Originally Posted by dragonfyr
Apparently , as is usual in your replies, you failed to note that the ITE system requires NO encoding or decoding.
You also mentioned ambisonics, which does require encoding/decoding.
No 3D glasses nor any other delivery problems. In fact, the grand total that is required is a second stereo pair of speakers and a single 2 channel amp and a gain control. PERIOD.
All of my experience with binaural recordings has required either in-ear headphones or an atypical dipole stereo setup for playback. That "second pair of speakers" I suppose refers to the second, which isn't entirely compatible with playback of non-binaural source material. Thus a delivery problem.
I'm a big fan of what binaural recordings can do, but they have zero relevance in today's currently available source material, and it isn't a free ride.
Oh gee. WRONG! Its always nice discussing acoustics with you big, when you are not even aware that acoustical response models ALREADY provide for a small room to be rendered almost literally identical to a large hall!!!
Your big beef above seemed to be that currently implemented multichannel surround strategies cannot provide accurate localization in a spherical space. Please explain how a conventional two channel system with LEDE, RFZ, or whatever else you wish can provide accurate localization in a spherical space. Otherwise, your argument amounts to a giant strawman.
Sorry big, but as we have already mentioned a system that requires NO encoding or decoding, this argument is moot. If the signal is able to be recorded complete with ALL of the relative phase relationships intact, you do not need to try to artificially create them. Confusing, isn't it?
Not at all. But continue to let out your emotions if that helps you in some way. ??
And you might want to actually do a bit more research. . The Dolby systems do not do more.
Dolby isn't the only player.
And they certainly do not provide accurate 3space acoustical cues. But the addition of cricket noises and big de-correlated signals providing a sense of envelopment rather than accurate 3space cues is cute - and satisfactory for many.
Are you even aware of the basic precepts of the Henry Precedence Effect?
Sure, it's a simple concept.
And what I said about stability of imaging and artificiality of phantom sources is still valid. I like what Richard Lee of the late ambisonia had so say about this...
"Recording, distribution and reproduction of sound are three separate issues and the number of microphones, channels and speakers do not have to be the same.
For example, normal stereo (excellent results with only two microphones) distributed over two channels can be played back over three or more speakers for even better results than two speakers. The most sophisticated implementation of this is Trifield technology from Dr Geoffrey Barton of the original Ambisonic team."
The fact is, your current preferred system doesn't even measure up to your assertions made above, and yet you assert that it is adequate while more sophisticated systems of which you are totally unaware do not.
I didn't assert it was "adequate." I simply dispute the claim that current multichannel surround decoding/extraction techniques are superfluous or detrimental to typical two channel source material playback.
I don't care what one's preference is. They can "like" whatever they like for whatever reason they like. They can also be a flat-Earther and crawl around on their hands and knees for fear of getting to close to the edge and falling off.
I assert that you can't provide any objective data to support that typical two channel source and playback in any room you desire can create more accurate localization cues in a spherical space than today's available surround algorithms. In the absence of such fact, the only argument to be made is one of preference.
But its nice to read your opinion utterly devoid of any objective support and totally based upon your 'feelings'.
I love it(sic) when acoustics debate ultimately succumbs to the vacuous "its all subjective and as such the science of acoustics and psycho-acoustics is utterly unable to ascertain how it works and to implement systems that can accomplish the goals one has set".
Strawman. When one can't argue what has been said, and has to instead create fictitious statements to attack, it is always an indication that reasoning has all but been exhausted.
You may be satisfied with the current surround sound that provides but a larger sense of envelopment.
Didn't say satisfied. But it is better than typical two channel playback with currently available source material. Binaural techniques are awesome, but unless you can configure a system that works for both binaural material and the other 99.99999% of source material available (perhaps you can? I'm always open to ways to improve), then it still has a delivery problem.
(And to put all of this into perspective, you fail to even address the radical distinction between something as basic as the absolute requirement that all speakers in a surround studio mix environment be identical for very clear reasons, and yet, home theater use routinely utilizes a hodgepodge of both spectrally and spatial-temporally mismatched speakers.
Why would I address that? Any other tangents that you will attack because I didn't specifically address them? And I think matched speakers all around is absolutely the way to go. Nice of you to kindly ask.