[1] Shall I start offering my guests headphones instead of listening on my 5.1 speaker system?
[2] I can do that, but the whole point of a speaker system is soundstage, and you don't get that with headphones.
[2a] You don't get sophisticated directionality either. It's pretty obvious that for those aspects alone, speakers are better.
[3] They don't have headphone jacks in the seats at movie theaters and concert halls.
[3a] Physical sound in space is better than sound channeled directly into your ears.
[4] Space doesn't distort sound. It modifies it in the way it is intended to be modified.
[4a] Distortion is a pejorative. It is unintentional and unwanted change.
1. What has what you offer your guests got to do with factual accuracy and science? You think maybe science is defined by what you offer your guests?
2. This statement is false. You can get soundstage with headphones, a recording made or produced for a HRTF the same or very similar to yours will provide soundstage.
2a. Again this is FALSE, in fact not just false but pretty much the exact opposite of true! Given a recording made with a HRTF compatible with yours, headphones can provide FAR MORE sophisticated directionality than a 5.1 speaker system. While a 5.1 speaker system is obviously capable of far more sophisticated directionality than a 2 channel speaker system, it is in practice still very limited, that is why 7.1 was invented, which was STILL limited and therefore led to the invention of more sophisticated surround formats. Maybe you personally have never heard a good binaural recording compatible with your HRTF but this isn't the "What bigshot has experienced" forum, surely you must know this? You must also know that even if speakers are better, not everyone always prefer what is "better".
3. This is a non sequitur! It's obviously not practical or financially viable to provide every member of the audience with headphones and neither is it feasible to create an individualised HRTF for every member of the audience. This OBVIOUSLY doesn't prove that for an individual listener in their own home, speakers are always better than headphones with a binaural recording suited to their HRTF.
3a. That's nonsense! Physical sound in space must also be channelled "into your ears", if it wasn't you wouldn't hear it with your ears. Therefore, your assertion is that sound in a physical space that's channeled directly into your ears is better than sound channelled directly into your ears! Nonsense!
4. Again, that's a self contradiction! If space modifies/alters the sound then it is BY DEFINITION "distortion". "
Distortion is the alteration of the original shape (or other characteristic) of something. In communications and electronics it means the alteration of the waveform of an information-bearing signal, such as an audio signal representing sound or a video signal representing images, in an electronic device or communication channel." - Wikipedia.
4a. No, it is NOT a pejorative, although it is sometimes used as one, and neither it is always unintentional or unwanted! In fact, electric guitarists pay considerable amounts of money for equipment specifically to intentionally add wanted distortion! "
Distortion and overdrive are forms of audio signal processing used to alter the sound of amplified electric musical instruments, usually by increasing their gain, producing a "fuzzy", "growling", or "gritty" tone. Distortion is most commonly used with the electric guitar, but may also be used with other electric instruments such as bass guitar, electric piano, and Hammond organ." -
Wikipedia. Without any exceptions I can think of, EVERY rock and other popular music genre commercial music recording contains intentional, wanted distortion, starting around the mid 1950's, ubiquitous by the 1960's and ever since!
[5] The effect that real space has on sound is infinitely more complex than digital reverbs.
[5a] If modern digital reverbs are better than real physical space, then set one to exactly duplicate the effects of a room on speakers and compare it to the real thing.
[6] I want science that people can actually experience,
[6a] not science that is in pure theory
[6b] that is pinpoint focused on worst case scenarios and stuff that just isn't applicable in the real world.
[7] "Which is better to drink, spring water or seawater? Spring water! That's just YOUR opinion!"
[8] Just listen to a good set of headphones, then listen to a good multichannel speaker setup. It's self evident.
[9] I am glad to hear that you have a surround system in your home now though.
[9a] I can recommend some multichannel recordings that will demonstrate what it can do for music as opposed to just movies.
5. No it's not. You can't simply make-up facts to support your argument. You clearly don't understand how modern (or even old) digital reverbs work.
5a. You're joking right? You think no one has ever done this? Do you even know what a convolution reverb is?
6. This isn't the "What bigshot wants science to be" forum. Science can be and often is "pure theory" but it's still Science, regardless of what you personally want.
However, your argument here is fallacious anyway! Some "people CAN actually experience binaural recordings" suited to their HRTF. Just because you haven't experienced such a recording (or have but personally still prefer speakers) doesn't mean that's true of all "people". This is the Sound Science forum, not the "Bigshot's experience, impressions and preferences" forum!
6a. Again, that's a self contradiction! "
A worst-case scenario is a concept in risk management wherein the planner, in planning for potential disasters, considers the most severe possible outcome that can reasonably be projected to occur in a given situation." -
Wikipedia. By definition then, a worse case scenario MUST "be applicable in the real world", though obviously not to everyone and typically to extremely few. Which brings us back again to the fact that this isn't the "bigshot's experience (of his world)" forum!
7. Oh good, yet another fallacious audiophile tactic, the old "false analogy" ploy! Obviously, your analogy is nonsense, it wouldn't be just an individual's opinion, there's very solid, citable science that drinking seawater in sufficient quantities is dangerous/fatal to human beings. So, as with your analogy, where's the "very solid, citable science" to support your claims?
8. And yet another audiophile fallacy, way to go! You think as a professional sound engineer working in several of the world's top music studios AND dubbing theatres for over 25 years that maybe I've never listened to a good set HPs or a good multichannel speaker setup? Sure, it's pretty self evident that a stereo mix made for speakers and played back on headphones does not sound the same or as good as a dedicated 5.1 mix played back on a good 5.1 system. However, that's of course a nonsense "apples to oranges" comparison! If you're going to compare a speaker setup using a mix dedicated to that setup, then you need to compare it with headphones also using a mix dedicated to that setup (EG. A binaural mix), how is that not obvious? Given a good binaural recording suited to an individual's HRTF, headphones can indeed sound better than a 5.1 speaker setup, which is the exact opposite of your proclaimed "self evident"!!
9. Actually I don't currently have a surround system in my home but did for about a decade. However, I have had a 5.1 system in my personal studio since 1997, calibrated by Dolby themselves and it's pretty much guaranteed that my current surround system is significantly better than yours.
9a. You think maybe I've never studied/analysed any multi-channel music recordings, when for nearly a decade my job was EXCLUSIVELY creating multi-channel music recordings and I still do occasionally now, ten years later? Yet again, this is just a variation of the TYPICAL audiophile fallacy; If it's not "self evident" to you, then my system, hearing or experience must be better than yours.
Bigshot, most of the time I agree with your assertions because they align with the facts/science. However occasionally they don't, but what's surprising, shocking even, is that when refuted you sometimes resort to EXACTLY THE SAME ridiculous tactics used by misguided audiophiles that you yourself spend so much time arguing against: False analogies, their experience/impressions/preferences are self evident and/or applicable to everyone else, making up false facts/pure nonsense, self contradiction and deliberately changing or simply being ignorant of the terminology they're employing to support their false assertions! Honestly, I expect far better from such a long standing member of this subforum, not least because it leaves us all wide open to the criticism that this isn't a sound Science forum, it's just another impressions/subjective opinion forum no different from say the Cables forum except with different impressions/subjective opinions!
G