I wrote:
> ...I've also figured, up until now, that since we have two ears, not
> 5.1, stereo is sufficient. But what Lang is trying to describe to us
> here is making perfect sense to me. This is the first time ever that I
> have not dismissed the notion of "surround sound" with a disrespectful
> sniff.
Lang displays the utmost patience with that worn out objection and
graciously continues:
> Appropriate speaker playback of binaural recordings creates a
> marvelous 150 degree soundscape that blows conventional stereo out of
> the water (conventional stereo is only a 60 degree front arc).
> However, even the best binaural and the best playback system (even
> with headphones) does not produce a realistic 360 degree soundscape,
> and signals coming from behind are usually projected forward.
>
> What I'm trying to describe is a recording and playback system that
> utilizes binaural principles and that will produce an "illusion" that
> more closely resembles reality than anything I've heard so far. And
> it's not that difficult to pull off. Furthermore, it would leave you
> with four possible stereo configurations. You never again have to
> worry about amazing things happening behind the mikes, because there
> is no front or behind . . . or rather you define the front and behind
> later on, depending.
Points well taken, Lang. If I had stopped long enough to factor in the
differences between stereo and binaural, I would have put it
differently. I remain intrigued by your objective here. You really have
me thinking...
Walt adds:
> To me the criteria Lang set up are the only "surround sound", the
> other is just more elaborate stereo.
This is why I've never regarded 5.1 or its cousins with much respect.
To me it seems mostly fake, and at a tremendous added cost besides. (I
try not to think about all the business opportunities I have missed by
shunning this trend!)
In a later post, Walt gets to the crux of the matter:
> I know that my stereo efforts won't even get the playback they should.
> Playback is really falling backwards if anything.
To which Bernie adds a wonderful nugget:
> ...for our "Gandharva" recording in 1971, Warner Brothers gave us a
> $135,000 budget to create the discrete surround recording space in
> Grace Cathedral (San Francisco), provided a small sound stage in LA
> to do the mix, and then hired The Grateful Dead (both colleagues and
> friends) to provide a sound and playback system installed in a
> theatrical space to play back the work for the press upon the album's
> release. Since the recording was made in 1971, I've only been able to
> hear the surround result two times in almost 34 years...
Which takes me back to my original comments. 2 channels played back
through two speakers or a pair of headphones is the most common
standard, and after nearly 30 years, I'm still struggling to deliver
compelling speech programming, music and soundscapes for it. But with
due regard for Rich and others here who are experimenting with many
different techniques, Lang's brand of "surround thinking" has really
captured my attention for the very first time.
I'll be staying tuned for sure...
Curt Olson
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|