[sander99]

I do know I have been talking about sound fields: that's why in my post I said speakers produce a lot of their imaging from their design and placement. I also am knowledgable about physiology: I've taken medical classes. I can assure to you sound localization is not:

"The point you seem to be missing is that you only have two lateral ears "at you head"! Which means that ALL the localisation information that you perceive is derived from ONLY two point sources, the sound waves entering your left ear and the sound waves entering your right ear."

What you are completely missing is that our ears are not just comprised of ear drums. Sound first interacts with our earlobes (or pinnae, which funnels frequencies on certain areas of the eardrum). If it were as you claim (just volume level per channel) we'd then have no idea about depth of the sources (even that a stereo image would be front or back).

The point that you are completely missing is that after going through that outer part of the human hearing system (that results in a filtering of the sound depending on the direction, which is what HRTF is all about) it "merges" into the two datum points as gregerio called it, at the ear drums.
(Ideally, something like the Realiser would work better if the PRIR and HPEQ could be measured at the eardrum, for practical reasons they measure at the entrance of the ear canals but that turns out to be good enough to create a fully convincing out-of-head experience for almost everyone.)
With binaural simulation you tap into that point that is somewhere "halfway" of your complete hearing system, where all information has been condensed into the two datum points.

The rest of your hearing system including your brain does the rest.

With the above "rest" I meant the part downstream of those two datum points.

which funnels frequencies on certain areas of the eardrum

I don't know whether this plays any role or not, in fact I highly doubt it does, but for sure apparently not enough to stop binaural simulation from doing a very good job.

If it were as you claim (just volume level per channel) we'd then have no idea about depth of the sources (even that a stereo image would be front or back).

It is not just levels, it is the hrtf filtering that gives the extra information to the brain. The thing is: when it is done "half decent" the brain is not fooled, hence many dissapointing and failed attempts in the past. I understand if that makes one sceptical. If I could just let you listen to a Realiser with head tracking and using your own personally made PRIR and HPEQ...

 

[gregorio]

I do know I have been talking about sound fields: that's why in my post I said speakers produce a lot of their imaging from their design and placement. I also am knowledgable about physiology: I've taken medical classes. I can assure to you sound localization is not:
"The point you seem to be missing is that you only have two lateral ears "at you head"! Which means that ALL the localisation information that you perceive is derived from ONLY two point sources, the sound waves entering your left ear and the sound waves entering your right ear."
What you are completely missing is that our ears are not just comprised of ear drums. Sound first interacts with our earlobes (or pinnae, which funnels frequencies on certain areas of the eardrum). If it were as you claim (just volume level per channel) we'd then have no idea about depth of the sources (even that a stereo image would be front or back).

Huh, what medical classes did you take that taught you the pinnae were not part of your ears and they weren't on your head? I spoke about HEAD Related Transfer Functions (HRTFs), NOT Ear-Drum Related Transfer Functions. As your pinna are part of your head, a HRTF includes the interaction of your pinna on the sound hitting your ear drums!

[1] Equally, I would hope others have enough common sense about some of your other assertions.

"Stereo (2 channel) speakers do project a sound field focused in front of you and that is their limitation, it can only be in front of you, while with headphones it can be anywhere.".....
[2] uhm no, headphones are limited to one driver per side of head, and they don't produce a sound field all around your head
[2a] (they do not convey the same depth because of the lack of identical sound interaction with pinnae).
[3] Most people would also realize a headphone's soundfield is only a certain angle lateral to your head so as not to "be anywhere".

1. You hope "others have enough common sense" but you don't hope that for yourself?

2. You seem to be repeating the same lack of "common sense", yes headphones are "limited to one driver per side of head" but that's all they need because your hearing is also limited to one ear per side of head!
2a. Yes they can, the interaction with the pinna is part of a HRTF!

The common sense that you appear to be lacking is to actually find out what a HRTF is, BEFORE you argue about it!

"HRTF describes how a given sound wave input (parameterized as frequency and source location) is filtered by the diffraction and reflection properties of the head, pinna, and torso, before the sound reaches the transduction machinery of the eardrum and inner ear. Biologically, the source-location-specific prefiltering effects of these external structures aid in the neural determination of source location ..." - Wiki "Head-Related Transfer Function".

3. Please provide some supporting evidence that most people who've heard a binaural recording (with a compatible HRTF) have not been able to localise "anywhere". Otherwise, hogwash!

3. Because a Dolby Atmos system uses the same single horizontal plane of speakers as 5.1/7.1 but adds two rows of ceiling speakers, a second horizontal plane.
3a. So, we have two horizontal planes......" Well maybe I should say purposely obfuscating your own terminology and concepts
[3b] (Dolby's own literature details how traditional surround was XY, and 3D adds a Z axis). Most people should recognize horizontal plane is one that sits around your head and a vertical one is one that sits on top of your head.
[4] Then when it comes to your #4 point. I remember just a few months ago you were claiming that home 4K was first introducing lossless surround (IE True-HD, DTS MA). At least it looks like I got through to you that they were standards with HD/blu-ray.
[4a] Considering that, I doubt you know the capabilities of a home theater setup.

3/3a. You could say that or, you could: Be honest, apply the common sense of finding out about something BEFORE arguing about it and also, reading what you're arguing with!
3b. I know what Dolby's literature says, I read it 25 years ago, discussed it at length with Dolby themselves and worked with countless engineers who work in Dolby certified studio and have been one of those engineers myself for over 20 years but you already know this from our previous exchanges! The traditional surround formats (5.1/7.1) effectively had two XY axes, an XY asis for left and right and an XY axis from front to back, giving a theoretical 360deg on a single horizontal plane. Although it was only theoretical, in practice the side and rear channels covered a zone and it was not possible to accurately position a sound within these zones. Atmos adds another axis, an up/down, vertical axis however, "most people" would NOT recognise that a vertical plane is one that sits on top of your head, most people would recognise that a vertical plane goes all the way down to your feet (and potentially beyond)! Atmos is not capable of this and therefore not capable of recreating sound sources or sound reflections lower than the horizontal plane of speakers, while headphones with an accurate HRTF can.

4. Clearly I wasn't claiming that! I was using lossless surround long before 4K was even released to the public, the DCI specs only allowed 24/48 surround! What I actually got wrong was that Dolby True-HD, a consumer format, was released prior to the consumer release of 4K.
4a. "Considering that", feel free to make up any other nonsense! As I spend a fair amount of time working in various commercial studios creating the sound for home theatre setups, then of course I wouldn't "know the capabilities of a home theatre setup". Jeez!

G

 

[Davesrose]

The point that you are completely missing is that after going through that outer part of the human hearing system (that results in a filtering of the sound depending on the direction, which is what HRTF is all about) it "merges" into the two datum points as gregerio called it, at the ear drums.
(Ideally, something like the Realiser would work better if the PRIR and HPEQ could be measured at the eardrum, for practical reasons they measure at the entrance of the ear canals but that turns out to be good enough to create a fully convincing out-of-head experience for almost everyone.)
With binaural simulation you tap into that point that is somewhere "halfway" of your complete hearing system, where all information has been condensed into the two datum points.

With the above "rest" I meant the part downstream of those two datum points.


I don't know whether this plays any role or not, in fact I highly doubt it does, but for sure apparently not enough to stop binaural simulation from doing a very good job.

It is not just levels, it is the hrtf filtering that gives the extra information to the brain. The thing is: when it is done "half decent" the brain is not fooled, hence many dissapointing and failed attempts in the past. I understand if that makes one sceptical. If I could just let you listen to a Realiser with head tracking and using your own personally made PRIR and HPEQ...

You seem to not read Gregorio's post: which clearly stated perceived sound is only from two points (a left and right "ear"). Look up sound localization, and you'll see my points about sound first interacting with pinnae is not some kind of alt idea. In fact, the reason for having binaural recording is the different interaction of sound with head physiology (it includes a dummy head and ear lobes) compared to regular recordings intended for all formats (mainly speaker).

 

[Davesrose]

Huh, what medical classes did you take that taught you the pinnae were not part of your ears and they weren't on your head? I spoke about HEAD Related Transfer Functions (HRTFs), NOT Ear-Drum Related Transfer Functions. As your pinna are part of your head, a HRTF includes the interaction of your pinna on the sound hitting your ear drums!



1. You hope "others have enough common sense" but you don't hope that for yourself?

2. You seem to be repeating the same lack of "common sense", yes headphones are "limited to one driver per side of head" but that's all they need because your hearing is also limited to one ear per side of head!
2a. Yes they can, the interaction with the pinna is part of a HRTF!

The common sense that you appear to be lacking is to actually find out what a HRTF is, BEFORE you argue about it!

"HRTF describes how a given sound wave input (parameterized as frequency and source location) is filtered by the diffraction and reflection properties of the head, pinna, and torso, before the sound reaches the transduction machinery of the eardrum and inner ear. Biologically, the source-location-specific prefiltering effects of these external structures aid in the neural determination of source location ..." - Wiki "Head-Related Transfer Function".

3. Please provide some supporting evidence that most people who've heard a binaural recording (with a compatible HRTF) have not been able to localise "anywhere". Otherwise, hogwash!


3/3a. You could say that or, you could: Be honest, apply the common sense of finding out about something BEFORE arguing about it and also, reading what you're arguing with!
3b. I know what Dolby's literature says, I read it 25 years ago, discussed it at length with Dolby themselves and worked with countless engineers who work in Dolby certified studio and have been one of those engineers myself for over 20 years but you already know this from our previous exchanges! The traditional surround formats (5.1/7.1) effectively had two XY axes, an XY asis for left and right and an XY axis from front to back, giving a theoretical 360deg on a single horizontal plane. Although it was only theoretical, in practice the side and rear channels covered a zone and it was not possible to accurately position a sound within these zones. Atmos adds another axis, an up/down, vertical axis however, "most people" would NOT recognise that a vertical plane is one that sits on top of your head, most people would recognise that a vertical plane goes all the way down to your feet (and potentially beyond)! Atmos is not capable of this and therefore not capable of recreating sound sources or sound reflections lower than the horizontal plane of speakers, while headphones with an accurate HRTF can.

4. Clearly I wasn't claiming that! I was using lossless surround long before 4K was even released to the public, the DCI specs only allowed 24/48 surround! What I actually got wrong was that Dolby True-HD, a consumer format, was released prior to the consumer release of 4K.
4a. "Considering that", feel free to make up any other nonsense! As I spend a fair amount of time working in various commercial studios creating the sound for home theatre setups, then of course I wouldn't "know the capabilities of a home theatre setup". Jeez!

G

I'm sorry.....someone now calling hogwash when his previous response to me was that headphones can localize any location "anywhere" never mind binaural recording or not?? You're beyond ridiculous (example, claiming headphones can innately recreate 3D, or that Atmos is comprised of only horizontal sound fields). I pretty much knew when I got into Dolby Atmos you'd get into a huff and claim you have experience. 25 years ago Atmos wasn't a thing! You were the one who said sound is only perceived at one point at the side of one's head. The pinnae is attached to your head and IS THE FIRST PART OF AUDIO PHYSIOLOGY. That's what my medical classes thought me.

 

[manueljenkin]

process

2. It makes a difference.

https://web.mit.edu/2.972/www/reports/ear/ear.html

There are multiple independent reports that show human ears can hear timing delta around 10us (2x more precision than 44.1khz can offer). The lower bound is still not yet completely concluded but it's pretty much well established that 10us is quite audible with respect to inter ear dependence and spatial cues. You can search for individual papers as well, one of them apparently demonstrates near 5us precision which I would mean 4x the Redbook cd sampling rate.

 

[gregorio]

You seem to not read Gregorio's post: which clearly stated perceived sound is only from two points (a left and right "ear"). Look up sound localization, and you'll see my points about sound first interacting with pinnae is not some kind of alt idea.

Look up any anatomy book and you'll find that the pinnae is part of the ear! Dear me, how many times?

[1] I'm sorry.....someone now calling hogwash when his previous response to me was that headphones can localize any location "anywhere" never mind binaural recording or not?? You're beyond ridiculous (example, claiming headphones can innately recreate 3D, or that Atmos is comprised of only horizontal sound fields).
[2] I pretty much knew when I got into Dolby Atmos you'd get into a huff and claim you have experience. 25 years ago Atmos wasn't a thing!
[3] You were the one who said sound is only perceived at one point at the side of one's head.
[3a] The pinnae is attached to your head and IS THE FIRST PART OF AUDIO PHYSIOLOGY. That's what my medical classes thought me.

1. What's really ridiculous is you making up a false quote! I absolutely did not say "never mind binaural or not" and I've clearly been stating ears (which include pinna) and HRTFs, which also includes pinna.

2. And I pretty much knew that because you've got yourself a cheap home atmos setup that you'd know more about how surround sound works than those that do it for a living!

3. Indeed and what is it that you've got on the side of your head?
3a. Hallelujah brother, yes indeed it's pinna, well done! Now all need to do is understand what the "head" part of "Head Related Transfer Function" means, which shouldn't be beyond you as I've already quoted it from Wikipedia! Jeez, talk about ridiculous.

G

 

[gregorio]

There are multiple independent reports that show human ears can hear timing delta around 10us (2x more precision than 44.1khz can offer)

How is 10us two times more precision than 55ps? It's several orders of magnitude less than 44.1kHz can offer!

G

 

[Davesrose]

Look up any anatomy book and you'll find that the pinnae is part of the ear! Dear me, how many times?



1. What's really ridiculous is you making up a false quote! I absolutely did not say "never mind binaural or not" and I've clearly been stating ears (which include pinna) and HRTFs, which also includes pinna.

2. And I pretty much knew that because you've got yourself a cheap home atmos setup that you'd know more about how surround sound works than those that do it for a living!

3. Indeed and what is it that you've got on the side of your head?
3a. Hallelujah brother, yes indeed it's pinna, well done! Now all need to do is understand what the "head" part of "Head Related Transfer Function" means, which shouldn't be beyond you as I've already quoted it from Wikipedia! Jeez, talk about ridiculous.

G

And dear tell me anatomy professor, what is the role of the pinnae?? Your assertion was that sense of localization from ear is only volume per channel. Sorry to have to break it to you that the pinnae does influence frequencies on that "single point" from which the brain eventually decodes.

This is the quote I keep referring to (where you claim sound localization is not limited with headphones):
"A. Stereo (2 channel) speakers do project a sound field focused in front of you and that is their limitation, it can only be in front of you, while with headphones it can be anywhere." (post #38). Notice no mention of binaural or DSP or anything...you're only interjecting binaural now because another forum member has mentioned it. It seems from these current posts you're also claiming that headphones can easily create a full vertical image as well.

Now the real truth when we get to your point 2: childish antics. You do not know what I've spent on my surround setup and now you want to get into insults. From other posts, I have ascertained you have limited experience with cinema standards (a passing knowledge of audio and no knowledge of the film/video aspect). You've even tried to tell me about VFX firms, which last time I checked only some recognized ones are in Britain with others primarily being US and NZ (and their satellite firms in India and China). I'm enough in the VFX community to know about their normal contracts and project load.

 

[sander99]

You seem to not read Gregorio's post: which clearly stated perceived sound is only from two points (a left and right "ear"). Look up sound localization, and you'll see my points about sound first interacting with pinnae is not some kind of alt idea. In fact, the reason for having binaural recording is the different interaction of sound with head physiology (it includes a dummy head and ear lobes) compared to regular recordings intended for all formats (mainly speaker).

You didn't read or understand my post.

Your assertion was that sense of localization from ear is only volume per channel.

No, he didn't say that. What he means is that ultimately, at the ear drums there are 2 "signals" that contain all localization information (and that is partly thanks to the HRTF filtering - that is where the pinnae and the ear lobes and the head shape and all that come in to play - that has happened before the sound reached the ear drums). This HRTF filtering is different for every individual. Your brain has learned during your life how to interpret the filtered sound. That's why the use of your personal HRTF is very important for binaural simulations.

 

[bigshot]

This is sound science. Not forum for bigshot's usage scenarios.

The only aural physiognomy I really care about is my own. That is what I hear with and it affects whatever kind of sound reproduction equipment I listen to. My multichannel speaker system sounds fantastic to me and all my friends. You don't need special headsets or computers or custom readings of the shape of your noggin. It's one size fits all. You just sit down and the sound is all around you. If you ever get to Los Angeles (and you could be polite) I would be happy to have you over to listen to some music. I'm betting you would enjoy it if you can get past the attitude.

 

[Davesrose]

No, he didn't say that. What he means is that ultimately, at the ear drums there are 2 "signals" that contain all localization information (and that is partly thanks to the HRTF filtering - that is where the pinnae and the ear lobes and the head shape and all that come in to play - that has happened before the sound reached the ear drums). This HRTF filtering is different for every individual. Your brain has learned during your life how to interpret the filtered sound. That's why the use of your personal HRTF is very important for binaural simulations.

I can read Gregorio's posts just as any other person. The part you're putting forth here is what I've been arguing abut: sound on eardrum starts with pinnae which filters frequencies on different areas of the ear drum (and is more involved than his claim of just one point audio sensation that's all decoded by brain).

 

[gregorio]

[1] And dear tell me anatomy professor, what is the role of the pinnae?? Your assertion was that sense of localization from ear is only volume per channel.
[1a] Sorry to have to break it to you that the pinnae does influence frequencies on that "single point" from which the brain eventually decodes.
[2] This is the quote I keep referring to (where you claim sound localization is not limited with headphones):
"A. Stereo (2 channel) speakers do project a sound field focused in front of you and that is their limitation, it can only be in front of you, while with headphones it can be anywhere." (post #38). Notice no mention of binaural or DSP or anything...
[2a] you're only interjecting binaural now because another forum member has mentioned it.
[3] It seems from these current posts you're also claiming that headphones can easily create a full vertical image as well.
[4] Now the real truth when we get to your point 2: childish antics.
[4a] You do not know what I've spent on my surround setup and now you want to get into insults.
[5] From other posts, I have ascertained you have limited experience with cinema standards (a passing knowledge of audio and no knowledge of the film/video aspect).
[6] You've even tried to tell me about VFX firms, which last time I checked only some recognized ones are in Britain with others primarily being US and NZ (and their satellite firms in India and China). I'm enough in the VFX community to know about their normal contracts and project load.

1. No, that's just another lie! My assertion was that stereophonic sound is based on "volume per channel". And again, I'll back that assertion up from wikipedia: "By varying the relative amplitude of the signal sent to each speaker an artificial direction (relative to the listener) can be suggested. The control which is used to vary this relative amplitude of the signal is known as a "pan-pot" (panoramic potentiometer). By combining multiple "pan-potted" mono signals together, a complete, yet entirely artificial, sound field can be created." However, I listed this assertion as a "problem with speakers", precisely because:
1a. Sorry to break it to you, YET AGAIN, that the diffraction, reflective and absorption properties of the pinna are accounted for in the HRTF, hence why headphones are inherently better at localisation!

2. So accused of lying (making up a false quote), your response is yet another lie, way to go! In the post you quoted (#38) I not only mentioned binaural/HRTF but actually explained it: "if we could calculate and apply ALL the differences between the two input signals that your brain compares to derive all the localisation information, then we could perfectly recreate any and all localisation information that you can perceive (through your sense of hearing). In fact, this is entirely possible, this calculation is called a HRTF (Head Related Transfer Function). This is inherently BETTER at localisation than speakers, because we can calculate and apply all of the aspects of how we aurally perceive localisation information (arrival time, frequency and level) rather than just the one aspect with speakers, the level, as described in problem "C"."
2a. And another lie! I've mentioned binaural/HRTF in practically every post to you, including the first one, #22!

3. Given the correct HRTF when using headphones it would be possible to create a full spherical sound field!

4. You've got a nerve talking about childish antics when the lies you've told can easily be checked by anyone who cares to read post #38 and my other posts!
4a. True, I don't know what you've spent on your surround setup but I'll hazard guess that it's less that the $18M one of the studios I've worked at spent on their refit, less than the approx $1M the last studio I worked at spent on their Atmos refit and probably less than the nearly $300K that I spent on my last studio refit. Doesn't seem to stop you getting "into the insults" though does it?

5. Forgive me for not taking what you "have ascertained" seriously, you don't seem to have ascertained anything about HRTFs or even the basics of how stereo works, despite having it explained to you and it being easy enough to check on Wikipedia! What "you have ascertained" this time is just more pure nonsense!

6. And I've worked at/with VFX firms numerous times over more than 2 decades (including one with over $1B turnover), was actually in partnership with a British VFX firm for several years and ironically am likely to sign another contract with one in the next week or so. But hey, with hundreds of thousands of dollars and my entire livelihood at stake what would I know about contracts with VFX companies?

G

 

[castleofargh]

2. It makes a difference.

https://web.mit.edu/2.972/www/reports/ear/ear.html

There are multiple independent reports that show human ears can hear timing delta around 10us (2x more precision than 44.1khz can offer). The lower bound is still not yet completely concluded but it's pretty much well established that 10us is quite audible with respect to inter ear dependence and spatial cues. You can search for individual papers as well, one of them apparently demonstrates near 5us precision which I would mean 4x the Redbook cd sampling rate.

The phase shift ability is not defined by the sample rate alone. In practice you delay the signal in one channel by modifying the amplitude value of each sample. Both sample rate and bit depth determine the smallest phase shift we can reproduce.

 

[bigshot]

No, that's just another lie!
So accused of lying (making up a false quote), your response is yet another lie, way to go!
You've got a nerve talking about childish antics when the lies you've told
Forgive me for not taking what you "have ascertained" seriously, you don't seem to have ascertained anything

These are the sorts of opening lines that encourage me not to read any further. I don't care if it's aimed at me or someone else. It receives an instant dismissal. Disrespect is more contagious than coronavirus. It's possible to disagree and correct someone's facts without being a dick about it.

 

[Davesrose]

1. No, that's just another lie! My assertion was that stereophonic sound is based on "volume per channel". And again, I'll back that assertion up from wikipedia: "By varying the relative amplitude of the signal sent to each speaker an artificial direction (relative to the listener) can be suggested. The control which is used to vary this relative amplitude of the signal is known as a "pan-pot" (panoramic potentiometer). By combining multiple "pan-potted" mono signals together, a complete, yet entirely artificial, sound field can be created." However, I listed this assertion as a "problem with speakers", precisely because:
1a. Sorry to break it to you, YET AGAIN, that the diffraction, reflective and absorption properties of the pinna are accounted for in the HRTF, hence why headphones are inherently better at localisation!

2. So accused of lying (making up a false quote), your response is yet another lie, way to go! In the post you quoted (#38) I not only mentioned binaural/HRTF but actually explained it: "if we could calculate and apply ALL the differences between the two input signals that your brain compares to derive all the localisation information, then we could perfectly recreate any and all localisation information that you can perceive (through your sense of hearing). In fact, this is entirely possible, this calculation is called a HRTF (Head Related Transfer Function). This is inherently BETTER at localisation than speakers, because we can calculate and apply all of the aspects of how we aurally perceive localisation information (arrival time, frequency and level) rather than just the one aspect with speakers, the level, as described in problem "C"."
2a. And another lie! I've mentioned binaural/HRTF in practically every post to you, including the first one, #22!

3. Given the correct HRTF when using headphones it would be possible to create a full spherical sound field!

4. You've got a nerve talking about childish antics when the lies you've told can easily be checked by anyone who cares to read post #38 and my other posts!
4a. True, I don't know what you've spent on your surround setup but I'll hazard guess that it's less that the $18M one of the studios I've worked at spent on their refit, less than the approx $1M the last studio I worked at spent on their Atmos refit and probably less than the nearly $300K that I spent on my last studio refit. Doesn't seem to stop you getting "into the insults" though does it?

5. Forgive me for not taking what you "have ascertained" seriously, you don't seem to have ascertained anything about HRTFs or even the basics of how stereo works, despite having it explained to you and it being easy enough to check on Wikipedia! What "you have ascertained" this time is just more pure nonsense!

6. And I've worked at/with VFX firms numerous times over more than 2 decades (including one with over $1B turnover), was actually in partnership with a British VFX firm for several years and ironically am likely to sign another contract with one in the next week or so. But hey, with hundreds of thousands of dollars and my entire livelihood at stake what would I know about contracts with VFX companies?

G

So anyone else will be able to see post #38 and see no mention of binaural: no lie.

Sorry that again I'm going to have to question your credentials (as you seem keen on this). Last time you said you had one Atmos production to your name. Sorry I'm not going to quake in the knees about this. Especially since we've had exchanges about computer graphics, and you claimed you needed a passing knowledge (yet showed no knowledge about image formats). The contention with VFX came about when you claimed they never reveal workflows: that's opposite my experience. They have pretty good presentations for other 3D artists at Siggraph, and they also have really involved internships for 3D artists to learn their workflow (as the standard is that an artist will keep revolving to different studios with each project).

You say you back up your assertions without actually linking any source (doh). But even if you look up "Head-related transfer function" on Wikipedia you will see pinnae included in their summary for another variable of sound before what's neurologically sent to brain.

Apart from the antics we're going on about now with sound perception and cinema quality, you're the only one in these last few posts I've seen that claims headphones can innately render a source "anywhere" (it takes any processing to have overhead sound). I'm not going to resort to saying you're a liar, you're either that far up your know what or willingly obtuse.