[KeithEmo]

That is absolutely correct..... this has nothing to do with the philosophy of perception.

However, if the thresholds at which things can be perceived are different under different conditions, then those conditions DO need to be taken into account.
In simplest terms, if the "final test apparatus" is a human being, then anything that affects that human being, in the context of the results, is indeed part of the test conditions.
If some external factor, even a psychological one, actually alters the threshold of perception, then you cannot simply ignore it.

For example, if your runners "feel faster" in their flashy new red uniforms, than that's quite possibly meaningless.
However, if, when you time them with a stopwatch, they really DO run faster in those new uniforms, then it becomes significant data.
And, yes, our ability to pick out details and patterns is in fact often influenced by things like our mood.
Those red uniforms may have less air resistance - or those runners may have more adrenaline in their systems because they feel more appreciated - or something else altogether.
And, if that ends up actually affecting their performance, then it is legitimate physical data.
Some meters become more sensitive when they're heated, or refrigerated; perhaps some listeners become more sensitive to THD when they're in a good mood, or a bad mood.

What we may PREFER to think of as "simple thresholds" may in fact be quite complex - and may vary depending on sometimes unexpected things.
There's a famous quote about "the best explanation is the simplest one that actually covers all the facts".
The human mind is a very complex measurement instrument... and sometimes its performance can vary quite oddly.
For example, we humans can detect a steady sine wave tone, even if it is several dB BELOW a noise floor of random white noise.
Apparently our brains can "filter out" the random noise and "pick out" the non-random information below it.
In other words, the threshold at which we can detect the signal varies depending on what the signal is, and how meaningful it is to our brain.
It seems our brains have certain specific "built-in" algorithms that are very sensitive to certain specific patterns.
(So, for those specific patterns, the "normal thresholds of perception" don't apply.)
One well known visual example of this is faces.
We humans are "programmed" to detect faces in visual patterns.
With the same information, a typical human is more able to pick out partly obscured faces than ANY machine intelligence yet developed.
And, probably as a side effect of this, we are also more likely to "see" faces that aren't there in truly random data - like the inter-station noise on a TV screen.
However, you can't simply disregard this data because it's "messy" or prevents you from developing a nice neat theory that covers everything simply and in one dimension.

We don't need to get into philosophy of perception, but we do need to get into psychology and neuroscience of perception, if we want to be scientific and understand the issues. That's central to the question of whether there are audible differences under various circumstances. Perception needs perceivers. As has already been discussed ad nauseum even during my short time here, these questions can't be settled only by looking at gear and objective measurements.

 

[bigshot]

Yes, on all 3 counts.

If you can't even point me to a single good composition/performance/recording using acoustic instruments, there's nothing for me here. I don't want organ or choir music. They are almost always slathered over with room acoustics and have no single point of origin. I can't determine directionality with that kind of sound. I want strings or brass or woodwinds or even acoustic guitars so I can pick out individual instruments. I also specifically said that I wanted complete works, not bleeding chunks. I ask you for a recommendation for a recording and by the time you reach your sixth word, you're off talking about something else- yourself. We aren't talking about you here. We're talking about specific recordings that I can go out and buy. You are holding a conversation with yourself in your own head. You aren't hearing anything I say to you. The fact that you seem incapable of registering anything I say is frustrating and it makes me tend to discount the things you say. It also makes me want to just ignore you. Just being honest here. Your communication skills could use some work.

However, if the thresholds at which things can be perceived are different under different conditions, then those conditions DO need to be taken into account.

That is VERY simple to accommodate. You can be very confident if something is inaudible with tones, it's going to be an order of magnitude *more* inaudible under music. The most important condition to take into account when you're determining thresholds of audibility is the condition that we are most interested in... listening to music on our home audio system in our living room. That is drop dead easy to determine. All you have to do is set up a simple controlled test in your own living room with your own music and your own equipment. If you can't hear it. It flat out doesn't matter. I do this all the time. So does Gregorio and Pinnahertz. The only people here who *don't* do that are you, phronesis and analoguesurvivor. Is it any wonder why the three of us are fairly confident with the range of perceptual thresholds and you three aren't?

 

[Phronesis]

That is VERY simple to accommodate. You can be very confident if something is inaudible with tones, it's going to be an order of magnitude *more* inaudible under music. The most important condition to take into account when you're determining thresholds of audibility is the condition that we are most interested in... listening to music on our home audio system in our living room. That is drop dead easy to determine. All you have to do is set up a simple controlled test in your own living room with your own music and your own equipment. If you can't hear it. It flat out doesn't matter. I do this all the time. So does Gregorio and Pinnahertz. The only people here who *don't* do that are you, phronesis and analoguesurvivor. Is it any wonder why the three of us are fairly confident with the range of perceptual thresholds and you three aren't?

Reality is a lot more complex than your oversimplified models of it. We're not talking about audibility thresholds of tones, we're talking about different perceptions of music when comparing systems. You can't just will things to be simple and homogenous because you want them to be simple and homogenous. I asked you previously - do you have any formal education or training in science or engineering? Lack of not even knowing the difference between a false positive and false negative suggests you might benefit from doing some reading of the professional literature rather than just talking in forums.

 

[castleofargh]

Yep, I think they'd loose in a contest with the Portsmouth Sinfonia though. Also try this one "", another all time classic! Go to youtube and read the comments, it's worth it, For example: "Is mayonnaise an instrument?" and "I'm playing this loudly while my roommate has sex."

G

no Patrick, Mayonnaise is not an instrument.

somehow this music got me thinking about the old Dawn Of The Dead movie. but I realize it could really go with anything. it's universal.
thank you for this very special experience.

 

[analogsurviver]

I can understand your position. Pretty much better than you might think.

IF you allowed me to "walk" you trough binaural, you could have learned some things any regular recordings buyer will usually not even think of as being of any concern/importance - BUT would protest and object the first second to any noises on the recording - that audience WILL , inevitably, be making during live performance. Save for extremely rare occasions ( when the performance is so good that the audience, in effect, becomes NUMB - no squeking, no programme sheets turning, no nothing; did happen once or twice ), this rules out any live binaural recording with the intentions to release it commercially. There is nothing as disconcerting as people commenting - no matter how hush-hush - say two or three seats/isles from the position of either artificial or real head with microphones. One single word is enough to ruin the whole recording. You would not - ever - believe some comments caught on the recordings...
Multimiking is, compared to binaural, almost completely "audience noise free" - it has to be something really loud from the audience to be captured as individually intelligible.

If the binaural is to work as intended, it HAS to have as good phase response as possible. That rules out 44.1kHz sampling ( at least twice that required ) - and can, under many real life scenarios, mean total ban on PCM. There is no guarantee that PCM will, after going through "everything", at your final end, that is to say at the output to your headphones, allow for both channels not to lag in phase. Usually, if this error occurs, that means one channel will still be at zero output/volume until the other has already reached its full output - or, to be exact, the square wave response between the two channels will be delayed, exactly for the rise time. The error is getting proportionally better to increase in sampling rate - and it would take infinite sampling rate frequency for the error to reach zero. Some "PCM signal paths" have this error, some do not - depending on trough whatever equipment and how set up the signal has gone trough. DSD is inherently free from this error - and will, if PCM went wrong, mop the floor with it. Timing with binaural is EVERYTHING - but DSD has its share of troubles too, because of which I am proponent of so high sampling rates as stated on numerous ocassions.

Most audio available online is lossy - and very few allow the content above 16 kHz at all. So, any YT and similar can only be regarded as an information - NOT the ultimately achievable quality of the recording. So, I have/have not heard it on YT , at least at present, is absolutely no guaurantee that the HR version will not sound differently and improve upon whatever is available online. That is why labels distributing HR are often issuing lossy versions on YT and similar platforms - as information to the prospective buyers for them to be able to check if the music is to their liking and recording does not deviate too much from whatever expectations or preferences they might have.

DSD mastering is rare even in US - now consider my 2M population country. Two facilities, one of which is actually capable of doing it properly. I really hope to be able to convience everybody to splurge for the DSD mastering for the NEXT project of baroque music - but given the current financial climate, that may well turn out as a wishfull thinking only.

Believe me, it is NOT a picnic if you know how to do it, know how it could have been improved, etc - but you do not have the financial means to pull it trough. Of course I do have many binaural DSD recordings - and if they were done on my own head, you can pretty much understand that listening to a playback immediately after the concert does yield the best possible comparison to live sound. It DOES work - pretty well indeed - astonishingly well under the right conditions.

But you should be reasonable enough to understand if I could not bring you even to listen to various samples in order for you to understand that binaural does require open headphones, how harder still it is to convince a musician to part with 4k for MySphere ... so that to give him/her a solid proof why also release (and finance...) the binaural version. Hopefully, in not too distant future the technology from present flagship(s) will trickle down to more affordable models of headphones.

I am really curios HOW the imminent problem of binaural bootlegging will be dealth with - as binaural mics that work at present only with iphones or small digital recorders have already appeared on the market - with those for android devices probably also already being just around the corner, most likely to be released towards the end of the year.


Certainly, none of the above mics can match more pro models - with Neumann KU-100 costing 8k and the "big" HEAD model over 30k, feeding proper recording devices. But listen to whatever you might have in your library - and the SQ obtainable with the above three mics ranging from 100 to 300 $ feeding the iphone becomes a VERY tempting preposition to most people.

Remember, by default these devices record with your own HRTF ... - something any artificial head will, eventually, have to solve in one way or another in order to be truly compatible with your own head. And they do it, on average, for the price of say 10 official binaural albums, be it in physical or downloadable form.

This will be "fun" ...

I hope that you do understand the whole situation a bit better now .

 

[bigshot]

Reality is a lot more complex than your oversimplified models of it..

I don't care about people's differing ideas of reality. I know already that there are some totally distorted concepts of that being thrown around here already. I'm talking about something straightforward-- the ability of audio equipment to reproduce sound with high fidelity. That is all about WHAT you hear, not what you THINK you hear. If you are unable to control your solipsism enough to discern what you hear without consulting Kant and Wittgenstein, then there's nothing I can say to help you. There is a point where subjectivity ends and reality begins. If you're interested, folks around here can help you find that line so you can get on the right side of it. That involves measurements and controlled testing. If you aren't interested in objective reality, you're in the wrong forum.

I can understand your position. Pretty much better than you might think.

Then you know that I'm going to just look at the first line of your reply to see if you've answered my question. If there's a ton of words explaining a bunch of stuff I didn't ask, I'm just going to cheerfully ignore everything you say. Now you understand my position a little better. I'm not going to be led around by the nose. I'm not here for you to try out your creative writing on. I'm happy to engage in discussion, but that means back and forth, not you going on and on and not listening to anything I say. If you ignore my questions, I'm going to ignore your answers... and enjoy every minute of it!

Have a fabulous day, you two!

 

[Phronesis]

I don't care about people's differing ideas of reality. I know already that there are some totally distorted concepts of that being thrown around here already. I'm talking about something straightforward-- the ability of audio equipment to reproduce sound with high fidelity. That is all about WHAT you hear, not what you THINK you hear. If you are unable to control your solipsism enough to discern what you hear without consulting Kant and Wittgenstein, then there's nothing I can say to help you. There is a point where subjectivity ends and reality begins. If you're interested, folks around here can help you find that line so you can get on the right side of it. That involves measurements and controlled testing. If you aren't interested in objective reality, you're in the wrong forum.

I'm interested in what I perceive, not just the air vibrations in front of my eardrums. Perception always involves both objective and subjective (cognitive) aspects. This is all in the domain of science, philosophy isn't needed.

If you're familiar with a hundred voices, have you noticed how easy it is to tell the difference between them and quickly identify the speaker? That's an example of perceiving differences, rather than just detecting things relative to thresholds. The former is much more complex than the latter (otherwise you can't even bring in factors like biases). We have to account for that complexity when we ask whether A 'sounds' different from B for a given person at a given time. You can't reduce perception of music produced by a sound system to a simple scalar measurement.

 

[bigshot]

I'm interested in what I perceive, not just the air vibrations in front of my eardrums.

Well that's great. I'm afraid what you perceive doesn't hold much fascination for me. I'm more interested in finding out what matters objectively and what doesn't when it comes to audio fidelity. That's what this thread is all about. (See post 1) You should probably create your own thread about your own perceptual philosophy. It's drifted way beyond the topic of this particular thread.

 

[pinnahertz]

"About" equals "almost" - and almost NEVER caught a hare.

No, "about" means "approximately", not "almost. Duh. And is close enough. You want to vary this stat? Sure, go ahead, change it, it's SO FAR from being a viable format it's ridiculous.

That's why, being - not only ignored but suppressed by, whenever and wherever given a chance - mainstream recording engineers like @gregorio, we had no choice but to start creating our own binaural content.

You say this as if an engineer stood between you and binaural content. Simply and utterly ridiculous! Economics and lack of market is the problem. Believe me, many of us engineers gave binaural more chances than it deserved.

I started with a portable cassette recorder - and, after discovering what a wonderful machine Technics RS-AZ 7 is, although not portable, used that in stock form for a very short while. Within a year, I had it modified and running in its purest mode possible - with noise reduction being taken care of with Nakamichi High Com II. And I would not even consider using the Naka in its stock form - I had to purge the two units ( one required for recording, one for playback if monitoring while recording is necessary ) of all the Kinderkrankheiten Nakamichi has - clearly - re-wrote and re-used and therefore inherited directly from the Telefunken High Com unit , obviously without any critical assesment by either measurements or AB listening to the source and recording. Those differences being audibly so large that it NEVER occured to me to do a blind test - and if somebody is willing to try that one with High Com II, he or she will have to bring two stock Naka High Com II units ( preferably restored, BUT ONLY TO STOCK CONDITION ) - in a live, in front of audience, double/triple/x..le blind ABX. Making an ABX box that can accomodate switching of one analogue tape recorder and two pairs of two noise reduction machines would have also to be designed - no trivial task, but in principle doable.

Well, I own that ABX box, but that comparison would be stupid. Nobody cares. We've moved on. The description here of an amateur recording system reads like a study in failed ideas. High Com? Really? People blame its failure on cost and the proliferation of Dolby, but the real problem was that straight compander noise reduction just doesn't work for mediums with variable frequency response, causing severe encode/decode mistracking. High Com was somewhat better than any dbx method, but left its audible tracks all over the place. It's only virtue was relatively cheap (compared to real professional noise reduction systems) and better specs than Dolby B/C. Once you've heard compander mistracking you can never not hear it. Odd you didn't bother to mention the one late development in cassette recorders (which was included on that deck) that made a significant audible improvement: Dolby's HX Pro. But no matter, it's all gone now.

Of course, Naka High Com II can also be paired with R2R , not only cassette recorder - if somebody *feels* cassete is not good enough.

I don't "feel" cassette is not good enough, I know it. You can't get flat response over the full audio band above -20dB (re: ref level). Guidance is crap, wow, flutter and scrape-flutter was lousy unless you had a dual capstan deck (yours wasn't). Tape types vary so much even within a single type/brand you need to re-cal the deck for every cassette. You've got poor S/N because the tracks are too narrow, and you don't have enough dynamic range. But fine, if you like it, go nuts.

On a HIGH quality headphone setup, - let's say Stax Lambda Pro with mandatory ED-1 Monitor diffuse field equalizer + "some quality amp" - because it is relatively widespread and known to be specifically good with binaural recordings.

RIght. Sure. Stax Lambdas. Great. If those are necessary for optimum binaural, you've just nailed the binaural coffin shut.

And, if somebody would be foolish enough to claim that a 44.1/16 PCM is better than either the cassette or R2R, he/she *might* meet the ultimate analogue nemesis of the RBCD PCM - (S)VHS ( or beta) VIDEO recorder used exclusively in audio mode. The only trouble is that today really good (S)VHS tapes for audio are - unfortunately - history; so, in commercial sense, this point is moot. But such a comparison could still be arranged - I do have a few still sealed premium quality tapes.

You're kidding, trolling, or have never tried VHS or Beta in "audio only" mode. It's a pair of AFM carriers that get hit with rotary head switching, and SERIOUS companding NR just to make it work. Put up a 3kHz tone and listen to what you get. Geez! Absolutely insane. As to PCM 44/16 being better, I must assume you either have never hard a live stereo mix out of the desk, or have deliberately chosen the full pallet of distortions afforded by analog tape as someone improving the pure signal coming out of the desk. Look, it's really simple: if the goal is to replicated the analog signal coming out of the mixing desk, then analog anything falls quite short, both objectively and subjectively. 44/16 however, replicates that signal so exactly that mixing engineers have been fooled into thinking they were monitoring the 2-mix bus when they were actually hearing the return from 44/16 ADC and DAC. Tape never fooled anyone like that, except possibly 1/4" 15ips on a Studer deck running with Dolby SR. Besides than, a simple "no" is the answer.

And , guess what ? Many musicians themselves, after being treated with a lifelong diet of multimiking only, will light up as little suns - after finally being able to hear themselves WITHOUT the inevitable "editorial comment" of multimiking and subsequent subjective interventions during mixing/mastering by the likes of @gregorio. The same - or even more - that goes for the concert goers; after all, all that they can ever experience live is certainly closer to binaural than to any version of multimiking - as per default, the skill and experience of the recording engineer playing here - at best - next to no role. The less intervention on the part of the multimiking engineer, usually the better - in most, but not all cases.

Not been my experience. Every musician I know who's heard binaural says something to the effect of "Interesting. Now can we record for real?"

But, not all musicians/listeners prefer 2 channel stereo/binaural to multimiking - that's why I always tell the prospective customer/musician what I do and what he/she can - or can not - expect and get from me. Thus I will always allow for an informed decision.

Since with 2 channels recorded, without the possibility to do after the fact ANYTHING but splicing the various takes of same song/composition recorded under exactly the same conditions/mic placement ( valid for both direct to tape and direct to DSD, if you will call it that way ), there lies the knowledge/skills/experience a multimiking recording engineer has never been required to do. Getting as good balance and separation as possible while scrupolously maintaining spatial coherence is no trivial matter - and does require more time in preparation than with multimiking, where "we can fix everything in the mix" notion usually prevails.

The 2 channel only recording "mix", either stereo or binaural, has to be get right - there and then, BEFORE the first note that will eventually land on a released recording can be played.

Fast forward to binaural recorded in native DSD. Yes, it is rare, it is a niche within an already small niche - but it DOES exist and DOES fullfill the needs and expectations of at least a small portion of listeners. And, it is being steadily increased in numbers of the binaural recordings available. More and more native DSD recordings available on https://www.nativedsd.com/ feature, besides stereo and multichannel ( usually 5.1 ) also binaural version. Recording machines ( usually Merging Horus/Hapi ) feature 8 channels of up to DSD256 - and, with six channels being required for the surround 5.1 ( from which then stereo is usually derived ), two channels remain free - so WHY waste them, and not put to a good effect - the BINAURAL ? The customer then decides which version of the recording of the same music he/she will buy - based on preferences, listening habits and, last but not least, equipment available. There are also convinient "bundles" and, in some cases, discounts available to those who have bought in the past say stereo version, but during time decided to add surround and/or binaural version of the same music - it will not be "full" price as to the first time customer for a particular album.

I spoke with a friend of mine today who is director of engineering for a classical label and asked if they'd ever considered binaural. He said absolutely not, the cost of producing another version that couldn't support itself has kept them out of binaural and 5.1. Double-inventory of a record is just a cost hog. In other words, you guys don't buy enough product to support it's production.

The cruelest price range for the playback equipment is with surround DSD 5.1 ; if one satisfies him/herself with DSD ( all the way to native DSD256 5.1 available ) converted to PCM ( normally 192/24, 5.1, but usually user selectable all the way down to 44.1/16 ), some 300 EUR ( price of a new "DAC/Soundcard" ) will get you a decent playback. If you want all the way to native reproduction of DSD256 5.1, the price can quickly go to approx 11K .

There ARE MANY choices in DAC that will play 2 channel native DSD , all the way up to DSD256 - starting at around 200 $/euro/pound. All that is required for stereo - or binaural.

DSD is completely unnecessary, never has penetrated the market significantly at all, and will always be a niche at best. Binaural has nothing to do with it, but has the same issue only a bit worse. Combine the two, you've got a niche of a niche of a niche. But you go for that and let us know how that works for you.

 

[pinnahertz]

If the binaural is to work as intended, it HAS to have as good phase response as possible. That rules out 44.1kHz sampling ( at least twice that required ) - and can, under many real life scenarios, mean total ban on PCM. There is no guarantee that PCM will, after going through "everything", at your final end, that is to say at the output to your headphones, allow for both channels not to lag in phase. Usually, if this error occurs, that means one channel will still be at zero output/volume until the other has already reached its full output - or, to be exact, the square wave response between the two channels will be delayed, exactly for the rise time. The error is getting proportionally better to increase in sampling rate - and it would take infinite sampling rate frequency for the error to reach zero. Some "PCM signal paths" have this error, some do not - depending on trough whatever equipment and how set up the signal has gone trough. DSD is inherently free from this error - and will, if PCM went wrong, mop the floor with it. Timing with binaural is EVERYTHING - but DSD has its share of troubles too, because of which I am proponent of so high sampling rates as stated on numerous ocassions.

Hate to break it to you, but PCM is inherently free from this problem too! There is no phase misalignment between channels of PCM, zero, none at all. Historically there was one combination of specific equipment that led to this myth, recording on the EIAJ/Sony PCM-F1 family of semi-pro video-based PCM converters, then directly transferring the data to CD without a dub to PCM1620/30 or using one of the timing correction boxes of the time. The PCM-F1 family of ADCs sampled Left and Right alternately, and played back that way too, so within the system there was no interchannel phase or timing error. However, PCM1620/30, which was Sony's pro video-based PCM converter, and an integral part of CD authoring, sampled L and R simultaneously, as does the CD format. There was a potential for uncorrected F1 material to play from a CD with on channel delayed 1/2 sampling clock cycle. The error was so small it could be corrected with an analog all-pass filter (and was!), but that's THE ONLY combination that resulted in that error. DAT machines eliminated alternate channel sampling, and so did everything after that. You can prove it easily with basic testing, which I would suggest you do before posting nonsense like this.

The entire argument as to the inefficacy of PCM to handle binaural is myth based fabrication.

Most audio available online is lossy - and very few allow the content above 16 kHz at all. So, any YT and similar can only be regarded as an information - NOT the ultimately achievable quality of the recording. So, I have/have not heard it on YT , at least at present, is absolutely no guaurantee that the HR version will not sound differently and improve upon whatever is available online. That is why labels distributing HR are often issuing lossy versions on YT and similar platforms - as information to the prospective buyers for them to be able to check if the music is to their liking and recording does not deviate too much from whatever expectations or preferences they might have.

Yes, YouTube audio is lossy compression, but that's not an on/off parameter, there are degrees and codecs. However, once the codec is high quality enough and the bit rate high enough, certainly possible on YouTube, there's full binaural information present. The bulk of binaural cues occur below 5kHz, and that's not a challenge at all.

DSD mastering is rare even in US - now consider my 2M population country. Two facilities, one of which is actually capable of doing it properly. I really hope to be able to convience everybody to splurge for the DSD mastering for the NEXT project of baroque music - but given the current financial climate, that may well turn out as a wishfull thinking only.

Believe me, it is NOT a picnic if you know how to do it, know how it could have been improved, etc - but you do not have the financial means to pull it trough. Of course I do have many binaural DSD recordings - and if they were done on my own head, you can pretty much understand that listening to a playback immediately after the concert does yield the best possible comparison to live sound. It DOES work - pretty well indeed - astonishingly well under the right conditions.

Yes, but DSD had nothing whatever to do with it. Binaural, using your own HRTF, is the key. It just won't work well for anyone else.

But you should be reasonable enough to understand if I could not bring you even to listen to various samples in order for you to understand that binaural does require open headphones, how harder still it is to convince a musician to part with 4k for MySphere ... so that to give him/her a solid proof why also release (and finance...) the binaural version. Hopefully, in not too distant future the technology from present flagship(s) will trickle down to more affordable models of headphones.

Perhaps you don't understand something really basic about marketing. The cost of something must be perceived as in line with it's benefit at very least, and below it's benefit at best. You've suggested now both Stax Lambda as mandatory, now MySphere headphones. Ask yourself this: how many copies of a recording are you going to sell if the only ones who buy it must have Stax Lambdas or MySphere?

Nobody's being unreasonable. If you state that open headphones are required, at least some of us own those and will try the samples with them. I know I did, and the samples were terrible. I've heard good binaural on my open headphones, I know what it sounds like, you don't need to convince me. But if you're promoting binaural, then please post some good samples that are compelling and show off the concept to best advantage. You have not done anything like that.

1. I am really curios HOW the imminent problem of binaural bootlegging will be dealth with - as binaural mics that work at present only with iphones or small digital recorders have already appeared on the market - with those for android devices probably also already being just around the corner, most likely to be released towards the end of the year.

2. Certainly, none of the above mics can match more pro models - with Neumann KU-100 costing 8k and the "big" HEAD model over 30k, feeding proper recording devices. But listen to whatever you might have in your library - and the SQ obtainable with the above three mics ranging from 100 to 300 $ feeding the iphone becomes a VERY tempting preposition to most people.

I disagree on several points. 1. Bootlegging is bootlegging and would be dealt with regardless of binaural or not.
2. Poor sound quality is always the problem. Good mics are not expensive, you can even make your own easily at very little cost. Mic position is a huge problem that can't be surmounted.

Remember, by default these devices record with your own HRTF ... - something any artificial head will, eventually, have to solve in one way or another in order to be truly compatible with your own head.

Someone with even a basic knowlege of what makes up an HRTF would know without question that getting an artificial binaural head to match everyone's HRTF is impossible. The incompatible HRTF problem cannot be solved at the recording head. The only possibility exists by profiling a listeners HRTF and applying a correction to a standard head mic. Profiling a listener's HRTF is just not going to happen.

And they do it, on average, for the price of say 10 official binaural albums, be it in physical or downloadable form.

This will be "fun" ...

I hope that you do understand the whole situation a bit better now .

Yeah. But I wish you did.

 

[gregorio]

[1] We're not talking about audibility thresholds of tones, we're talking about different perceptions of music when comparing systems.
[2] We don't need to get into philosophy of perception, but we do need to get into psychology and neuroscience of perception, if we want to be scientific and understand the issues. That's central to the question of whether there are audible differences under various circumstances. Perception needs perceivers.

1. You are just repeating a fallacy which we've ALREADY discussed at length. The job of an audio reproduction system is to reproduce audio, that's it, nothing more. Perception of music is the job of those creating the audio that is to be reproduced, NOT the job of an audio reproduction system! This is not a difficult concept to grasp and yet you not only apparently fail to grasp it but just keep repeating the same fallacy over and over again, why?

2. No, "if we want to be scientific and understand the issues" then we need to understand perception ONLY to the point of eliminating it! Perception does need perceivers but we are NOT trying to measure perception, we are trying to do the exact opposite, eliminate perception and determine ONLY what is actually audible! All these pages, dozens of posts later and you're still stuck exactly where you started. That's difficult to comprehend, unless you are here purely to promote a preconceived agenda and therefore have no choice but to contradict, misrepresent or ignore the actual facts.

[1] If the binaural is to work as intended, it HAS to have as good phase response as possible.
[2] That rules out 44.1kHz sampling ( at least twice that required ) - and can, under many real life scenarios, mean total ban on PCM.
[2a] ... to be exact, the square wave response between the two channels will be delayed, exactly for the rise time.
[3] IF you allowed me to "walk" you trough binaural, you could have learned some things ...

1. OK, so now you're demonstrating that you don't even understand the format you are trying to promote! Binaural absolutely relies on a difference in phase response and NOT "as good phase response as possible", it relies on a difference in phase response dictated by the distance between the ears. Once we have that difference in phase response recorded, then we do need an accurate reproduction of that phase response and that means:

2. PCM is the perfect choice because, as pinnahertz explained, phase response between channels with PCM is perfect, there is ZERO phase discrepancy!
2a. What do you mean "to be exact"? The only sense in which your statement is "exact" is that it is exactly the opposite of the actual facts! Additionally, there is no rise time for a square wave, that's one of the defining features of a square wave and why a square wave is an illegal digital signal, cannot exist as an analogue signal or as a sound wave and even if it could, the ear could not respond to it! So in a sense, you are actually inadvertently correct, the two channels WILL be delayed relative to each other by exactly the rise time of a square wave, which is zero! This is seriously impressive, you've gone SO far round the route of ridiculous nonsense that you've actually gone full circle and ended up at semblance of the truth!! This really is very funny, I didn't even realise it was possible, clearly I'm a rank amateur at this whole "making up ridiculous nonsense" thing and humbly concede defeat in light of your demonstrated mastery.

3. Despite my brief foray, I have no interest in learning those utter nonsense "some things" you want to "walk us through" and, this is neither the thread nor the sub-forum for such nonsense "some things" anyway. This would all be hilarious if it wasn't also troubling. You demonstrated yourself that you are incapable of noticing massive inconsistencies in soundstage, is it even possible to be so convinced of utter nonsense and SO self-deluded that you can ignore even your own demonstration/evidence? This is literally INCREDIBLE, unless of course this isn't the situation and you're just trolling. Either way, if you're going to continue to make assertions such as the ones quoted (and all the others) then you MUST back them up with some form of reliable evidence, otherwise I'm going to start reporting your posts as trolling.

G

 

[Phronesis]

Here's something my wife shared with me which is illustrative of the issues we've been discussing related to perception:



I hear Laurel, and can't imagine how anyone hears Yanny. My wife is the opposite, she hears Yanny and can't imagine how anyone hears Laurel. People who heard it on the internet are apparently split about half and half between hearing Laurel and Yanny, and it shifts between the two words for some people. For some people, it also depends on which system they hear it on (that doesn't make a difference for me so far, and my wife and I heard it on the same system when we compared our perceptions). When my wife and I talk with each other and say Laurel and Yanny, neither of us has any difficulty distinguishing between them.

The sound is a recording of a speaker actual intending to say Laurel, not a synthesized sound. To figure out why people hear it differently, you need to study the objective sound content, processes and variations in listener perception, and interactions between the objective and subjective aspects. If making the sound 'better' means getting listeners to consistently hear it as Laurel, you won't be able to determine why some people hear it as Yanny, and what to objectively change/improve in the objective sound, without considering the subjective aspects and understanding the reasons for the variation in hearing it as Yanny vs Laurel. Here are attempts to get some understanding of it:





There are likely strong parallels here to music, since research shows that there are many parallels and shared pathways in how brains process language vs music.

 

[gregorio]

@Phronesis I asked you why you keep repeating the same fallacy over and over again and your response is to ignore the question and just repeat the same fallacy yet again! How can that be interpreted as anything other than trolling?

The issue of audio reproduction systems is not one of perception, it's one of reproducing an audio signal!! Why is this not self-evident to you? Why, even after it's been explained numerous times, is it still not self-evident to you? Again, what is the only logical conclusion?

G

 

[Phronesis]

@Phronesis I asked you why you keep repeating the same fallacy over and over again and your response is to ignore the question and just repeat the same fallacy yet again! How can that be interpreted as anything other than trolling?

The issue of audio reproduction systems is not one of perception, it's one of reproducing an audio signal!! Why is this not self-evident to you? Why, even after it's been explained numerous times, is it still not self-evident to you? Again, what is the only logical conclusion?

G

@gregorio Why do you keep repeating the same fallacy over and over again and your response is to ignore the question and just repeat the same fallacy yet again! How can that be interpreted as anything other than trolling?

The issue of audio reproduction systems involves both perception and reproducing an audio signal!! Why is this not self-evident to you? Why, even after it's been explained numerous times, is it still not self-evident to you? Again, what is the only logical conclusion?

 

[gregorio]

Again, what is the only logical conclusion?

That you are indeed a troll and your last post appears to confirm that conclusion.

The issue of an audio reproduction system is to reproduce audio. The issue of your perception is an issue for those who created that audio signal and your personal perception, it is NOT an issue of the audio reproduction system whose ONLY job is to reproduce that audio signal! If you're going to keep repeating a fallacy, then I'm going to keep repeating the facts!

G