Some company, maybe Pioneer??, had out for a while a chair that combined headphone-like speakers
close to the ears with bass "shakers" built into the seat.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clark Johnsen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Accidental stereo (again)
> "The problem with both, though, is that headphone bass is fake bass, you
> hear it but you don't feel it. It's a cue rather than a real sensation."
> Myself, I don't particularly care for headphone listening for that very
> reason. I've said for years, decades, that when they invent gutphones I'll
> give them a whirl.
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>> Today, David Chesky is very active in making headphone-only recordings. He
>> now calls it "binaural surround." Dolby has also come out with a matrixed
>> and DSP'd system for "surround" headphone sound. This is intended for game
>> audio and also for movies watched on tiny screens. I've got some of
>> Chesky's recordings and they are amazing on good headphones. Close your
>> eyes and you're in a totally different place, you can almost feel the air
>> movement as different from the room you're physically in. Some of the Emory
>> Cook recordings are similar, but not as immersive. The problem with both,
>> though, is that headphone bass is fake bass, you hear it but you don't feel
>> it. It's a cue rather than a real sensation.
>> -- Tom Fine
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 5:33 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Accidental stereo (again)
>> "Taditionally", perhaps, but not historically. Paul is correct here
>>> that "binaural" was used for decades -- back into the 1920s -- to denote
>>> ANY two-channel recording. Keller used it, and I think Blumlein also
>>> did. It is the term that Emory Cook used as recently as the early and
>>> mid-1950s for his dual-groove system, and his recordings were certainly
>>> not meant for headphone listening!
>>> It is my experience that the first time there was a specific
>>> differential made between the use of "binaural" for headphone listening,
>>> and "stereophonic" for speaker listening, was in a book which came out
>>> in 1960 called "Stereo 1881 --- " by John Sunier.
>>> So it is improper to expect that there was a differentiation of these
>>> phrases prior to this. Tradition has its start.
>>> Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> From: Paul Stamler <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: Thu, September 04, 2014 12:14 am
>>> On 9/3/2014 2:11 PM, DAVID BURNHAM wrote:
>>>> Traditionally, "binaural" means designed to be listened to using head
>>>> phones. In other words, each channel is designed to reach only one ear.
>>>> Usually these recordings are made using an artificial head or a single pair
>>>> of mikes spaced roughly 20cms apart with a baffle in between. Spot mikes
>>>> shouldn't be employed. It is difficult to convert such a source to a true
>>>> stereo recording. <
>>> All true, and this is the classic definition of "binaural". But for
>>> decades the word was occasionally and loosely used to denote any
>>> two-channel recording system. Caused no end of confusion.
>>> On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 3:16:44 PM, Paul Urbahns
>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> In one interview I believe Brad Kaye referred to his discoveries as
>>>> "binaural stereo" and as such would not have a great deal of separation
>>>> with modern computer tools that separation could probably be widen. He
>>>> probably realize the microphone placement was fairly close together and
>>>> spread across the sound stage, like modern stereo would.
>>>> Paul Urbahns
>>>> Radcliff, Ky