loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

"Tim S Kemp" wrote in message
. ..
Correct. the original point, which you DIDNT agree with as I recall is
that headphones are capable of a better stereo image than speakers.

show me a pair of speakers that can create the, admittedly unusual,
situation of having a sound entirely in one ear and not at all in the
other.

Ahhhh sir, you are missing the subtlety that is the difference between:

1. A stereo recording, designed to be heard as we would here things in
real
life, where sounds are accepted by both ears and positional information
decoded by the brain from the different arrival times, volume levels and
frequency ranges of the source.

2. A binaural recording, designed to be heard through isolated left-right
channels and processed for headphone listening at recording time.



Glad someone finally posted that.....

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 14/11/2003

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 14/11/2003

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:16:58 -0000
"Tim S Kemp" wrote:

Ahhhh sir, you are missing the subtlety that is the difference
between:

1. A stereo recording, designed to be heard as we would here things in
real life, where sounds are accepted by both ears and positional
information decoded by the brain from the different arrival times,
volume levels and frequency ranges of the source.

2. A binaural recording, designed to be heard through isolated
left-right channels and processed for headphone listening at recording
time.

Actually, Im not. my point is that the type of recording used doesnt
reflect the ability of the technology to give a clear stereo image. you
are simply required to feed the correct type of recording into the
respective system in order for it to produce a 'correct' image.

you wouldnt put petrol into a deisel car and vice-versa, would you?
Further, you wouldnt complain that the deisel vehicle was worse because
it produced clouds of black smoke and stopped when fed on petrol...

headphones require a particular type of recording to work properly, so
do speakers. they just require DIFFERENT types of recording.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:16:58 -0000
"Tim S Kemp" wrote:

Ahhhh sir, you are missing the subtlety that is the difference
between:

1. A stereo recording, designed to be heard as we would here things in
real life, where sounds are accepted by both ears and positional
information decoded by the brain from the different arrival times,
volume levels and frequency ranges of the source.

2. A binaural recording, designed to be heard through isolated
left-right channels and processed for headphone listening at recording
time.

Actually, Im not. my point is that the type of recording used doesnt
reflect the ability of the technology to give a clear stereo image. you
are simply required to feed the correct type of recording into the
respective system in order for it to produce a 'correct' image.

you wouldnt put petrol into a deisel car and vice-versa, would you?
Further, you wouldnt complain that the deisel vehicle was worse because
it produced clouds of black smoke and stopped when fed on petrol...

headphones require a particular type of recording to work properly, so
do speakers. they just require DIFFERENT types of recording.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Ian Molton wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:22:34 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

I
agree that material *designed* to be heard via two speakers ought to
sound*better* on speakers but that was not the point under debate.

Correct. the original point, which you DIDNT agree with as I recall is
that headphones are capable of a better stereo image than speakers.


I think we are at cross purposes here. It was another poster (Mr. Plowman?)
who said this and I disagreed with him i.e I agree with you.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Ian Molton wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:22:34 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

I
agree that material *designed* to be heard via two speakers ought to
sound*better* on speakers but that was not the point under debate.

Correct. the original point, which you DIDNT agree with as I recall is
that headphones are capable of a better stereo image than speakers.


I think we are at cross purposes here. It was another poster (Mr. Plowman?)
who said this and I disagreed with him i.e I agree with you.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Ian Bell
wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article , Ian Bell
wrote:
But the ear positions sounds by more than just relative levels -
and this is lost on a conventional recording when listened to on
headphones.


How?

Well, it measures the time a sound takes to reach each ear, for a
start.


Yes and the time differences are mirrored in the recording not in the
transducer used to reproduce the sound. Speakers or headphones, makes
no difference you still hear the time delays.

Not quite. When you hear a 'fully left' sound from a loudspeaker in a
room, both of your ears hear the sound, but the sound at your left ear
arrives earlier and is louder than that arriving at your right ear.

However when you listen to the same sound on headphones, no sound at all
arrives at your right ear.


This is true but it is not what we were discussing.


Hence the placement of the speakers with respect to your ears adds an
extra 'layer' of time information and affects the relative time/amplitudes
at the ears in a way headphones do not.


This is also true but again not what we were discussing.

For the avoidance of doubt, the OP stated that headphones could never
produce as good a stereo image as loudspeakers. I disagreed.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Ian Bell
wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article , Ian Bell
wrote:
But the ear positions sounds by more than just relative levels -
and this is lost on a conventional recording when listened to on
headphones.


How?

Well, it measures the time a sound takes to reach each ear, for a
start.


Yes and the time differences are mirrored in the recording not in the
transducer used to reproduce the sound. Speakers or headphones, makes
no difference you still hear the time delays.

Not quite. When you hear a 'fully left' sound from a loudspeaker in a
room, both of your ears hear the sound, but the sound at your left ear
arrives earlier and is louder than that arriving at your right ear.

However when you listen to the same sound on headphones, no sound at all
arrives at your right ear.


This is true but it is not what we were discussing.


Hence the placement of the speakers with respect to your ears adds an
extra 'layer' of time information and affects the relative time/amplitudes
at the ears in a way headphones do not.


This is also true but again not what we were discussing.

For the avoidance of doubt, the OP stated that headphones could never
produce as good a stereo image as loudspeakers. I disagreed.

Ian

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:33:24 +0000
Ian Bell wrote:

I think we are at cross purposes here. It was another poster (Mr.
Plowman?) who said this and I disagreed with him i.e I agree with you.

Hm. looking back you agreed that you could get a good image from
headphones but queried the accuracy of such an image.

I dunno. At the end of the day what you're saying now seems to agfree
with what Im saying so I dont care :)

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.