On 7/8/2011 12:41 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:19:15PM -0400, Neil Waterman wrote:
My personal opinion:
a) 3D sound from 2 speakers
Rubbish. Unless energy is arriving from the general direction of the supposed
source, the best any system can do is present some psycho-acoustically
confusing cues that attempt to fool the brain, but sadly (for the 2-channel
snake-oil folk) the brain usually wins and tells you it is confused.
b) 3D sound in headphones
Better. With customized HRTFs and a virtualized 3rd order ambisonic system (18
speaker feeds - 3 rings of 6) or simply really good binaural recordings this
can work very well, source material dependent.
If you want 3D sound, then you are going to need considerably more channels
than 2.
Agreed 100%.
Ciao,
Hrm. Alright, so perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. I thought that
our brains interpreted the directionality of sound based on the way it
changes as it goes over the head from the sides, behind or in front and
hits the outer ear. The ear canal is just a tube, so there's no
directionality once the waves are in there (forgive my layperson's
terms, i'm not an audio scientist like some of you), right?
If that's true, why can't the sounds be shaped so that it's the same as
it would be once it's in the canal? What difference does that make to
the brain as long as the sound is the same whether it's really coming
from behind me, or whether it's re-shaped to sound that way once it's
hits my head and ear-shape-thingies.
This does make me wonder how sweet-spot dependent it all is, and what if
my head is larger/smaller than average or my ears are not shaped the
same as someone else's?
Thanks,
Bearcat
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
