Print

Print


"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.

Peace,
Paul


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 but
>with modern computer tools that separation could probably be widen. He
>probably realize the microphone placement was fairly close together and not
>spread across the sound stage, like modern stereo would.
>
>Paul Urbahns
>Radcliff, Ky
>