Yes but...why not simply release stuff for mobiles in a generic binaural - skip
the uhj altogether?
Dr. Peter Lennox
School of Technology,
Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology
University of Derby, UK
e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk
t: 01332 593155
-Original Message-
From: sursound-boun...@mu
Peter Lennox wrote:
> Yes but...why not simply release stuff for mobiles in a generic binaural -
> skip the uhj altogether?
Please, what is this "generic binaural"?
Everyone has an individual HRTF. If you
release binaural recording using a generic
HRTF then it will work for some and not for
oth
The same is true of stereo too. There are people who just don't hear
stereo as stereo. If the response to "lack of perfection" is always "do
nothing", nothing will be done. Alternatively, if you use those generic
HRTFs, at least ~some~ people will be happy.
BTW, the AES has just announced a pr
This is absolutely true. My late first wife
heard stereo as two separate speakers no
matter how well the speakers worked for others.
She liked mono a lot better.
Surround sound was a n ightmare from her viewpoint--
all those speakers playing from different directions
each on heard individually.
> If the response to "lack of perfection" is always "do nothing",
> nothing will be done.
Which perfectly explains why we don't have an accepted ambisonic file
format. No one is willing to accept limitations... and it is so easy
to find limitations in formats.
I firmly believe that a successful a
t part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5863 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121031/3acb9662/attachment.bin>
i am wondering if we cannot produce HRTFs the way the first produced spectacle
lenses. one needs to look at the range of variations in HRTFs and what actually
varies from person to person and produce a dozen or so hrtfs. people can just
try them and stick with the one they like. a real time, str
