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth, no
> >height.
> >Surround sound does produce 2 dimensions, width and depth. Still no height.
>
> You've never heard a good stereo system, then? :-)

Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
with only two channels (left ear/right ear)...
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
randy.yates@sonyericsson.com, 919-472-1124
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 9:56:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Randy Yates wrote:

> Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:40:48 +1100, "Mr. T" <mrt@home> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth, no
>>>height.
>>>Surround sound does produce 2 dimensions, width and depth. Still no height.
>>
>>You've never heard a good stereo system, then? :-)
>
>
> Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
> with only two channels (left ear/right ear)...
Hello! And how about seeing depth with only 2 eyes as well;)

We should all just stop driving our cars and pilots should stop flying
planes as we as humans beings can not see or hear how far things are in
front of or back of us . . .according to Mr. T:) 

CD
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 9:57:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:16:32 +1100, "Mr. T" <mrt@home> wrote:

>> Two channels are perfectly capable of producing depth. If you don't
>> think so, then you have a faulty audio system, or a faulty ear/brain
>> system.
>
>An "illusion" of depth, in a reverberant environment, yes.
>A pretty fair facsimile when recorded with a dummy head and playback on
>headphones, yes.
>Honest to goodness "HiFi" placement with real accuracy in a full 2
>dimensions when playing "normal" recordings in a "normal" room. Not likely.


So, what's the difference between an "illusion" and anything else?
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:06:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On 14 Jan 2005 14:49:53 -0500, Randy Yates
<randy.yates@sonyericsson.com> wrote:

>Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
>with only two channels (left ear/right ear)...

We can't. It's just an illusion :-)
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 10:16:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:InzEd.2872$KJ2.1383@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net

> This is why I appreciate Sonic Holography, as developed by Bob Carver
> -- your ears hear each instrument MONOPHONICALLY, because cross-fed
> interference eliminates the false second arrivals of sound that don't
> exist in a live performance.

Sonic Holography was sonic, but it wasn't really holography. It's been
debunked for years.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:45:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Randy Yates" <randy.yates@sonyericsson.com> wrote in message
news:xxpbrbr7pum.fsf@usrts005.corpusers.net...
> Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:40:48 +1100, "Mr. T" <mrt@home> wrote:
>>
>> >Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth,
>> >no
>> >height.
>> >Surround sound does produce 2 dimensions, width and depth. Still no
>> >height.
>>
>> You've never heard a good stereo system, then? :-)
>
> Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
> with only two channels (left ear/right ear)...

The ear , it's lobes, and our brains can differntiate being left-right,
front-back, and up-down. In real life sound come at us from all thses
directions. To simulate real-life (if that is your aim) that's where
reproduced sound must come from to give the same illusion, if that is your
aim.

However if the aim of the reproduction technology is to supply all ambinent
information for you, people seem to miss that that the listening area needs
to be somehat anechoic in it's own right - natural ambience adding to what
is 'supplied' invalidating the facsimilie....

geoff
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:45:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> writes:

> "Randy Yates" <randy.yates@sonyericsson.com> wrote in message
> news:xxpbrbr7pum.fsf@usrts005.corpusers.net...
> > Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:40:48 +1100, "Mr. T" <mrt@home> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth,
> >> >no
> >> >height.
> >> >Surround sound does produce 2 dimensions, width and depth. Still no
> >> >height.
> >>
> >> You've never heard a good stereo system, then? :-)
> >
> > Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
> > with only two channels (left ear/right ear)...
>
> The ear , it's lobes, and our brains can differntiate being left-right,
> front-back, and up-down. In real life sound come at us from all thses
> directions. To simulate real-life (if that is your aim) that's where
> reproduced sound must come from to give the same illusion, if that is your
> aim.

But if reproduced sound DOES come from these directions, then it's not
an illusion!

> However if the aim of the reproduction technology is to supply all ambinent
> information for you, people seem to miss that that the listening area needs
> to be somehat anechoic in it's own right - natural ambience adding to what
> is 'supplied' invalidating the facsimilie....

I would modify that to say either an anechoic environment OR a system
that inverts that environment during pre-processing is required.
--
Randy Yates
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
randy.yates@sonyericsson.com, 919-472-1124
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:47:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Randy Yates" <randy.yates@sonyericsson.com> wrote in message
news:xxpbrbr7pum.fsf@usrts005.corpusers.net...
> Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:40:48 +1100, "Mr. T" <mrt@home> wrote:
>>
>> >Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth,
>> >no
>> >height.
>> >Surround sound does produce 2 dimensions, width and depth. Still no
>> >height.
>>
>> You've never heard a good stereo system, then? :-)
>
> Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
> with only two channels (left ear/right ear

When I have a screeching monster coming at me from behind, I know whether it
is high or low, left or right.

geoff
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 1:43:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:45:33 +1300, "Geoff Wood"
<geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:

>> Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
>> with only two channels (left ear/right ear)...
>
>The ear , it's lobes, and our brains can differntiate being left-right,
>front-back, and up-down. In real life sound come at us from all thses
>directions. To simulate real-life (if that is your aim) that's where
>reproduced sound must come from to give the same illusion, if that is your
>aim.
>
>However if the aim of the reproduction technology is to supply all ambinent
>information for you, people seem to miss that that the listening area needs
>to be somehat anechoic in it's own right - natural ambience adding to what
>is 'supplied' invalidating the facsimilie....

As stereo demonstrably CAN provide depth information, there's little
point in wriggling around trying to prove why it CAN'T :-)
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 2:57:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:59:04 GMT, "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss"
<mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> Unless one is sitting in the midst of an orchestra, there is invariably a
>> _monophonic_ source of any music heard, performed either collectively or
>> individually. Live music may be performed stereophonically, but it's heard
>> monophonically. Though music has been recorded in Stereo for many years,
>most
>
>This is why I appreciate Sonic Holography, as developed by Bob Carver --
>your ears hear each instrument MONOPHONICALLY, because cross-fed
>interference eliminates the false second arrivals of sound that don't exist
>in a live performance.
>Interesting writeup.

So, there are still people who believe what 'Sideshow Bob' Carver
tells them? Fascinating.................

BTW, the theory behind Sonic Holography is absolute technobbable
bollocks, and there aren't any 'false second arrivals' in a minimalist
stereo recording, e.g. made with a Blumlein crossed pair.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:19:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Randy Yates" <randy.yates@sonyericsson.com> wrote in message >
> But if reproduced sound DOES come from these directions, then it's not
> an illusion!

If it's on a flat plane (such as 5.1 systems) then there is no vertical
information.

geoff
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:21:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Drew Eckhardt" <drew@revolt.poohsticks.org> wrote in message
news:9od9sc.nnu2.ln@revolt.poohsticks.org...
> In article <41e61852$0$20980$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> Mr. T <mrt@home> wrote:
>>Two channels produce *One* dimension. A single line of width. No depth, no
>>height.
>
> Decent 2-channel recording/speaker/placement/room combinations image
> height
> and depth. Height seems to happen when the record floor bounce notch
> isn't
> getting masked by what's coming off your floor and ceiling. Depth might
> be
> getting a power response that looks more like you had in the recording
> environment. Most speakers have big changes in power response/directivity
> with frequency and are not well-behaved off-axis.


But with an 8-channel(or+) system you can could actually aurally locate DG
standing up on top of the wall doing his thing, instead of just imagine it.


geoff
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:32:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gf5gu0l8424icd7enupsr7b6g526k524sm@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:16:32 +1100, "Mr. T" <mrt@home> wrote:
>
> >> Two channels are perfectly capable of producing depth. If you don't
> >> think so, then you have a faulty audio system, or a faulty ear/brain
> >> system.
> >
> >An "illusion" of depth, in a reverberant environment, yes.
> >A pretty fair facsimile when recorded with a dummy head and playback on
> >headphones, yes.
> >Honest to goodness "HiFi" placement with real accuracy in a full 2
> >dimensions when playing "normal" recordings in a "normal" room. Not
likely.

> So, what's the difference between an "illusion" and anything else?

A photo can give an illusion of depth, but it's still two dimensional!
Now using 3D glasses and two images would be similar to using a dummy
head/headphones for audio. You still can't move in the 3 dimensional space.

8 channels and speakers will allow you to do that, therefore real 3D.

MrT.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:32:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:32:53 +1100, "Mr. T" <mrt@home> wrote:

>A photo can give an illusion of depth, but it's still two dimensional!
>Now using 3D glasses and two images would be similar to using a dummy
>head/headphones for audio. You still can't move in the 3 dimensional space.
>
>8 channels and speakers will allow you to do that, therefore real 3D.

Yes, stereo requires the listener to sit in the "sweet spot". Will
you allow it to represent depth under that condition?
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:35:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Randy Yates" <randy.yates@sonyericsson.com> wrote in message
news:xxpbrbr7pum.fsf@usrts005.corpusers.net...
> Mr. T needs to explain, then, how we humans can hear in three dimensions
> with only two channels (left ear/right ear)...

Others have already done it for me.
We can see in 3 dimensions with 2 eyes as well.

MrT.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:36:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:cs9846$3sn$1@news.interpublic.com...

> We should all just stop driving our cars and pilots should stop flying
> planes as we as humans beings can not see or hear how far things are in
> front of or back of us . . .according to Mr. T:) 

We should all give up expecting people to comprehend what is ACTUALLY
written anyway it seems.

MrT.
!