XPost: rec.audio.pro, comp.dsp   
   From: dpierce@cartchunk.org   
      
   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 |   
   +--------------------------------+   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)