XPost: rec.audio.pro, comp.dsp
From: ben_u_bradley@etcmail.com
In rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp, On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:47:54
-0800, "Bill Graham" wrote:
>Dick Pierce wrote:
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
