"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