[jgazal]

Now I see where I am failing. What defines HRTF is not the number of sources measured, but the fact that it is transformation from a head related impulse response.

What I was trying to say before is how what Smyth call personal room impulse response PRIR or binaural room impulse response BRIR which are limited from 1 to 16 sources are different from HRIR, that usually are measured with a great number of sources.

So the reference to the HRTF was wrong. It is a pitty I cannot strike the text. Does anyone know how to strike the text?

 

[castleofargh]

I'm kind of curious too. to know if there are clear definitions for stuff like HRIR and if we're using them wrongly when in situations of a non anechoic room. my assumption about HRIR was originally like RRod's, the actual impulses recorded in the anechoic chamber we then use to make the HRTF. so when used in the context of consumer room, do they simply make the impulse short enough that reflections are assumed to have no yet reached the ear, and it's still technically kind of a HRIR? or is it just a broader use of the term because we don't really have a word for what we're talking about? I admit that I've been throwing those terms left and right over the years without even thinking of looking up if I was participating in typical audiophile appropriation of words for something else.

 

[castleofargh]

Now I see where I am failing. What defines HRTF is not the number of sources measured, but the fact that it is transformation from a head related impulse response.

What I was trying to say before is how what Smyth call personal room impulse response PRIR or binaural room impulse response BRIR which are limited from 1 to 16 sources are different from a HRIR that usually are measured with a great number of sources.

So the reference to the HRTF was wrong. It is a pitty I cannot strike the text. Does anyone knows how to strike the text?

the "insert" button between the video icon and the floppy disc. it opens a list with strike option for the selected part of text.

 

[jgazal]

the "insert" button between the video icon and the floppy disc. it opens a list with strike option for the selected part of text.

Thank you very much. Now it is much better!

 

[bigshot]

Somehow, they sound different, in the ways I described. It would be interesting to see what differences, if any, would be found in blind testing.

Since you are the one who heard the difference, you are the perfect person to conduct the blind test. I’m willing to bet I know the outcome. Aside from defects of manufacture or design, they should sound identical. Do the test and let us know what you find out. People here will help you figure out how to do it if you ask.

 

[Malfunkt]

I feel stuck in the middle of this binaural argument. I despise the idea that headphone users are fine with music mastered for speakers. but I got mostly poor results with binaural records(Chesky and a bunch of other stuff from the time when I thought binaural would save my headphone experience). I tried to test if I preferred stuff involving a dummy head or just 2 mics side by side, strangely(or not?) records from dummy heads felt worst for me. I'm guessing it's because my head is just not good at following the average human design? or maybe it's simply that those mics are no good aside from measurement purposes? IDK, but I haven't been lucky with that.
also for the vast majority of my favorite bands, I'd rather have a good mixing and mastering job done, and multi mic or mix of several takes, to make pleasing well balanced music, than get "real" sound from a live play. that's totally a matter of personal taste, obviously. but it's true for me.

Been trying to find a way to interject myself into this conversation, as I have a fair bit of experience - as a listener! - for binaural, but also perspective as gamer.

I agree with you Castle, that it is better to just have a great mix, quality recording and production for music, and at the present this is preferred over most binaural recordings for even live music. This goes for whether listening on headphones or speakers. The Chesky recordings are neat, and can be immersive, but it is going to be very dependent on the overall room space and mic placements.

Our current technology is still limited in what mics can pick up and what speakers can reproduce. DSP will eventually help us simulate real world playback tailored to our own biology, but we aren't there yet. Binaural recording is still an approximation, and a creative recording technique.

I've actually been spending a good chunk of the day listening to music that integrates binaural field recording along with conventional stereo mix-down. This is actually very common in electronic music. Also, you will hear bits of binaural mixed in with pop production. So many listeners are using headphones, that using a bit of binaural can work creatively. And yes, while we all have different HRTF, a general HRTF model will still work to create spatial effect.

Also, for gamers out there, some of the top games like Overwatch use Dolby for Headphones. The emulation is incredible and easy to hear information above, below and behind you.

Here is a list of some music titles I've been checking out today:



Cryo Chamber Label, an entire label of dark ambient





http://cryochamber.bandcamp.com

Some other binaural:





straight up binaural recordings (the newer ones are great using the DPA mics) http://saamleng.bandcamp.com/album/bkkw



My favourite app and some of the best binaural nature recordings I've heard: http://www.naturespace.org/

Gordon Hempton who is capturing the sound of our disappearing habitats: https://www.soundtracker.com/

 

[pinnahertz]

Stereo is so vague term.

It's actually not vague at all, it's well defined but includes more than one method. Stereo is derived from the Greek word "stereós", which has the meaning of dimensionality (literally "solid", as in 3D). We commonly have the two-channel version which we generally refer to as "stereo". I see no problem with term at all.

Binaural is one type of stereo sound. Ping Pong is another type. Stereophonic recordings are produced for speakers using different methods of creating spatiality: Microphone set ups, panning, effects, etc.

Agreed.

The mentality is "no natural spatiality needed", because the room transforms (acoustic crossfeed) the spatial information into something natural.

No, that's your own incorrect exaggeration. That's not the "mentality" of the creators at all, especially the part about no spatial information needed.

So, we have ILDs and ITD beyond natural values on our stereo recordings. With crossfeed we fix this for headphones. Where in the hell does this logic fall apart in your opinion?

As I've said more than once before, the recording and reproduction of sound creates an entirely new thing, not a replication of a reality, but an artistic and acceptable representation capable of communicating the musical idea of the original, or in the case of most contemporary music where the recording is the original, creating something that expresses the idea and emotion well, including spatially, given the reproduction methods our audiences have access to. That means that "natural" often goes out the window on both speakers or headphones, but that doesn't me it's wrong.

We all pretty much know for certain what your opinion of headphone cross feed is, and that you feel it will save the audio world, but your opinion is not shared widely at all, not by listeners or content creators.

I don't care if 99.99 % of population accepts something stupid. If they are wrong they are wrong! I was wrong myself years ago.

Well, I could be curt and say "what do you mean 'was'?, but I doubt the point would get across. You have a very strong opinion that you insist, even after months and months, in presenting as fact, true and correct. It's your opinion! Everyone has one, and no, 99.998% of the population isn't stupid, deaf, or wrong just because you have a a strong opinion!

(Does ANY of this sound familiar to you?)

1. The part that ignores headphone listening.

It's pretty safe to say that today headphone listening is not ignored, it's just that content creators don't agree with your opinion. You'll likely say that any mix with unnatural ILD is ignoring headphones, but such is not the case because that's a parameter you have defined and strongly weighted. Others do not weight that parameter in the same way. To think that a mix would not be checked on headphones is naive. The fact that the result is what it is simply indicates the creators were satisfied with the results, compromised or not. Again, there have been many recordings produced with headphone listening in mind that shatter your rules of what is right. But they are only your rules.

2. Well, one count modulate the acoustic event into ultrasonic frequencies and create a new reality for dogs…

Now you're being obtuse.

3. "Omnistereophonic" sound that is really smart so that it doesn't have excessive ILD/ITD for headphones, but sounds "wide" enough on loudspeakers unlike binaural sound.

[/quote]You're asking to place artificial limits on the creative process, with the end result being the ultimate compromise! Nobody's going to do that for you. Just go ahead and cross feed. To expect creators to yield to your demands is unlikely at best. And making up words doesn't help.

As I've stated, I've tried several types of cross-feed, I find it works well on some recordings, not well on most, and is completely unnecessary on the bulk of recordings made in the last 40 years (that's the bulk of all stereo recordings, BTW). But I'm not going to say someone is wrong for using it on everything just because I don't care for cross-feed! I can say the exact same thing about binaural: I've recorded in that format using several different mic configurations (have you?), I've played recordings I've made, and those of others on several different types of headphones and speakers. I feel it works well only in a tiny set of conditions, which for me was mics shoved into my own ears and played back on extra-aural headphones on my own ears. I find the effect ranges from shocking to surprising to disturbing, but haven't found the sweet spot for truly entertaining binaural past the novelty of the effect. Given the difficulty of producing a good binaural recording, and the necessity to produce a recording that works well on all types of playback systems, it's plain to me why binaural has been a failure, even though it's been tinkered with for 40+ years.

So, 71, do you really want to do this again? Last time one of us got really upset and discouraged, and I don't think you had much fun. In case you can't recall, my issue with what you're doing is not that you have an opinion or wish to express it, but that you state it as immutable fact and denigrate others who don't share it. I still have that problem with what you're doing, and your'e still at it. So, we can go another round if you like, or just drop it. Your choice.

 

[pinnahertz]

Been trying to find a way to interject myself into this conversation, as I have a fair bit of experience - as a listener! - for binaural, but also perspective as gamer.

I agree with you Castle, that it is better to just have a great mix, quality recording and production for music, and at the present this is preferred over most binaural recordings for even live music. This goes for whether listening on headphones or speakers. The Chesky recordings are neat, and can be immersive, but it is going to be very dependent on the overall room space and mic placements.

Our current technology is still limited in what mics can pick up and what speakers can reproduce. DSP will eventually help us simulate real world playback tailored to our own biology, but we aren't there yet. Binaural recording is still an approximation, and a creative recording technique.

I've actually been spending a good chunk of the day listening to music that integrates binaural field recording along with conventional stereo mix-down. This is actually very common in electronic music. Also, you will hear bits of binaural mixed in with pop production. So many listeners are using headphones, that using a bit of binaural can work creatively. And yes, while we all have different HRTF, a general HRTF model will still work to create spatial effect.

Also, for gamers out there, some of the top games like Overwatch use Dolby for Headphones. The emulation is incredible and easy to hear information above, below and behind you.

Here is a list of some music titles I've been checking out today:



Cryo Chamber Label, an entire label of dark ambient





http://cryochamber.bandcamp.com

Some other binaural:





straight up binaural recordings (the newer ones are great using the DPA mics) http://saamleng.bandcamp.com/album/bkkw



My favourite app and some of the best binaural nature recordings I've heard: http://www.naturespace.org/

Gordon Hempton who is capturing the sound of our disappearing habitats: https://www.soundtracker.com/

Until the nature recordings I didn't hear anything specifically "binaural" in those, though they do have some interesting spatial effects.

 

[71 dB]

It's actually not vague at all, it's well defined but includes more than one method. Stereo is derived from the Greek word "stereós", which has the meaning of dimensionality (literally "solid", as in 3D). We commonly have the two-channel version which we generally refer to as "stereo". I see no problem with term at all.

Agreed.

That's good.

1. No, that's your own incorrect exaggeration. That's not the "mentality" of the creators at all, especially the part about no spatial information needed.

2. As I've said more than once before, the recording and reproduction of sound creates an entirely new thing, not a replication of a reality, but an artistic and acceptable representation capable of communicating the musical idea of the original, or in the case of most contemporary music where the recording is the original, creating something that expresses the idea and emotion well, including spatially, given the reproduction methods our audiences have access to. That means that "natural" often goes out the window on both speakers or headphones, but that doesn't me it's wrong.

3. We all pretty much know for certain what your opinion of headphone cross feed is, and that you feel it will save the audio world, but your opinion is not shared widely at all, not by listeners or content creators.

4. Well, I could be curt and say "what do you mean 'was'?, but I doubt the point would get across. You have a very strong opinion that you insist, even after months and months, in presenting as fact, true and correct. It's your opinion! Everyone has one, and no, 99.998% of the population isn't stupid, deaf, or wrong just because you have a a strong opinion! [/QUOTE]
1. I get that you may see it exaggarated, but incorrect? As if the creators were superhumans who do everything right and don't have any kind of occupational biases/traditions/conventions affecting mentality. Everyone gets criticized for what they do.
My suggestion has been to limit ILD to 6 dB at low frequencies, say below 500 Hz. That's it! This is based on the fact that you don't get larger ILD values at low frequencies unless the sound source is near the head. The original musical idea hardly is to have the band play a feet from your ears, is it? People seem to want "wide" sound with headphones. Control ILD and you'll have wider sound.
2. I believe with classical music the goal is to mimick the reality as closely as possible. When it comes to commercial music all bets are off. However, it is iffy to have musical ideas having to do with excessive ILT/ITD, because with loudspeakers you don't have those unless you run a crosstalk cancellation system. Loudspeakers sound always natural because of the room acoustics and HRTF of the listener forcing it natural. Even monophonic recordings create a natural diffuse soundfield in the room, spatially flat, but natural nevertheless. With headphones we "lose" this forcing to natural process and we should be careful about what we feed into the ears.
3. Many listeners prefer crossfeed. I'm not alone with my views.
4. Before winter 2012 my views were close to yours, but then I realized I had been ignorant about the problems of excessive ILT/ITD. So, I do understand why this ignorance is common among people.

(Does ANY of this sound familiar to you?)

1. It's pretty safe to say that today headphone listening is not ignored, it's just that content creators don't agree with your opinion. You'll likely say that any mix with unnatural ILD is ignoring headphones, but such is not the case because that's a parameter you have defined and strongly weighted. Others do not weight that parameter in the same way. To think that a mix would not be checked on headphones is naive. The fact that the result is what it is simply indicates the creators were satisfied with the results, compromised or not. Again, there have been many recordings produced with headphone listening in mind that shatter your rules of what is right. But they are only your rules.

2. You're asking to place artificial limits on the creative process, with the end result being the ultimate compromise! Nobody's going to do that for you. Just go ahead and cross feed. To expect creators to yield to your demands is unlikely at best. And making up words doesn't help.[/QUOTE]
1. Some content creators seem to agree with me because some recordings don't need crossfeed.
2. There are other limits too, for example the product must usually be marketable. Or how about loudness wars? Doesn't that limit content creators?

As I've stated, I've tried several types of cross-feed, I find it works well on some recordings, not well on most, and is completely unnecessary on the bulk of recordings made in the last 40 years (that's the bulk of all stereo recordings, BTW). But I'm not going to say someone is wrong for using it on everything just because I don't care for cross-feed! I can say the exact same thing about binaural: I've recorded in that format using several different mic configurations (have you?), I've played recordings I've made, and those of others on several different types of headphones and speakers. I feel it works well only in a tiny set of conditions, which for me was mics shoved into my own ears and played back on extra-aural headphones on my own ears. I find the effect ranges from shocking to surprising to disturbing, but haven't found the sweet spot for truly entertaining binaural past the novelty of the effect. Given the difficulty of producing a good binaural recording, and the necessity to produce a recording that works well on all types of playback systems, it's plain to me why binaural has been a failure, even though it's been tinkered with for 40+ years.

So, 71, do you really want to do this again? Last time one of us got really upset and discouraged, and I don't think you had much fun. In case you can't recall, my issue with what you're doing is not that you have an opinion or wish to express it, but that you state it as immutable fact and denigrate others who don't share it. I still have that problem with what you're doing, and your'e still at it. So, we can go another round if you like, or just drop it. Your choice.

I have recorded using mics in my ears (true binaural) and I also have DIY Jecklin disk which makes binaural-like sound. Too bad binaural is such a failure bacause it works so well with headphones.

 

[skwoodwiva]

7

1. Call me crazy, but usually people purchase music to support the music they like rather than recording styles. People just don't want to invest money on "****ty" music just because it's recorded correctly.
2. Binaural recordings aren't impossible.

AP demos can be fabulous , like 1-5 vol of Woman , XRCD. I would buy but its free.
You csn be stunned by 1 pc is an otherwise boring Fone record . That Neuman mike is close to the best I have heard short of binaural

 

[gregorio]

2. If you record solo piano playing with a dummy head what is there to mix?
3. -
4. You can't do it that "correctly", but you can do what you can and hope it fools hearing.

2. Nothing, and that's exactly the problem/limitation!!
3. Exactly!
4. Dealt with in 4.1 below.

1. I don't ignore and I haven't made up nonsense.
2. I don't know why you think the dummy head recording would not work in practise. [2a] Sure, it far from a common method, but so what?
3. On the contrary, you haven't explained why it's impossible.
4.1. Hearing is fooled quite easily, but even this is demanding. You need to have enough consistent spatial information.
4.2. If you have content say 170° out of phase, most of it is canceled and the rest becomes monophonic information (at level -15.2 dB). Reverb, etc. have in phase and out of phase components and summing channels removes the out-of-phase components so that for example the in-phase component of reverb remains after the summing.

1. You have made up nonsense, it's nonsense for several reasons:
2. Here's what you stated: "Old school method: Take a dummy head to an anechoic chamber and record every track (pre-recorded in any suitable way) positioning a loudspeaker around the dummy head in desired positions. New school method: Take someones HRTFs and convolute the tracks with them. These methods are hardly impossible." - What do you mean "pre-recorded in any suitable way"? We're talking about binaural recording, so either it's recorded binaurally or it's some other recording technique/method/style. What do you mean "a loudspeaker"? How does "a loudspeaker" reproduce a binaural recording, do you mean two loudspeakers? Either way, you're taking a binaural recording and re-recording it binaurally which will ruin/mess-up the spatial information of the original binaural recording, plus impart the response characteristics of your speaker/s and for what benefit, why not just use the original binaural recording and avoid the whole anechoic chamber thing? What you suggest is therefore effectively Impossible; it's more time, effort and cost to ruin the advantages of recording binaural in the first place! As this is clearly nonsense, you're presumably talking about "pre-recorded" as being typical individual, mono mic, multi-track recordings which you then output from a speaker one at a time and record binaurally in an anechoic chamber? If so, then this is nonsense too! Firstly, it would obviously NOT be binaural recording, it would be a typical individual, mono-mic, multi-tracked recording! Secondly, the whole point of a binaural recording is to capture the sound waves as they would enter your ears, which obviously includes the natural spatial information (reflections/reverb of the venue). What natural spatial information are you going to record from a bunch of individually mono mic'ed recordings which you are then re-recording in an anechoic chamber? What you'd actually end-up with is a bunch of nearly flat, dead recordings which are about as far from "immersive" and a "feel of realism" as it's possible to imagine (on HPs or speakers)! And, how could you possibly deal with a drumkit using your no school method? Whichever way you did it you'd just end-up with a mess, due to mic spill and/or not being able to separately process the instruments in the kit. There's other reasons it's nonsense but this is enough to demonstrate the point. And lastly, your "new school method" is not impossible but it is irrelevant because again it is NOT binaural recording, it is traditional/typical recording to which you then just apply HRTFs!
2a. What do you mean "so what"? "Far from a common method" is an understatement, "never" would be closer to the actual truth! How many music recording studios have you seen that even have an anechoic chamber, let alone re-record binaurally in them how you've suggested? I can't say for certain that no one has ever tried it but I can say for certain that it's never been a school/movement. The "so what" is that you just made-up all this "old school"/"new school" nonsense, there was no such school!
3. How is all the above NOT already patently obvious to you?
4.1 You can't have it both ways! Either we need to record binaurally to capture all that spatial information accurately/precisely or, the ears are easy to fool and we can multi-mic (in the case of acoustic music) or individually mono-mic (in the case of non-acoustic genres) and manufacture a mix to fool the ears? Answer this: If the ears are that easy to fool, what would be the difference between a binaural recording and a typical recording/mix but with all the elements psycho-acoustically panned (instead of normal, level based panning)?
4.2. Exactly! As you now seem to agree, much of the reverb/spatial information is NOT removed completely, it remains after the summing in the mono information. This is trivially easy to test for yourself, with natural or artificial reverb, you could even just take your solo piano recording and sum it to mono, job done in just a few seconds! What you're now saying, what trivially easy testing would clearly demonstrate and what I've already stated, ALL completely contradicts your assertion: "Whaaat??? Simply summing left and right channels removes spatial information completely." It's bad enough just making a false statement of fact in the first place but worse still, you compounded your error by asserting it so absolutely and incredulously and even implied that I had no idea what I was talking about and you were the educated one. Anyone here can run such an simple/easy test and see for themselves that your assertion is wrong, even assuming that they don't already know! If you're unsure of a fact, then ask or at least state that you're unsure. That way you might learn something or a least cover your ass somewhat if you are mistaken and avoid the assumption that yet another delusional audiophool is just making-up nonsense to support some ridiculous belief/agenda!

G

 

[pinnahertz]

1. I get that you may see it exaggarated, but incorrect? As if the creators were superhumans who do everything right and don't have any kind of occupational biases/traditions/conventions affecting mentality. Everyone gets criticized for what they do.

It's exaggerated and incorrect because you're saying that those who created the work are wrong. It's a creative work they have made, how can it be wrong?

My suggestion has been to limit ILD to 6 dB at low frequencies, say below 500 Hz. That's it! This is based on the fact that you don't get larger ILD values at low frequencies unless the sound source is near the head. The original musical idea hardly is to have the band play a feet from your ears, is it? People seem to want "wide" sound with headphones. Control ILD and you'll have wider sound.

Yes, I know precisely what you suggest. Do it if you like it, but STOP PROCLAIMING IT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS IGNORANT! It's an OPINION, not a FACT. For example, you keep claiming that cross-feed widens the sound with headphones, but in my experience the opposite is true. A

2. I believe with classical music the goal is to mimick the reality as closely as possible.

Here's an excerpt from "Sound Reproduction" by Floyd Toole, ch 1, pg 6: "The point here is that “reproduction does not really separate copies from originals but instead results in the creation of a distinctive form of originality: the possibility of reproduction transforms the practice of production” (Sterne,2003, p. 220). Knowing that the production process will lead to a reproduction liberates a new level of artistic creativity. Capturing the total essence of a “live” event is no longer the only, or even the best, objective. Movies have taken this idea to very high levels of development. It is more than “high realism”; it includes aspects of extreme fantasy. If something can be done, someone will do it. A harpsichord, a feeble instrument, can be made to sound competitive with a 75-piece orchestra. During a recording, microphones can sample only a tiny portion of the complex three-dimensional sound fi eld surrounding musical instruments in a performance space. What is captured is an incomplete characterization of the source. During playback, a multichannel reproduction system can reproduce only a portion of the complex three-dimensional sound field that surrounds a listener at a live performance. What is reproduced will be different from what is heard at a live event."

When it comes to commercial music all bets are off. However, it is iffy to have musical ideas having to do with excessive ILT/ITD, because with loudspeakers you don't have those unless you run a crosstalk cancellation system. Loudspeakers sound always natural because of the room acoustics and HRTF of the listener forcing it natural. Even monophonic recordings create a natural diffuse soundfield in the room, spatially flat, but natural nevertheless. With headphones we "lose" this forcing to natural process and we should be careful about what we feed into the ears.

Read the quote again

3. Many listeners prefer crossfeed. I'm not alone with my views.

Not alone, but in the minority.

4. Before winter 2012 my views were close to yours, but then I realized I had been ignorant about the problems of excessive ILT/ITD. So, I do understand why this ignorance is common among people.

This is offensive. Elevating an amateur above the entire mass of professionals is arrogant and egocentric.
(Does ANY of this sound familiar to you?)

1. Some content creators seem to agree with me because some recordings don't need crossfeed.

No! Their choices just happen to satisfy you! Their resulting art is not evidence they've joined your religion.

2. There are other limits too, for example the product must usually be marketable. Or how about loudness wars? Doesn't that limit content creators?

Those are choices, the entire binaural method imposes limits. There is a difference.

I have recorded using mics in my ears (true binaural) and I also have DIY Jecklin disk which makes binaural-like sound. Too bad binaural is such a failure bacause it works so well with headphones.

I'll bet you love your own recordings!

 

[71 dB]

Sorry about my bad post. I got very bad news about my mother and I can't consentrate on posting. Maybe it's best to take a break and come back later.

 

[KeithEmo]

I think your last claim would be disputed by a lot of people....

For example, I'm not at all a connoisseur of "fine art", and I'm especially not at all fond of renaissance painters, so, TO ME, the difference between an original Rembrandt and a good $5000 forgery is quite small. However, to someone who enjoys fine art, I suspect the difference might be "major" or even "glaring". Likewise, I can tell the difference between a $5 glass of wine and a $50 glass of wine, although I don't find it important. Incidentally, even though I probably couldn't tell the difference between the original Rembrandt and the forgery at the moment, I'm told it's something I could LEARN to recognize (apparently Rembrandt used certain brush strokes and colors you can learn to recognize - if you pay careful attention - once someone points out to you what they are).

Therefore, you can perhaps determine what is distinguishable to a human, and what even what is distinguishable to a trained human but not an untrained one, but the matter of what's "important" is always going to be a matter of opinion. I'm not about to make a blanket claim that the $5000 Rembrandt reproduction I might buy at a mid-level art gallery is "absolutely, positively, just as good as the original".

Subtle differences are easy for the brain to acclimate to. If you have a gentle EQ difference between two samples and compare them using long term listening, they will both sound correct because your brain will correct for the imbalance. However a subtle EQ difference is very likely to show up in direct A/B switching, because you have a clear reference to compare. However it's probably also true that if a difference is that subtle, odds are that it doesn't matter for the purposes of listening to music in the home. By the time you get to the point where the difference is very small, you've already passed the point where it's important.

 

[KeithEmo]

I've heard INDIVIDUAL examples of binaural recording where the placement of objects behind the head is extremely effective (there's an old recording of a barber cutting your hair that turns up from time to time which seems very effective - but I don't know the original source). That particular recording works almost perfectly for me, and for most people I know, though it isn't customized with my HRTF. It's also notable that it is a demo that was created with the sole intent of showing off the technology, which means that the content itself is DESIGNED to position well. So, for example, because you are placed in the context of someone sitting in a barber chair, with the barber moving around you, it's quite possible that your brain interpolates or makes up some of the experience based on what it expects. (If the barber says "I'm going to go over and cut your hair on the right side now", it's possible that your perception of his walking around your back to the right is partially cued in, or at least reinforced, because you expect to hear that. Although, equally, I guess someone listening to a classical orchestra also has an expectation of where the instruments should be positioned in the orchestra.)

I’m beginning to wonder about the effectiveness of head tracking to get across sound from the rear. With my new VR headset there’s programming with dimensional sound that utilizes head-tracking. I haven’t found anything that really works to place sound clearly in the rear.