From having read over recent posts regarding *A higher standard of standardness* (what goofball made this title?), it appeared that recordings should not be fat or boring. At least fattening a recording has measurable components: Aphex, for example, used known psychoacoustic principles to create *fatness* via their Exciter/Big Bottom processor. I don’t know whether there’s a psychometric unit of measure to assess how boring a recording is. But *boring* sounds scientific enough to withstand scrutiny.
One proprietary surround system used in PEER REVIEWED hearing research (yes, peer-reviewed work, not opinions) does not use Ambisonics. The system's developer says Ambisonics sounds TINNY. I’m not joking, so maybe somebody would like to set things straight. I don’t plan to fight back by saying the opposition’s surround system is boring. On another note, I believe what JL is offering is a fantastic opportunity for Sursound readers. Sadly, I’m not affluent enough to pay for services (still raking together funds to finish college), but I’d gladly pay for B-formatted recordings of rail stations and airports made with a ST450. I am creating ways to *objectively* assess that the physical movement of air (macro level, not micro) to demonstrate Ambisonics or HOA is suitable for scientific research. As I recently wrote, it’s the PHYSICAL re-creation that matters, not human perception. (Read or re-read Phantom of the Laboratory and Round Arrays in Square Spaces). If the sound is physically accurate, we can bet it sounds real, whether it’s a sound we like or believe to be boring. Making sounds sound good is the art; accurate physical reproduction is the science. Back to square one, Eric C. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130707/e631fb03/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
