[IEMCrazy]

Quote:

 
Crossfeed actually does mix the channels together but it doesn't do it indiscriminately.  The level of crosstalk varies with the frequency and drops off as the frequency increases.  This mimics the way sound reaches you ears IRL.  Lower frequencies with longer wavelengths will bend more around the edges of obstacles, such as a person's face.  This means that the lower the frequency the more you will hear it in both ears even if source is at an angle to you and one of your ears doesn't have a straight line path to the source.  These difference in volume between each ear that vary with frequency and angle are one way that your brain determines what angle a sound is coming from.
 
...
 
prefer a wide soundstage over a deeper one then crossfeed isn't for you.  If you are bothered by those you can use crossfeed and trade some soundstage width for it.  Even binaural isn't perfect as individual HRTFs can vary quite a bit from the averages used to construct HATS.  The fewer compromises you make the less music you'll have left to listen to.
 
You can talk about it's limitations or just not like the effect but it has a very firm basis in psychoacoustics.

 
Very nice writeup on psychoacoustics and stereo.  The old audiophile myth of "stereo is best" gets somewhat tiring, even for speakers.  Stereo was simply a crude approximation or real world listening as theorized by recording engineers in the mid 20th century.  It's not the magic be-all and-all of audio that many make it out to be.  For headphones there's binaural, for speakers there's real surround recordings.  Both are sadly very limited in quantity. 
 
But that's why I get irritated with all the excessive pushing for amps and headphones and tubes etc that add "more soundstage" since, IMO they're long-shot expensive attempts to correct what is in essence a flaw in the recording.  What's on the disc isn't very much like real life.  Sure one piece of gear or another may have elements of a bigger soundstage, but they're small fixes for the core problem of needing to move recording technology forward before playback technology means much of anything.  It doesn't work for headphones but the genuine multi-channel SACDs/DVD-s, that weren't botched by the recording studio, give a taste of what we should be looking for!
 
We need new recording technology and recording methods for any real improvement in audio to take place.  Virtually no one seems interested in investing in that technology, except Cheskey....thank goodness at least someone gets it!

 

[pietcux]

Quote:

a shame,i cant purchase this.since im outside of the US

I am in Germany and I can get at least the MP3 version using pay pal.

 

[CEE TEE]

Finally listened to this for the first time at work the other day with UERM and I really like this album!
 
Not only is there music that I will enjoy listening to many times, but some good system test tracks and fun examples to let people listen to on my rig.
 
My favorite Chesky demo disc so far!  
 
As for how "binaural" it is compared to Explorations, I have not compared yet.  Haven't really listened to the Explorations tracks that much but probably will later.
 
I was worried that this album might not be "binaural enough" due to some comments, but quickly didn't worry about that as I enjoyed the music and recordings.

 

[vicjohn]

I wanna buy!

 

[AlanHell]

Always a fan to Chesky, they put more space and detail into HD800s.
Just wish they do more music on different genres, like rock or Classic Goth.
 
The digital price is a bit higher than usual, if they come with an SACD, I would be more than happy to pay for it~~~~~~
FLAC......Now, I need to find my optical cable for my DAC1

 

[BrainBlown]

I'm new to all this and am excited to check out this Binaural album!
 

 

[jamesWin]

nice.. i'm on to this! thanks for sharing

 

[songmic]

I was slightly disappointed with this album, because overall it didn't sound "binaural" compared to the Explorations in Space and Time. However, I have to admit that a few non-music tracks sounded so real and binaural that they kinda creeped me out, especially the right and left hearing tests where Dr. Chesky practically whispers into your ears. They really gave me the goosebumps.

 

[Hibuckhobby]

I had a similar response.  For the most part, I felt I had other recordings that were not
touted as binaural that created a better sense of space and depth to the sound.  With 
that said, I enjoyed some of the music on it a great deal.
Hibuck...

 

[ChipnDalebowl]

Listened to the samples, and they were honestly all blegh. Did he actually use binaural recording on this album? I seriously thought some of the Cincinnati Pops albums I have gave more sense of depth than these samples did.

http://orangetreeproductions.com/binaural-recording/ - These people at Orange Tree who make the National Parks Series albums make good binaural recordings - I have at least a dozen of their recordings. These sound far better than what I just heard and I'm not paying premium prices for their music either. They just record and let nature do the rest.

 

[grokit]

Even though it may not represent my taste in music, the only thing stopping me from buying this for at least the novelty factor is the fact that if I buy the 24/192 version of this I still have to buy the 16/44 version compare it to for curiosity's sake. It could very well expand my musical horizons as a bonus.
 
HDtracks might find a wider audience if the lesser-quality downloads were included with the purchase of the HQ files.

 

[TheGrumpyOldMan]

Quote:

Even though it may not represent my taste in music, the only thing stopping me from buying this for at least the novelty factor is the fact that if I buy the 24/192 version of this I still have to buy the 16/44 version compare it to for curiosity's sake. It could very well expand my musical horizons as a bonus.
 
HDtracks might find a wider audience if the lesser-quality downloads were included with the purchase of the HQ files.

Of course, you can still down-sample with good results from the HQ version on your own computer (XLD is a good option on the Mac). I'm pretty sure HD Tracks pretty much do the same for their own lower quality versions... (It's up-sampling that would be pointless since you can't add data that isn't there (at the source level, not in terms of oversampling in the filter sense))

 

[HiFlight]

Listened to the samples, and they were honestly all blegh. Did he actually use binaural recording on this album? I seriously thought some of the Cincinnati Pops albums I have gave more sense of depth than these samples did.
http://orangetreeproductions.com/binaural-recording/ - These people at Orange Tree who make the National Parks Series albums make good binaural recordings - I have at least a dozen of their recordings. These sound far better than what I just heard and I'm not paying premium prices for their music either. They just record and let nature do the rest.

What a great find!!! The music is absolutely beautiful and the binaural recording quality is superb. Thanks for sharing this great music source!

 

[grokit]

Quote:

Quote:

Even though it may not represent my taste in music, the only thing stopping me from buying this for at least the novelty factor is the fact that if I buy the 24/192 version of this I still have to buy the 16/44 version compare it to for curiosity's sake. It could very well expand my musical horizons as a bonus.
 
HDtracks might find a wider audience if the lesser-quality downloads were included with the purchase of the HQ files.

Of course, you can still down-sample with good results from the HQ version on your own computer (XLD is a good option on the Mac). I'm pretty sure HD Tracks pretty much do the same for their own lower quality versions... (It's up-sampling that would be pointless since you can't add data that isn't there (at the source level, not in terms of oversampling in the filter sense))

 
If I thought that was always the case, I would definitely downsample it myself. But it seems to be a somewhat 'open secret' that the reason that many hi-res music files sound different is because they are mixed and mastered to sound... drum roll... different (than their hi-res counterparts). Different doesn't necessarily mean better, and the jury is still out if the additional bit/sample rates add any more audible (to the human ear) resolution. So I would think that if there is a benefit to these more expensive file sizes, the companies pushing them out the virtual door at a ~100% premium would be more forthcoming about these details and invite more direct comparisons to Redbook files.
 
But hey what do I know, except that snake oil is actually good for what ails you. True fact!

 

[TheGrumpyOldMan]

Quote:

If I thought that was always the case, I would definitely downsample it myself. But it seems to be a somewhat 'open secret' that the reason that many hi-res music files sound different is because they are mixed and mastered to sound... drum roll... different (than their hi-res counterparts). <SNIP>

(I guess you mean lo-res in one of the two above?) I think what would be interesting would be to buy both versions (one time only), create your own downsampled version from the "HD" version and compare it with their equivalent-quality version, both by ear and by measurement (binary comparison & inside audio editor) and see what, if any, difference there might be... I even think one audio site or magazine did that recently, and let's say it didn't turn out so well for the sellers... can't find the link to the article now.
 
I only bought a few "HD" albums for the same reason you mentioned: because I -hope- they are mastered differently (better!) Sometimes they state it obviously, noting the sound engineer et al. Sometimes not so much... I bought one 24/44.1 track from an album I had ripped myself from CD at the usual 16/44.1 for comparison purposes, mostly because I kinda liked the album and it was brick-walled (very audibly) in the current fashion, hoping for a bit more range to alleviate the problem. It sounded exactly the same (to my ears anyway) and measured the same in the DR metering app (not the most complete, but since I was looking specifically for a DR improvement, adequate) In short, pointless purchase.
 
We're getting off-track here, so I would just add that since Chesky himself rolled this one out, I would think that more care than usual was taken to optimize the varying versions...
 
I myself bought the 24/96 version because I like the binaural thing a lot and want to encourage more of it. I have to concur with others that the track selection as a whole is a bit meh; some tracks are very enjoyable, the binaural experiments work very well, but a lot of it is just not something that will make me listen to the album as whole repeatedly. However, all of them are definitely binaural in the sense that they all have some parts "outside" of the headphones typical of binaural. Now in terms of soundstage etc., yeah, not that impressive.
 
Frankly, my favourite "musical" binaural recordings remain:
- Ottmar Liebert & Luna Negra's Up Close album (YouTube Sample) ('cause I like the guitar music anyway)
- And the amazingly freely available Cowboy Junkies Live at the Ark (Hybrid Binaural, FLAC available) (at the Internet Archive) ('cause I'm a big CJ fan)
For those not hanging out so much here yet, these were pulled from this thread and this thread
 
Ultimately I put my money down for Chesky's album because: MOAR BINAURAL PLEASE!