Object based audio is coming and terms like "multichannel" or "binaural" as separate and incompatible techniques won't be relevant anymore. People can chose any renderer they like, even if it's two dipole speakes
That will be interesting.
But I tend to wonder what will be required to get it into that format for prior art.. (..of course the same can be said for multi-channel, which is largely prior art that is remastered - and often at a "band-aid" level.)
not really - or rather NOT AT ALL - that's why an ambiopole or other CTC configurations work so well with stereo recordings - actually better than a conventional stereo triangle
and all this "amplitude (difference) to phase (difference) conversion" Blumlein's technobabble is just an attempt to make a virtue out of a failure:
The Blumlein Conspiracy
Has any of these 450 recording been released? If so would you mind giving a few examples?
Markus - this is where I am in complete agreement with you. Standardizing the medium does not mean standardizing the art. Why do people have so much trouble separating the art from the reproduction?
My only explanation is that they feel that building/buying and setting up audio equipment would be part of the art. In my opinin that's pretty arrogant.
Why not promote binaural instead of multichannel ? Because of business reasons !
What would be the business model for binaural ?? Record with dummy head and play with headphones. How much the profit margin can be for a set of headphones compared to x.x surround system with x pcs of speakers and amplifiers
Ever tried this?
I did a while back
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/36254-try-ambiophonics-your-speakers.html
but only in living room conditions.
It works very well. For a single listener it is better than stereo triangle.
It does not have to be anechoic, not quite. It's not like it takes infinite time for perception to extract ITD cues. Just keep the RFZ
so stereo recordings work better without any "amplitude (difference) to phase (difference) conversion" which is just a technobabble from Blumlein
It does not have to be anechoic, not quite. It's not like it takes infinite time for perception to extract ITD cues. Just keep the RFZ
So You indeed think that our auditory system can switch from reverberant to (semi)anechoic mode just as we seat the listener in the RFZ and then we turn the stereo system on?
but frankly speaking - what for? what is the point, the advantage arising from of extracting them?
You have experienced Yourself that it worked better without any ITD cues - an ambiopole/CTC works better than a stereo triangle
It is no "technobabble" but physics of sound interference field.
As I said: "the theory is based on generating ITD cues from amplitude panned signals".
Cross talk cancelling means employ the same amplitude differences between the two channels. But there no ITD is formed because the cross talk is removed.
no ITD is formed but still it works better this way
then how can You say that stereo is based on those cues?
it is "technobabble" in the sense that it really doesn't explain why stereo works - rather it explains why it doesn't work
I did try it with a rather large cardboard panel and Behringer B2031P's too but it just sounded like two very close speakers. The sound stage was more or less like in a standard stereo triangle but very close.
Specifically tested the songs Keele listed. Maybe the cardboard was too flimsy or the the board needs to be absorptive or the speakers are too big or...
yep, you need something sturdy. it worked for me with tiny speakers with not much bass output and a 4cm extruded poly barrier. it did not with the main speakers. I tried again yesterday with a 8" matress, did not work either. Probably the best is still a thick wooden planck?
Prior art = previous recordings.
Ex. Money by Pink Floyd
What will it take to properly "break it down" into components for object based audio? Will some recordings fair better than others under the process? Or, will all recordings be similarly excellent?
I think that is a bit of an over-simplification ( Right channel to right ear, left channel to left ear) which is easy to understand, and put about by its advocates. The attenuation to the contralateral ear below about 1kHz is so small that cancellation is not practical, however...you don't have to end up with mono at those frequencies. At least with computer simulation, you find that RACE does produce some level of ITD cues from recorded interchannel amplitude differences, although not as large as I would like. I woud expect a (thick) mattress would too, due to the increased path length around the edge.. My own filters produced ITDs close to the maximum, with a constant interaural group delay from 20Hz to 2kHz, ahem, 'on paper'.. The trickiest region is around 500Hz.