Print

Print


Here you go: http://www.parts-express.com/aurasound-ast-2b-4-pro-bass-shaker-tactile-transducer--299-028

"Pro version bass shaker handles 50 watts for higher visceral experience." Ohh.

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Clark Johnsen
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 11:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
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.
‚Äč


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> 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.
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>