[RRod]

  Cheaper to just get speakers

 
Speakers are what the $$ is getting saved for.  I would LOVE it if a company like, say, Schiit came up with a nifty, low-priced, little HRTF box.  In fact, Magni+Modi+HRTFbox could be a go-to combo for gaming audio.  You can get Dolby Headphone™ stuff already, but I hate the extra effects added (room sizing, etc.) compared to the straight HRTFs of OpenAL and its ilk.

 

[Strangelove424]

  Binaural is good for hair clippers and other test tracks.

 
It's not something I'm usually in a rush to admit, but I enjoy the occasional binaural ASMR haircut. It's very relaxing.
 
 

  Binaural recordings can be fun, a step up - until you turn your head
 
to address that failing there are head tracking "Virtualizers" - the Smyth Realizer is one some here are familiar with http://www.smyth-research.com/technology.html
 
http://www.head-fi.org/newsearch?search=smyth+realizer&=Search

 
This reminds me of TrackIR for gaming. But I never got into TrackIR, despite being tempted to, because having to set up, calibrate, and wear an annoying head tracking accessory seemed like a pain. Knowing myself, I'd hate dealing with that stuff every time I wanted to use it. Plus it was expensive, and even trackir doesn't even begin to approach the cost of the smyth realizer. It's very fascinating technology though.    

 

[uli87]

I assume that no matter how high quality a binaural microphone head may be, it would not be able to capture the same timbre or qualities of sound due to no being able to manipulate the microphones and and using certain techniques with the mono mics? 
 
Also if the recording had to be one take with no mistakes and that strict it would be total hell for everyone involved.

 

[immersifi]

That's a very difficult question to answer, that is, to answer with the 'correct' response. As someone who does a lot of binaural recording as well as conventional and hybrid stereo, some techniques are better suited for particular venues and genre than others. It really comes down to taste, preference etc.
 
As an aside, you can check out some of my work on soundcloud (immersifi). There's a fair amount of stuff there...some in flac, some in 320 kbps mp3, but please don't judge them by streaming them. The player on soundcloud transcodes anything down to 128 kbps mp3 in the interest of bandwidth...but if you download the tracks, you'll clear that hurdle.
 
Incidentally, for those with an interest in the technical side of binaural, I just posted this:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/759670/aes-publishes-new-standards-for-3-d-audio-aes69-2015#post_11427088
 
Mark (immersifi)
 
Added: If you peruse my posts here, you'll find a lot of links to my binaural and hybrid tracks on soundcloud, but also with more background information - type of music, venue, etc. So there's jazz, choir, modern a cappella, stuff recorded in churches in Rome, Italy, some environmental stuff, etc. Also, here are a couple fairly well-known live binaural recordings that I have done:
 
Cowboy Junkies, Live at The Ark (downloaded about 17,000 times): https://archive.org/details/cj2009-10-05.ku100_at37
 
Sam Roberts Band, Live at The Fillmore Detroit (downloaded about 1,700 times): https://archive.org/details/SRB2009-11-28
 
Capps, Donohoe, Ianacce, Jack, & Krist, Live at The Trinity House Theater (downloaded about 1,100 times: https://archive.org/details/CappsDonohoeIannaceJackAndKristLiveAtTheTrinityHouseTheater
 
Some of these are more known than others, and for those I have tried to give some additional background on threads on this site...I just don't remember where I 'parked' them all. Anyway, check them out.
 
If you want a good example of live jazz in a small but famous club in Detroit, check out my binaural recordings of Philippe LeJeune - you'll find them on the immersifi 'tracks' page on soundcloud.

 

[bigshot]

The point of traditional mixing is to create a blend of sound that is more organized than real. The point of binaural is to capture reality. They both have their plusses and minuses, but binaural is much better for acoustic music than electronic. So that limits it.

 

[TheGrumpyOldMan]

<snip> Also, here are a couple fairly well-known live binaural recordings that I have done: Cowboy Junkies, Live at The Ark (downloaded about 17,000 times): https://archive.org/details/cj2009-10-05.ku100_at37<snip>

Just wanted to stop by and say that it's great to see you here. I didn't realize that the Cowboy Junkies recording is one of yours. It's also one of my absolute favourite live recordings (nevermind the slight volume shift ^_^), and I really appreciate your work and sharing it with the rest of us! I'll be sure to check out the other links you provided.
 
Even though I realized the limitations of binaural after going through quite a few recordings and demos (i.e. little to no extra front-back depth, well maybe less front), I still think it can add a lot to some recordings, even those that are already musically great (like Ottmar Liebert's, the somewhat gimmicky walk-around notwithstanding, or live recordings like yours). And I think that makes it still worthwhile even if perhaps strictly technically there's no particular quality increase...

 

[uli87]

  The point of traditional mixing is to create a blend of sound that is more organized than real. The point of binaural is to capture reality. They both have their plusses and minuses, but binaural is much better for acoustic music than electronic. So that limits it.

 
I guess that's one of the reasons it didn't catch on as much. The sound (rather, the performance) may perhaps be more organic/authentic sounding, but it is definitely less polished. Technically, you would be able to record a Metallica record, but I have a feeling you would not be able to reproduce that thick multilayered distorted electric guitar sound that defines who they are.
 
 
 
 

  That's a very difficult question to answer, that is, to answer with the 'correct' response. As someone who does a lot of binaural recording as well as conventional and hybrid stereo, some techniques are better suited for particular venues and genre than others. It really comes down to taste, preference etc.
 
As an aside, you can check out some of my work on soundcloud (immersifi). There's a fair amount of stuff there...some in flac, some in 320 kbps mp3, but please don't judge them by streaming them. The player on soundcloud transcodes anything down to 128 kbps mp3 in the interest of bandwidth...but if you download the tracks, you'll clear that hurdle.
 
Incidentally, for those with an interest in the technical side of binaural, I just posted this:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/759670/aes-publishes-new-standards-for-3-d-audio-aes69-2015#post_11427088
 
Mark (immersifi)
 
Added: If you peruse my posts here, you'll find a lot of links to my binaural and hybrid tracks on soundcloud, but also with more background information - type of music, venue, etc. So there's jazz, choir, modern a cappella, stuff recorded in churches in Rome, Italy, some environmental stuff, etc. Also, here are a couple fairly well-known live binaural recordings that I have done:
 
Cowboy Junkies, Live at The Ark (downloaded about 17,000 times): https://archive.org/details/cj2009-10-05.ku100_at37
 
Sam Roberts Band, Live at The Fillmore Detroit (downloaded about 1,700 times): https://archive.org/details/SRB2009-11-28
 
Capps, Donohoe, Ianacce, Jack, & Krist, Live at The Trinity House Theater (downloaded about 1,100 times: https://archive.org/details/CappsDonohoeIannaceJackAndKristLiveAtTheTrinityHouseTheater
 
Some of these are more known than others, and for those I have tried to give some additional background on threads on this site...I just don't remember where I 'parked' them all. Anyway, check them out.
 
If you want a good example of live jazz in a small but famous club in Detroit, check out my binaural recordings of Philippe LeJeune - you'll find them on the immersifi 'tracks' page on soundcloud.

 
I listened to some of the Cowboy Junkies (cool band, never heard of them!) and it sounds great. I'm sure that if I attended that concert, it would take me right back there.
 
 
Great to have someone that can answer some technical questions
 
Does binaural really have a place besides live music, like movie and game soundtracks? I would be really interested to know how they recorded the Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit soundtracks because the tracks are very immersive with a good sense of space, albeit different sounding than binaural. I assume all of this is done artificially.
 
I would also wonder how much of these sort of recordings are actual instruments or just samples? Guys like Two Steps From Hell come up to mind... it all blends so well that I can't even tell anyway lol.

 

[immersifi]

  Just wanted to stop by and say that it's great to see you here. I didn't realize that the Cowboy Junkies recording is one of yours. It's also one of my absolute favourite live recordings (nevermind the slight volume shift ^_^), and I really appreciate your work and sharing it with the rest of us! I'll be sure to check out the other links you provided.
 
Even though I realized the limitations of binaural after going through quite a few recordings and demos (i.e. little to no extra front-back depth, well maybe less front), I still think it can add a lot to some recordings, even those that are already musically great (like Ottmar Liebert's, the somewhat gimmicky walk-around notwithstanding, or live recordings like yours). And I think that makes it still worthwhile even if perhaps strictly technically there's no particular quality increase...

You know, it's always great to be given kudos for my work...so thanks so much. I noticed 'favourite' so I am guessing (?) you are from North of the border? If so, you might know the Sam Roberts Band...I recorded them twice in binaural, but only one of their shows is on the web, which you will find in my posts. That show is 100% binaural, and while I am somewhat biased, I think it works, mainly because the FOH Engineer did such a great job with the mix.
 
Here's a link that some might find gimmicky (but I don't) wherein live HD video (concert) is mated to the binaural audio that I created. I have referenced this elsewhere in the Head Fi environs, but it's worth re-posting here. The band is called "Sumkali" and they are a ...well...have a listen..and take a look:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_oumi50dy0
 
What's kind of interesting about this concert video (and the audio that I mated to it) is that it's not a 'pure acoustic' performance, some sometimes the imaging shifts, because as certain performers draw near the mic, more sound comes out of the house mains (located at center), but as they pull back, you can hear the localization become much more natural.
 
One thing to keep in mind is that at times, this video can cause 'cognitive dissonance' because as the camera angle moves, the audio remains 'fixed' (not unlike traditional live concert films). It's interesting to think of how the video would come across if I had mannequin heads at each camera location - but then again, the shift, while being interesting, probably would not serve the aesthetic.
 
One other thing...the audio here has absolutely no board feeds - I did this with the mannequin head (Neumann type KU 100), so this does show what you can accomplish if you get a band that's 'on' and carefully place the mannequin head mic.
 
BONUS: I just noticed that the whole show has posted (as well as excerpts):
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICj6Tx0DL1I
 
The intro is not binaural, but the actual concert footage is...and yes, there are some really cool moments, both performance-wise, as well as sonically.
 
Anyway, I hope that you (and others) dig this...and again, thanks for the kind words regarding my work - I really do strive to capture great performances.
 
Mark (immersifi)

 

[immersifi]

   
I guess that's one of the reasons it didn't catch on as much. The sound (rather, the performance) may perhaps be more organic/authentic sounding, but it is definitely less polished. Technically, you would be able to record a Metallica record, but I have a feeling you would not be able to reproduce that thick multilayered distorted electric guitar sound that defines who they are.
 
 
 
 
 
I listened to some of the Cowboy Junkies (cool band, never heard of them!) and it sounds great. I'm sure that if I attended that concert, it would take me right back there.
 
 
Great to have someone that can answer some technical questions
 
Does binaural really have a place besides live music, like movie and game soundtracks? I would be really interested to know how they recorded the Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit soundtracks because the tracks are very immersive with a good sense of space, albeit different sounding than binaural. I assume all of this is done artificially.
 
I would also wonder how much of these sort of recordings are actual instruments or just samples? Guys like Two Steps From Hell come up to mind... it all blends so well that I can't even tell anyway lol.

Hmmm...well, I can't say about a Metallica gig per se, but here's a live rock concert that was done only with the mannequin head (no board feeds whatsoever):
 
https://archive.org/details/SRB2009-11-28
 
I'm not sure if this will delight or disappoint your ears, but...it's worth checking out. You are correct about the 'less polished' aspect in the sense that most bands never REALLY make a 'live' recording - they close-mic and multi-track everything, and then 'fix it in the mix'. That was one of the attractions for me in doing the Sam Roberts shows. I'll never forget how, at the Fillmore event, in the wings before the show, he and I had a brief conversation about "live" recordings. Sam told me that in general, he dislikes live recordings (because as he put it, most bands use the live tracks as nothing more than the 'starting' point, and as such, they do not represent a live performance). He also told me that the reason why he wanted me to record this show was to capture some 'truth' in the Band's performance, regardless of whether the band was 'on' or simply having an off night (personally, I can tell you that as I watched (and listened to) the show from the wings, the audience were in fact going wild, and the Band seemed keenly aware of this - the whole positive feedback loop thing (band cooks, audience responds, band sees audience responding, band cooks some more, etc.). Again, kudos to Phil Hornung who did the FOH mix...and did a stellar job. Were it not for Phil's great ear and diligence, my binaural capture of the concert would have sounded pretty worthless and un-listenable (the aesthetic and the accurate can be mutually exclusive).
 
As far as uses for binaural...yes, and what many people don't know is that in many DAW plug-ins that feature convolution reverb, BRIR's (Binaural Room Impulse Responses) are at the 'core' of many of those plug-ins. So, in a way, by using convolution, one can use actual impulse responses (if you don't know about impulse responses, or don't know much, seek out the work of Angelo Farina at The University of Parma...he's sort of the Patriarch of impulse response based reverb and such).
 
The point of this is that game designers and such are using more and more convolution to faithfully emulate actual spaces that would be less accurately represented by traditional types of (artificial) reverb. As far as The Hobbit, my *guess* is that it could have been BRIR-based, or convolution could have been the starting point, and someone modified an existing BRIR to create an 'other-worldly' type of BRIR - people who are really into DSP understand how to manipulate impulse responses to suit a particular need.
 
Also, if you REALLY have an interest in the technology behind binaural, its uses, and so on, then might I suggest that you look into the Perceptual Audio Group on Linked In? I created the group back in 2010 as a sort of 'home base' for people working in binaural or other immersive audio approaches; lots of industry folks there (Dolby, DTS, et al) as well as people doing research into perceptual aspects of sound, how we as humans localize sounds etc...some pretty cool discussions there. I also strive to keep the discussions as non-commercial as possible (I moderate the forum and all posts) and focused on technical matters. There are places for the commercial type posts (I push all of those to the "Promotions" section of the forum, but I only post them if they are not overt advertisements for a 'ours is better than theirs' type thing...).
 
However, if you want a sort of "Reader's Digest" version and a demo that you can watch while you listen, check out my explanation at the end of the Sumkali concert video (if the concert is 'not your thing' and you just want to see the live video demo, jump to the 0:49:30 - mark, and you'll be right at the start of my little demo):
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICj6Tx0DL1I
 
Thanks 

 

[immersifi]

  cut...
 
Even though I realized the limitations of binaural after going through quite a few recordings and demos (i.e. little to no extra front-back depth, well maybe less front), I still think it can add a lot to some recordings, even those that are already musically great (like Ottmar Liebert's, the somewhat gimmicky walk-around notwithstanding, or live recordings like yours). And I think that makes it still worthwhile even if perhaps strictly technically there's no particular quality increase...

 
Just a quick word on front-to-back confusions as related to binaural...
 
Front-to-back issues seem to get addressed a lot for binaural, but in truth, front-to-back confusions are well known, and happen not only with stereo recordings, but also in real life. This comes down to what is known as the "Cone of Confusion" (Gefland, et al), and in truth, this cone of ambiguity - picture a road-hazard cone projecting outward from each of your ears - is inherent in the Human hearing mechanism. This isn't just my opinion, but the opinions of a lot of people who are considerably more knowledgeable than me when it comes to a thorough working knowledge of the human hearing mechanism (I know more than some, but certainly some know more than I). I've even done experiments with simple noise sources rotated around a stereo pair of mics, and yet, when people listen and I ask them "what's going on in this recording?", overwhelmingly I am told that it sounds like the source is a pendulum - even if I actually rotated it around the stereo mic pair as I recorded. Without the visual cortex handshaking with the auditory context, the cone of confusion is sure to reign. Why do you think that we, as humans, turn our heads when we are unsure of the location of a sound? Doing so forces source-to-ear path length differences, and allows us to resolve direction. When this fails, the brain re-focuses effort on the visual cortex; once we locate a the source of a sound, then our ears sort of handshake with our eyes, and the cognitive dissonance issue is resolved.
 
I think a lot of people ascribe the cone of confusion issue as being unique to binaural, because too many people who were not well-versed in the math behind it over-sold binaural as the be-all and end-all in realism, just as I would suggest was the case when stereo was 'new' and being 'sold' to a crowd more familiar with monaural content.So when binaural failed to resolve the front-to-back confusion issue, many derided it as trickery - and the parlor trick variety (the struck match, the virtual haircut etc) didn't help to establish it as what it is - a potentially more realistic approach than other approaches. Again, binaural does not resolve these front to back confusion issues, but no approach does.
 
It's unfortunate really, because the cone of confusion (Gefland's treatment on the subject is regarded as a sort of touchstone on the subject, and I recommend those who are interested to seek out his work) cannot be remedied by any playback scheme - whether the stimulus is mono, stereo, binaural, ambisonics, or n.1. All of those play a role in how the sound field is created relative to a Human's ears, but they cannot un-do what all those years of Human evolution.
 
I made mention of this in the Percpetual Audio forum - there's a post by a Graduate Student (who is also a group member) by a gentleman whose name is Kaushik Sunder about front-to-back confusions, and I urge those who want to know more about the cone of confusion, front-to-back confusions, Minimum Auditory Angle (MAA) and so on to web search the subject matter. I will say this much - the threads on the subject within the Perceptual Audio forum have some contributions by some true experts on the subject.
 
Head-tracking is a field that is related to the cone of confusion and the MAA, and it has some very real potential in terms of realism - perfect for gaming in particular. One thing about which I am not sure is this: If you could have that (as you turn your head, having it match), would you want that? Would you want it with stereo?
 
See... to my way of thinking, one thing that I really like about headphones is the fact that regardless of how I turn my head, or what room in which I find myself, the sonic image is stable - i quite literally do not want what I hear to be a function of how I turn my head. This applies to monaural, stereo, binaural, or hybrid content; when I am listening to music, it's more about enjoying the aesthetics, and I tend to check my analytical pursuits at the door.
 
As a VR experience, yes, I love the idea of the spatial impulse response matching my actual location in the 'virtual' space, but quite honestly, one of the things I like least about speaker-based playback is how much the room acoustics, volume, and my location in that room influence what I hear. Ethan Winer has some nice posts of this very subject (the importance of location, phase, modal density, and so on), so I won't rehash them, but they are worth seeking out on the web as well. Again, the great 'power' of headphones - and I suspect why most of us are here - is that they allow us much, much greater control over the sonic renderings that we all enjoy.
 
Thanks,
 
Mark (immersifi)

 

[RRod]

Any book or online source for a good "beyond intro" to binaural / HRTF?

 

[immersifi]

  Any book or online source for a good "beyond intro" to binaural / HRTF?

"Binaural Technology" by Mme Rozenn Nicol or Orange Labs. AES sells it.
 
http://www.aes.org/blog/2010/4/aes-publishes-monograph-on-binaural-technology
 
Also:
 
The works of Durand Begault (he's at NASA) - here's one suggestion:
 
http://www.amazon.com/3D-Sound-Virtual-Reality-Multimedia/dp/0120847353/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
 
This is a good reference, although not specific to binaural per se (by Floyd Toole):
 
http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/B00HMVGSJW/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426878171&sr=1-9&keywords=Floyd+Toole
 
Hartmann's text is nice:
 
http://www.amazon.com/Signals-Sensation-Modern-Acoustics-Processing/dp/1563962837/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426878229&sr=1-2&keywords=Hartmann+signals
 
The work of Dorte Hammershoi:
 
http://www.amazon.com/Binaural-Technique-Method-Sound-Reproduction/dp/8773075167/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426878265&sr=1-5&keywords=Hammershoi+binaural
 
Dr. Angelo Farina's Home Page (University of Parma) - you can actually download lessons: http://pcfarina.eng.unipr.it/
 
and a GREAT companion book on DSP (though not binaural per se) is "The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to DSP" written by Steven W. Smith:
 
http://www.dspguide.com/pdfbook.htm - and get this, you can download it FOR FREE. Great, great book.
 
 
If I think of some more, and I likely will, I'll update this post.
 
Mark (immersifi)
 
ADDED:
 
These works (written or edited by) by Jens Baluert:
 
http://www.amazon.com/Communication-Acoustics-Jens-Blauert/dp/3642060609/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1427140201&sr=8-4&keywords=jens+blauert
 
http://www.amazon.com/Spatial-Hearing-Revised-Psychophysics-Localization/dp/0262024136/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427140392&sr=8-1&keywords=jens+blauert
 
http://www.amazon.com/Technology-Binaural-Listening-Acoustics-Processing/dp/3642377610/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1427140392&sr=8-2&keywords=jens+blauert
 
HRTF as discussed in Bosun Xie:
 
http://www.amazon.com/Head-Related-Transfer-Function-Virtual-Auditory/dp/1604270705/ref=pd_rhf_dp_s_cp_5_06Y4?ie=UTF8&refRID=0SGZ3NM5W0VRDB3G27NR
 
A quick reference to the Cone of Confusion as described by Gelfand et al:
https://books.google.com/books?id=SGdR8uCuRHUC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=cone+of+confusion+Gelfand&source=bl&ots=esOsyrLg7i&sig=tAy_rmbP__5K5nMJw2ODQKUpSgo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aXUMVbjWKan7sASfnYKQBQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cone%20of%20confusion%20Gelfand&f=false
 
Gelfand:
 
http://www.amazon.com/Hearing-Introduction-Psychological-Physiological-Acoustics/dp/B00E28EC78/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427140620&sr=1-4&keywords=Gelfand+5th+edition
 
(This has a really nice treatment on the cone of confusion, to wit: (Page 303): https://books.google.com/books?id=isZGBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA371&lpg=PA371&dq=Hearing:+An+Introduction+to+Psychological+and+Physiological+Acoustics+cone+of+confusion&source=bl&ots=Xrwo_NHJHi&sig=C5EZ1OLLGccxDJVxW-dFzPbvZIY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OJQMVeXxHcmWyATY14H4Ag&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Hearing%3A%20An%20Introduction%20to%20Psychological%20and%20Physiological%20Acoustics%20cone%20of%20confusion&f=false
 
Incidentally, here is the definition from the Oxford Reference site for Cone of Confusion: "A cone-shaped set of points, radiating outwards from a location midway between an organism's ears, from which a sound source produces identical phase delays and transient disparities, making the use of such binaural cues useless for sound localization. Any cross-section of the cone represents a set of points that are equidistant from the left ear and equidistant from the right ear."
 
Notice no distinction is made as to the sound field, or the stimulus.

 

[RRod]

  If I think of some more, and I likely will, I'll update this post.
 
Mark (immersifi)

 
Thanks for the recs! Yeah I've been through Smith's book already; as good an intro as I could have wanted! Anyone out there wanting to get their feet wet on DSP should definitely give it a read.

 

[immersifi]

   
Thanks for the recs! Yeah I've been through Smith's book already; as good an intro as I could have wanted! Anyone out there wanting to get their feet wet on DSP should definitely give it a read.

Smith is one sharp - but practical - cat. I love the book because his examples are great, and he uses the math not to drive fear into the reader, but to actually help the reader understand the concepts after having explained them in the written word first.
 
Absolutely worth its weight in gold.

 

[uli87]

Wow thanks for all this info. I found you also posting on gearslutz talking to a guy about Holophnics and Zuccarelli when doing a google search. 
 
I found a really cool video on BRIR on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmOvHjSBlnc. 
 
These sort of technologies are already implemented into recording and mixing programs like protools? Because I know of some pretty awesome music that was recorded on smaller budgets in small home studios that also manage to capture pretty great depth. I mean like when you pan left and right while mixing, is there a way to actually add depth on a z axis?