2 replies to this topic

[Matt VIP]

you might just learn something...

I did

http://forum.elitecaraudio.com/showthread....threadid=148091

nice one.

[SCorpion]

good find

i picked up on this point

Quote

As far as I know, Blumlein stuck with two channels because :

- he was motivated to improve on mono, providing lateral localization cues, as economically as possible. And it really only takes two channels to derive the desired vector summation. Of course, sweet-spot improvement would benefit from more channels, but remember ... the Bell results were "dumb" ... just capturing & reproducing the wavefront with multiple channels, no need to even understand the basic mechanisms of localization. What i mean is, the Bell results were not necessarily better or smarter. And i don't even think that either "camp" knew anything about the other ...

dont agree with this point. i believe blumlein stuck with two channels because thats all that technology allowed for at the time. how do u get more than two channels out of a record? blumlein in fact, went and invented a method for getting two channels out of a record.

i think Bell labs work should be given a little more due. i mean look @ wat happened in cinema, the moment they got more than 2 channels they used more channels. they didn't just invent the wavefront synthesis method by accident, they also understood how the ear worked and, as such, recommended no fewer than 3 channels in front as the best approximation (rather than two) for the wave front synthesis.

good find though. learned a lot

another author to google is Floyd Toole. he has a lot to say about how the ear and brain works and has some very good indepth explanations of reproduction formates (stereo, binaural steering, Dolby, Dolby Digital (EAX??))

[~thematt~]

Yeh, its a good read. I've been watching it since it went up, but Jeff's a bit slack and I dont think he realises how many people appreciate a good technical forum read!!