[jcx]

sub sample time resolution isn't a challenge
 
Redbook 16/44 isn't really missing timing info below Nyquist and above the noise floor
 
even "pure analog" systems are limited by Shannon/Hartley Channel Capacity theorem - virtually all practical recordings, listening scenarios don't challenge Redbook audio S/N
 
so if your music really is enjoyable with <20 KHz content - and no one's provided enough evidence to change psychoacoustic textbooks yet - then Redbook is apparently OK for final music delivery format
 
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/245555-temporal-resolution-6.html#post3697702 shows sub nanosecond relative positioning of audio band signals in Redbook digital coding similar to those used by Kunchur to show sub 10 microsecond interaural rime resolution

 

[analogsurviver]

  "Mahler symphonies can also take advantage of this - horns in the distance can also be positioned not only "far(ther) away", but also LOWER or HIGHER while still being far away -"
 
Correct, who said differently BTW?
 
"Better audio equipment is capable of at least hinting at it"
 
Incorrect. Totally impossible. Entirely in your head. This is nuts. Ludicrous. Illogical. Stupid.
 
Would anyone state that you could hear right/left with a single mono channel and a single speaker? Of course not, that's why they invented stereo, duh.
How then can anyone be irrational enought to state that you could hear height when height was never even recorded to start with? And with 2 speakers at that?
You'd need at least 3 mikes and 3 speakers to record and reproduce height... or it's fairytales territory.
 
But hey, sorry to bother you with facts, you don't like to be bothered by them I guess.
 
As Paul says, "you can't win with these people".

In theory, you are correct. As a consequence, you would end up with 2x5.1 or 2x7.1 setup - 1 setup of speakers being maximum on the floor and another maximum to the ceiling (within possibilities of placing that is never optimal too close to the wall/ceiling/floor, most likely having to be flush mounted into the walls/floor/ceiling).
 
However, even a mono recording can contain height. It is sad that this art is all but lost, stereo or even surround recordings can sound far more "off" than a really good mono. It does take an unusually high level of commitment in finding the right spot for the microphone and similarly positioning the speakers within the room.
 
Mono on headphones just does not do it for me - it is the very last thing I would choose to listen to and will be the last ditch attempt if nothing else is available.  
 
Height is possible to be reproduced kind of correctly using 2 channels only by the binaural technique - this IS head-fi. The results are not entirely consistent , be it regarding the microphone used, headphones used, interface headphone/listener. The best documented and most repeatable results can be achieved with what was devised in Germany and incorporated into Stax headphones and corresponding diffuse field equalizers - but it is not the only way. It is not perfect, yet it will clearly show why redbook is not nearly enough. Height is the most vague of 3D in audio, depth is much more easily perceived and too benefits greatly by greater bandwidth than allowed by redbook, width being the most easy one and does not improve significantly with higher bandwidth - if at all.
 
All of the above is easily audible even on good IEMs - let alone the Stax setup. Saying that redbook is enough is similar to saying propeller driven aircraft is enough -
we can wax all we might, but a propeller driven aircraft will not go faster due to the limitation that when propeller blades reach the speed of sound, they practically loose all efficiency and no amount of power can change that. So the conditions (temperature, height, etc ) of the speed record attempt for propeller driven aircraft weigh perhaps more than the aircraft itself - those few km/h or mile/h differences in single digits among various aircraft are only partly due to the aircraft itself.  The only real increase in propeller driven aircraft came with counterotating turboprops ( russian TU 95, civilian version Tu-114 being even faster ) which increased the speed by roughly 100 km/h, thus making a bomber faster than the fastest propeller driven fighter ever - but that is it. Any operational jet of the first generation can do better.
 
I have not even read the article from TAS entirely - but do grasp what it is trying to say/proove. I agree it is (too) expensive, I agree it is hard to reproduce in one's home, etc - but binaural has next to none of these limitations. And will show that redbook is not enough. 
 
I will end with a demo record by Sennheiser - a 7" vinyl. I own the real thing, which in ANY case sounds MUCH better played "live" than the following vid on YT - but will
improve immensely by a cartridge with MUCH better bandwidth than redbook is capable of. The effect gets MUCH diminished on a cartridge that covers response only to just above 20 kHz ( vast majority of moving magnet cartridges - but there ARE exceptions ) - answering the question why moving cartridges have been soooo successful in the last 30 or so years. I only wish this could pass trough the ....khm..omputors...  ( and bandwidth limitations ) - better :
 
 
 
Here is the other side of this record in German :
 
 

 

[Head Injury]

  Height is the most vague of 3D in audio, depth is much more easily perceived and too benefits greatly by greater bandwidth than allowed by redbook, width being the most easy one and does not improve significantly with higher bandwidth - if at all.

The increased bandwidth in higher resolution digital audio only increases the maximum frequency captured. It does not increase the bandwidth available to sound in the audible range. 44.1 kHz captures everything in the audible range, higher sampling rates capture exactly the same thing with the addition of frequencies we can't hear. Likewise there is nothing analog captures within the audible range that Redbook can't. We've been over this.
 
Can you please also explain why depth and height cues cannot be captured by Redbook but width cues can? What is the difference between them that makes this true?

 

[stv014]

Can you please also explain why depth and height cues cannot be captured by Redbook but width cues can? What is the difference between them that makes this true?

 
Without multi-channel (for speakers) or binaural (for headphones) recording, the reproduction of depth and height cues is limited. Especially in cases when each instrument is recorded separately with a mono microphone, and then mixed with simple left to right panning, with some reverb added (which can simulate distance to some extent by changing the level relative to the reverb). I guess the lack of real cues increases the significance of imagination and expectation bias.
 
It is definitely possible to reproduce height and depth in Red Book format with binaural recording and headphones (and, as evidenced by some YouTube demos, even lossy compression). In theory, a full 3D setup of speakers would allow for height information as well, but one is unlikely to find commercially available music in such format. The more practical 5.1 channel layout still reproduces depth (front vs. rear), and it does not need ultrasound for that.

 

[Head Injury]

   
Without multi-channel (for speakers) or binaural (for headphones) recording, the reproduction of depth and height cues is limited. Especially in cases when each instrument is recorded separately with a mono microphone, and then mixed with simple left to right panning, with some reverb added (which can simulate distance to some extent by changing the level relative to the reverb). I guess the lack of real cues increases the significance of imagination and expectation bias.
 
It is definitely possible to reproduce height and depth in Red Book format with binaural recording and headphones (and, as evidenced by some YouTube demos, even lossy compression). In theory, a full 3D setup of speakers would allow for height information as well, but one is unlikely to find commercially available music in such format. The more practical 5.1 channel layout still reproduces depth (front vs. rear), and it does not need ultrasound for that.

I want everyone to understand that the questions I'm asking are rhetorical and intended to challenge analogsurvivor into thinking about the answers himself

 

[sonitus mirus]

Well I can clearly hear height cues with my CDs...oh wait...I'm lying on my side.  Never mind.

 

[bigshot]

Height is a vital part of audio sound quality! Have you ever met an audiophile midget? NOPE!

 

[Head Injury]

  Height is a vital part of audio sound quality! Have you ever met an audiophile midget? NOPE!

But conversely, why do all basketball players use Beats?

 

[RRod]

   
Without multi-channel (for speakers) or binaural (for headphones) recording, the reproduction of depth and height cues is limited. Especially in cases when each instrument is recorded separately with a mono microphone, and then mixed with simple left to right panning, with some reverb added (which can simulate distance to some extent by changing the level relative to the reverb). I guess the lack of real cues increases the significance of imagination and expectation bias.
 
It is definitely possible to reproduce height and depth in Red Book format with binaural recording and headphones (and, as evidenced by some YouTube demos, even lossy compression). In theory, a full 3D setup of speakers would allow for height information as well, but one is unlikely to find commercially available music in such format. The more practical 5.1 channel layout still reproduces depth (front vs. rear), and it does not need ultrasound for that.

 
Technically if you knew up front that I had arranged one mic at ground level right and the other 10' in the air left, you could arrange your speakers that way and get a sense of height. Generality is the problem.

 

[thune]

I'm waiting for the argument that recordings can't even project a sound image wider than the speakers, or that HRTF trickery can't be used with 2-channel loudspeakers to put images to your side and even behind you. I'm not going to argue that the study is any good, but if your loudspeakers make all sounds seem like they're coming from a flat 2" vertical band between the speakers and they don't provide some illusion of images being broad, deep, and *tall*, you've got setup or equipment issues.
 
Anyone remember hearing a well reproduced height-test (track 46) from the 1992 Chesky sampler ?

 

[stv014]

  I'm waiting for the argument that recordings can't even project a sound image wider than the speakers, or that HRTF trickery can't be used with 2-channel loudspeakers to put images to your side and even behind you.

 
That would essentially be like binaural sound (or a simplified version of it if it only widens the image with phase shifting tricks) with headphones, but still not require "high resolution" formats or analog sources (or $10000 amplifiers or DACs, for that matter) to reproduce. However, I would guess simple panning (mono sound positioned between the speakers by changing the relative amplitude on each channel), or at best "wide" stereo is the most common on commercial stereo recordings, because it is the most compatible with any setup. While HRTF is not impossible with speakers (although for the best effect, it may need compensation for the HRTF at the listener's position), it is more sensitive to the positioning of the speakers and other acoustic factors, and if the effect does not work well, it could very well sound worse than simple stereo.

 

[thune]

True, when the encoded effects "don't happen" in reproduction it can sound worse and more confused than a straight recoding. I imagine this is why stereo spacializer tech never seems to take hold, because some/many people complain since it sounds bad/worse to them on their systems.
 
It doesn't have to be fancy: the Blumlein Pair's ability to encode/project images outside the width of the speakers is remarkable enough, and any good system should be able to reproduce it.
 
For height, I wonder if capturing the floor-bounce reflection in a recording can encode some illusion of height (by suggesting proximity to the floor [via different comb filter effects based on the different path lengths]) when listening through loudspeakers, not relying on HRTF at all.

 

[money4me247]

I think it is possible for some height information to be reproduced in headphones without binaural or surround sound. if you ever played a fps with headphones & heard an helicopter flying overheard, for example.

exact height seems a bit of a stretch and i havent recalled ever experiencing height in music files, but the concept isnt as absurd as some of you guys make it sound.

 

[stv014]

For height, I wonder if capturing the floor-bounce reflection in a recording can encode some illusion of height (by suggesting proximity to the floor [via different comb filter effects based on the different path lengths]) when listening through loudspeakers, not relying on HRTF at all.

 
It could have some effect, but probably not be very noticeable. At least when I tried this in the past with simple simulated room acoustics, the height changes were not really obvious. I am not sure how well someone who does not already know in advance the position of the sound source would guess it. Maybe I could create a test file where a sound is placed at various positions in a simple box shaped room, with simulated distance and reflections.

 

[thune]

Maybe I could create a test file where a sound is placed at various positions in a simple box shaped room, with simulated distance and reflections.

I wish I had a speaker system which eliminated the reproduction floor bounce by design, when auditioning a such file [in case the reproduction floor bounce cues interfere with the recorded floor bounce cues]. Short of that, my experience has been that co-incident loudspeakers (KEF uni-Q etc.) seem to do a better job at these complex illusions than typical tweeter-(mid)-woofer loudspeakers.