Binaural Use In Mainstream Media?

[chrisbishopsd]

So I've been thinking recently about the validity of binaural audio. You know, where they take a dummy head, attach some real-life pinnae, and voila! You have instant awesome! Right? Well, that's my question...

I know a decent amount about binaural audio, and while I might just be missing something here completely, I'm wondering why it isn't being applied to mainstream media? Well, perhaps I should correct that statement. Why isn't it being applied to the next-gen? Movie theaters will never implement binaural audio, because handing out 300 headphones each show (and getting 'em back) just isn't practical... But what about the iPod generation? Am I the only one realizing the potential for a new audio "revolution"? How many people are walking around listening to music and watching podcasts on their mobile devices, with *headphones*? Too many, right?

So, with the knowledge that the iPod generation isn't just a passing fad (I'm pretty sure it's here to stay for a long while), does anybody have any thoughts on the possible use (or implications) of introducing binaural audio into the new headphone-oriented world? A few observations/questions of my own:

1) In binaural playback, the audio coming from the headphones to the ears is "pre-EQ'd" to match what the ear receives. So if you use regular (over-ear or on-ear) headphones, do your ears not naturally "re-EQ" the incoming signal, thus degrading the reliability of binaural audio? And subsequently, does this mean that in-ear devices (earbuds) help solve this problem?
2) Music is a possibility (but a stretch), but what are the possibilities for introducing hi-fidelity audio for podcasting? Just imagine an entire spoken podcast (typically boring, as it's one source in one direction) wherein the 'caster walks around and uses his location to emphasize certain points or thoughts!
3) Has anybody had any experiments in building a binaural dummy head? This website has silicone ears for purchase, as well as instructions for construction. Any observations or criticisms (as I, myself, have some)?

[JoeyM]

Great topic crispybishop, that's an area I have a lot of questions too.

If you close your eyes and there's a bumble bee buzzing around the room, you KNOW where the bee is. Even people who claim not to have a trained ear triangulate amazingly well.

It's your cues to the room's box size and how the early reflections... (bring in the physicists... I'm breaking up, Captain).

Another use of the word binaural is, where they have say a 500hz tone in your left ear and 512hz in your right ear. Your brain is forced into the 12 hz difference and this state of mind can urge your brain into operating in various states of relaxation, such as Alpha, Beta, Theta etc.

The trouble is, listening to simple tones all day might be more maddening than any benefit that you'd get.


You can always ask your local Law Enforcement for an old "CPR Annie", one of those dolls they take to schools and kids train CPR. I don't know if those dolls take into account the skull structure and how that might affect hearing perception.

I'm just thinking out loud

[chrisbishopsd]

Oh, absolutely! And thanks for thinking with me! What you're referring to is "binaural beats," something that I've noticed too. It seems to be a more therapeutic device, not geared towards "realism in sound." But, after having typed that post and thought about it, I've come up with two more observations regarding binaural use:

1) The modeled ear that the mics are placed in is only really true to those people with that exact shape of ear. If I record using the model of a small round ear, then listening back with headphones on my large, square ears will yield slightly unrealistic results. Not overly unrealistic, but it stands to say that the "reality" concept will be tainted. So one limitation could be that a binaural experience will be better for some listeners than others. Perhaps offering both a binaural and "speaker-stereo" podcast would be best.
2) Bands...how would be best to record a band binaurally? You could set up a dummy head in the room as they all play together, but you won't get hi-fidelity audio without proper mics and mixing. As a result, I suppose you could set up a head for each individually-played instrument. But then, how would the mix of 5+ stereo channels result? Would they sum together equally? Could you record and mix non-binaurally (using proper studio mics, gear, & mixing), and then play the resultant (final) stereo mix through flat-response speakers into the dummy head for a decent translation? The latter there seems like it would yield the best quality audio, but the worst steophonic image (by binaural standards, at least).

Just a couple thoughts for the Gearslutz out there...

[DynaForte]

It sounds like you're claiming that part of the entire signal flow of this experience is duplicate - some of it takes place during recording, and then again during playback.

I wasn't aware/sure that the natural eqing of the ear was applied to the recording.

In otherwords, the signal passes through a replica of an ear to a "flat" mic and is recorded. Upon hearing the signal, yes it passes through the outer ear - but that's not where the eqing takes place.

The majority of the EQing of the ear takes place after the ear drum, not before.

So the mic picks up what the ear drum would, and in turn what reaches the ear drum is essentially what would normally.

The signal does pass through two ear canals, but I don't think that's a major part of the change in signal? Perhaps...

How might you test for such a thing to improve binaural recording?

[chrisbishopsd]

Originally Posted by DynaForte

The majority of the EQing of the ear takes place after the ear drum, not before.

So the mic picks up what the ear drum would, and in turn what reaches the ear drum is essentially what would normally.

The signal does pass through two ear canals, but I don't think that's a major part of the change in signal? Perhaps...

How might you test for such a thing to improve binaural recording?

Well, I think you are correct! After doing a bit of research, it comes to find that the ridges of the pinnae only affect horizontal/vertical localization (if I've researched right). By use of a "pinnae mask," scientists have discovered this. So in response, I would say that you observations on frequency distribution between the eardrum & outer ridge of the pinnae are correct.

One huge problem that I know you can run into actually involves modeling the ear canal. Tubes, by nature, mess with sound & frequencies. Anybody can realize that. So the question is, how does the tube of the human ear canal mess with those frequencies? When the air inside of a tube closed at one end is set into motion, the natural resonating frequency is (v/4L).

Velocity of Sound in Air = about 343 m/s
The length of the average human ear canal = about 26mm (.026 m)

So the natural resonating frequency of the human ear canal is: 3,298 Hz

We can round that to 3,300 Hz.

And it resonates at every odd harmonic above that too (if I recall). These frequencies should appear to be amplified by the tube of the ear, thus coloring the incoming signal. So you amplify those frequencies once upon recording, and again upon listening.

Keep in mind none of this is set in stone, and my math may be WAY wrong. And there are too many anomalies that screw with my math (like the fact that the ear canal isn't a linear tube, but a flared one, which naturally brings out upper frequencies beyond the fundamental). But the general idea still sets fine. I'm almost certain the pinnae does color the frequencies to some degree (how noticeable or irrelevant these are is beyond me).

Perhaps there's something to be noted about proximity affect, too? Not just for the recording mic, but for the ear drum itself? That I have no clue about!

[DynaForte]

Having been a (former) neuroscience student, it's just a general observation that there is so much occurring after the ear drum...but not much before it.

For those unfamiliar, before the ear drum, sound travels through a relatively short area of tissue. It's what you feel with a Q-tip.

But after the ear drum it travels through a tunnel with tissue "drum heads" on either end, through an area filled with liquid, through another area that resembles a french horn.....and then passed a field filled with small hairs and becomes an electrochemical signal.

So, in general, the outer ear seems almost trivial to me as far as binaural sense.

Plus, just listening to a binaural recording tells me it is very convincing.

Originally Posted by crispybishop

Well, I think you are correct! After doing a bit of research, it comes to find that the ridges of the pinnae only affect horizontal/vertical localization (if I've researched right). By use of a "pinnae mask," scientists have discovered this. So in response, I would say that you observations on frequency distribution between the eardrum & outer ridge of the pinnae are correct.

One huge problem that I know you can run into actually involves modeling the ear canal. Tubes, by nature, mess with sound & frequencies. Anybody can realize that. So the question is, how does the tube of the human ear canal mess with those frequencies? When the air inside of a tube closed at one end is set into motion, the natural resonating frequency is (v/4L).

Velocity of Sound in Air = about 343 m/s
The length of the average human ear canal = about 26mm (.026 m)

So the natural resonating frequency of the human ear canal is: 3,298 Hz

We can round that to 3,300 Hz.

And it resonates at every odd harmonic above that too (if I recall). These frequencies should appear to be amplified by the tube of the ear, thus coloring the incoming signal. So you amplify those frequencies once upon recording, and again upon listening.

Keep in mind none of this is set in stone, and my math may be WAY wrong. And there are too many anomalies that screw with my math (like the fact that the ear canal isn't a linear tube, but a flared one, which naturally brings out upper frequencies beyond the fundamental). But the general idea still sets fine. I'm almost certain the pinnae does color the frequencies to some degree (how noticeable or irrelevant these are is beyond me).

Perhaps there's something to be noted about proximity affect, too? Not just for the recording mic, but for the ear drum itself? That I have no clue about!

[pfosk]

Panorama by WaveArts does a good job at simulating 2-d binaural. Ive been wondering why this isnt used as a way to encode 5.1 to an optional headphone mix on DVDs etc. It should be as easy as panning L, C ,R ,Ls, Rs (5.0) accordingly with 5 tracks using separate Panorama inserts. Anyone agree?

[DynaForte]

Originally Posted by pfosk

Panorama by WaveArts does a good job at simulating 2-d binaural. Ive been wondering why this isnt used as a way to encode 5.1 to an optional headphone mix on DVDs etc. It should be as easy as panning L, C ,R ,Ls, Rs (5.0) accordingly with 5 tracks using separate Panorama inserts. Anyone agree?

Or even more interesting. Imagine setting up a binaural head in the middle of a dub stage and recording the experience of the 5.1 theatre.

That'd be rockin..

[chrisbishopsd]

@DynaForte: Haha, I agree with ya! With all those moving parts between the ear drum and the cochlea, there's no way our ears have a flat frequency response.

@pfosk: Here's food for thought...

Video games run in 5.1 surround sound. When you move your avatar in a circle, the field shifts to your view. So what if we were to take that same 5.1 field and attach it to, say, a gyroscope? Like which is found in your iPod or your Macbook. Replace your avatar's facing direction with the gyro's reading of your facing direction. Now you have mobile 5.1! Put it in headphones, maybe. Put it in the device itself, perhaps. Just put it in something so that the device knows which direction you're facing! Lateral (strafe) motion can be dictated by the gyro, you can dictate polarity (north vs. south) by use of a compass mechanism...only thing I'm not sure is for vertical position...

But with those devices, you could feasibly make an audio playback device that reacts to your physical orientation! Then, take those 5.1 signals and stream them through an on-the-fly frequency/gain adjuster that correspond to binaural sends. So in essence, the headphones (two speakers) are translating 5.1 data into 2-channel binaural data. Binaural data that moves with you, which is the one main limitation to binaural recordings: The source sounds like it's 45.3 degrees to your front right, but when you *turn* your head 45.3 degrees to the right, it still sounds like it's *another* 45.3 degrees to your right.

Interactive surround via 2-channel headphones...and I seriously think this is going to be my Masters topic this next year!

Sure it's all hypothetical, and probably more complicated than it may seem...but I see it happening one day. I would love to work on that kind of technology!

If someone would like to comment on the feasibility of this technology, let me know!

[pfosk]

crispybishop - that is indeed interesting. I would think that with the right physical motion sensors, a microcontroller interfaced with a midi detector, and a custom coded plug-in, the headphones could act as a type of midi automaton device which would adjust each of the 5 Panorama plug ins accordingly. If this was all bundled within a single consumer device it would be very cool. Ill have to ponder this a while, I haven't used my BSEE degree toward device design in quite a while.

[rufus13]

When there is no popular outrage at claims made by Bose in media spots (this tiny POS clock radio can replace 1500 pounds of hi-fi gear and makes sound that is indistinguishable, for only 11 easy payments of $79.95!) the notion of the unwashed masses appreciating, let alone wanting to pay for, binaural sound is long off of my radar.

Previous posts are right in that outside-the-eardrum effects are specific to the pinnae used in recording. Some are superior to others, even when used on people who have not spent their lives getting used to them.

The heavy lifting happens to audio as your brain assembles whatever meaning there is.

On the cheap, you don't need a dummy head (Fritz is an expensive head!), to get much of the effect. A DIY Jecklin Disk will make a just-about-right head shadow, and you could make it thicker to be more like a normal 6" wide skull. If the recordings are just for you (why not?), make a head and shoulder casting and a pinnae casting of yourself. Don't forget breathing tubes.

People do localization with head tilting and turning. Recordings are usually static. A real-time dummy head could use an X-Y-Z axis pan-tilt head with a head and microphones to listen to a performance, while playing the microphone feed to the person wearing headphones and the positional controller.

Headphones and a head-position-sensor could make much better video game localization. Better than the current attempts at 5.1 surround-sound, maybe. Monster at 4 o'clock, stepped on stick.

Cheers.

[kosmokrator]

Originally Posted by crispybishop

@DynaForte: Haha, I agree with ya! With all those moving parts between the ear drum and the cochlea, there's no way our ears have a flat frequency response.

@pfosk: Here's food for thought...

Video games run in 5.1 surround sound. When you move your avatar in a circle, the field shifts to your view. So what if we were to take that same 5.1 field and attach it to, say, a gyroscope? Like which is found in your iPod or your Macbook. Replace your avatar's facing direction with the gyro's reading of your facing direction. Now you have mobile 5.1! Put it in headphones, maybe. Put it in the device itself, perhaps. Just put it in something so that the device knows which direction you're facing! Lateral (strafe) motion can be dictated by the gyro, you can dictate polarity (north vs. south) by use of a compass mechanism...only thing I'm not sure is for vertical position...

But with those devices, you could feasibly make an audio playback device that reacts to your physical orientation! Then, take those 5.1 signals and stream them through an on-the-fly frequency/gain adjuster that correspond to binaural sends. So in essence, the headphones (two speakers) are translating 5.1 data into 2-channel binaural data. Binaural data that moves with you, which is the one main limitation to binaural recordings: The source sounds like it's 45.3 degrees to your front right, but when you *turn* your head 45.3 degrees to the right, it still sounds like it's *another* 45.3 degrees to your right.

Interactive surround via 2-channel headphones...and I seriously think this is going to be my Masters topic this next year!

Sure it's all hypothetical, and probably more complicated than it may seem...but I see it happening one day. I would love to work on that kind of technology!

If someone would like to comment on the feasibility of this technology, let me know!

It's all there.
The german IRT has a VST-Plugin that 'translates' 5.1 to binauraul, either with individual measured HRTFs or with general ones. Includes headtracking.
Also, the HeadzonePro by Beyerdynamic provides this functionality in a very professional package.
There is also an AES-paper on the subject, engineers from Lake Technologies wrote it, AFAIR.
If you have further questions regarding this topic, don't hesitate to PM me.

[chrisbishopsd]

Bam! And there we have it. The Headzone Pro. How have I not heard of this thing? And for around $2800, it's about what I'd expect it to be right now. So the question is now, is this going to revolutionize the audio industry in the same way that, say, CDs did? Or in the same light of how groundbreaking multi-track recording was? I can kind of see this, but doubt it will pick up until it is able to be used in earbud-type devices.

[Audiop]

I think the capsules in a dummy head is not placed where you would find the Tympani but at the entrance to the ear canal. This way we would not have the 3kHz resonance in the recording set up.

Also there's a lot of encoding to the soundwaves that reaches the tympani from the head and pinnae. HRTF means head related transfer function but the torso and the pinnae are as important.

Whatever effects the inner ear has on a signal it is the same for all angles of incidence.


/Peter

[schulein]

Hi from Bob Schulein,

I have developed an experimental binaural audio with HD video technique for capturing a point of view "you are there" experience from a musical performance. I call the process ImmersAV, in that you become immersed in an audio/video experience.

If interested, I have uploaded two examples to You Tube:

YouTube - Rehab Fat Brass UW Manitowoc Session June 2009

and

YouTube - Little Bird of Heaven - The Ackermans - Longmont Colorado - November 11, 2008

There are about 10 others examples as well. If you search You Tube for ImmersAV you can find them all.
Some examples have an audio video sync issue do to the You Tube up load process. I am currently working on a solution for that problem.

Other postings will be coming as I have ramped up my production schedule.

My interest at this point is in obtaining feedback as to the entertainment value of such productions.

I have many yet to be tried production techniques involving multiple video and audio points of view, for the future.

Also if you download the HQ version from You Tube and use Quick Time to create an
i pod file version, the productions will be preserved with good audio and video fidelity.

All comments and suggestions welcome.

Bob Schulein

[Etheric]

Originally Posted by crispybishop

Does anybody have any thoughts on the possible use (or implications) of introducing binaural audio into the new headphone-oriented world?

Hi!

I joined Gearslutz a year ago, but never had the time to go through enough threads to actually post anything... until now. And to be honest, I didn't go through ALL the threads considering this binaural stuff, but hopefully enough not to repost. So here goes:

-

I was thinking about this same thing a while ago. All the binaural stereo material I've heard so far (not that I've really searched for them) are just recordings with a dummy head and/or made with some sort of plug-in/algorithm.

The problem with the latter is that they never sound quite realistic enough. The problem with the dummy is that there's not much you can do with it. You can't separate the kick drum and EQ it, nor is there a vocal track to compress etc. At least I've never heard of succesfully multitracking with binaural mics...

So I came up with an idea - what if you recorded material, multitrack, as you normally would - let's say a mainstream pop song. Then you'd bring the tracks on a DAW which had it's 6 audio outputs linked to a separate room with 5.1 monitors and proper acoustics (the DAW room would have no monitors in it). In the surround room you would set up a binaural stereo mic, a dummy head, to the sweetspot and monitor its stereo input with good stereo headphones from the DAW room... Would you be able to mix the multitracked material straight into surround binaural stereo?

I know that just by recording 5.1 mixes with a dummy head the result doesn't sound the same as the actual 5.1 mix in the studio - but by mixing the whole thing with the dummy as your ears you could at least skip through some of the loopholes?

I seriously considered trying it out and writing my bachelor's thesis on the matter, but then realized that a solution this simple had to have something wrong with it. It's TOO simple to work... If it worked, someone would already have tried it and would probably have told other people about it... so I forgot about it and never tried it out.

-

I was skimming through this forum today and after seeing this thread the idea came back to me. I started searching the internet for information about an approach like that, but didn't find any, so the question aroused again... what if?

I do not have access to proper facilities to test this at the moment, so if some of you have, please try it and share the results... if someone doesn't already possess information on the matter, that is. I'm eager to know if it works, and if it doesn't - why and how doesn't it work?

Gotta go, see ya later!

[Plush]

I started recording the Milwaukee Symphony in binaural in 2005. We released some orchestral material including Peer Gynt Suite and the Saint-Saens Organ concerto recorded with a Neumann 100 dummy head. It sounds great.

Find it at Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra - Home by clicking on the "meet the orchestra" section on the left hand side of the main page. Then, click on the "MSO download store" on the right side of the page.

YOu can go to the download store there and to hear some clips before purchasing them.

One can clearly hear the binaural sound.

I think that classical material is clearly one of the prime candidates for the iPod generation.

I do not work with that orchestra anymore, but I do still record binaural sound.

[Larry Elliott]

Originally Posted by Plush

I started recording the Milwaukee Symphony in binaural in 2005. We released some orchestral material including Peer Gynt Suite and the Saint-Saens Organ concerto recorded with a Neumann 100 dummy head. It sounds great.

One can clearly hear the binaural sound.

I think that classical material is clearly one of the prime candidates for the iPod generation.

I do not work with that orchestra anymore, but I do still record binaural sound.

Even listening on a set of computer speakers and not headphones, there is a spacious quality to the sound that one seldom hears nowadays.

Larry

[patchmonkey]

fascinating thread, thanks to all who contributed!


the Sound on Sound review of the Headzone Pro has some interesting info about other surround mixing systems for headphones:

Beyerdynamic Headzone Pro

[MBishopSFX]

None of the surround-simulation headphones can really compare to the Smyth Research SVS System. This is the standard by which all others would be measured.

Smyth Research

There is a great article on the Smyth system in the current issue of Widescreen Review.

.

[IMR]

Re. using an expensive dummy head, I would have imagined you could get very similar results using a large, close-leafed cabbage like a white or red cabbage.

The average human head weighs about 7 pounds (don't worry, I read this somewhere) and is around 75% water. A large cabbage is maybe 4-5 pounds and about 90% water.

Of course, people will laugh at the cabbage if they see it.

Holophonic sound recording enjoyed some popularity. iirc holophonic recording was used in parts of the 'Thriller' album, and also by the band Psychic TV.

[Petrus]

Here is one working version of the motion sensing headphones: DSPeaker-HeaDSPeaker

What comes to recording multitrack type material with a dummy head I do not think mixing several heads is possible for realistic effect, the directional clues are very small. Mix a bunch of those and you have none left! The only possible way would be arrange a live show (or simulated live show) and record it with just one binaural head like the Neumann.

Telarc has used the Neumann head on some of their classical recordings, mixed with normal mics. I am not convinced it works (better than just normal methods).

I do use Jecklin disk a lot, though, for speaker stereo.

[Plush]

Is the cabbage above equalized for both headphone playback AND loudspeaker playback? The Neumann 100 dummy head is.

To make the head sound even more realistic one attaches it to a torso clothed in a winter sweater. (and a tie)

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by Plush

(and a tie)

Does the tie's material, type of knot, and colour make a difference in sound quality?

[alvagoldbook]

I've actually wondered about binaural beats and the use of mind control of the public at large. scary possibilities may be out there.

[Petrus]

Did you not know about the cirquits hidden in all iPods which is not used yet? It is just waiting for the placement of the last of the controll satellites, which should be done 1:st quarter of 2010. Then you'll notice something.

Er.. actually you will not...

[IMR]

Originally Posted by Plush

Is the cabbage above equalized for both headphone playback AND loudspeaker playback? The Neumann 100 dummy head is.

tbh the cabbage might give fairly consistent results for headphones and speakers, if the mics were positioned on the surface of the cabbage slightly forward of the mid-point of the coronal plane . Similar to the principle behind Sonic Studios 'dimensional stereo' mics.

But if it didn't work adequately, you could always eat the cabbage instead.

[TNagler]

Originally Posted by crispybishop

So I've been thinking recently about the validity of binaural audio. You know, where they take a dummy head, attach some real-life pinnae, and voila! You have instant awesome! Right? Well, that's my question...

I know a decent amount about binaural audio, and while I might just be missing something here completely, I'm wondering why it isn't being applied to mainstream media? Well, perhaps I should correct that statement. Why isn't it being applied to the next-gen? Movie theaters will never implement binaural audio, because handing out 300 headphones each show (and getting 'em back) just isn't practical... But what about the iPod generation? Am I the only one realizing the potential for a new audio "revolution"? How many people are walking around listening to music and watching podcasts on their mobile devices, with *headphones*? Too many, right?

So, with the knowledge that the iPod generation isn't just a passing fad (I'm pretty sure it's here to stay for a long while), does anybody have any thoughts on the possible use (or implications) of introducing binaural audio into the new headphone-oriented world? A few observations/questions of my own:

1) In binaural playback, the audio coming from the headphones to the ears is "pre-EQ'd" to match what the ear receives. So if you use regular (over-ear or on-ear) headphones, do your ears not naturally "re-EQ" the incoming signal, thus degrading the reliability of binaural audio? And subsequently, does this mean that in-ear devices (earbuds) help solve this problem?
2) Music is a possibility (but a stretch), but what are the possibilities for introducing hi-fidelity audio for podcasting? Just imagine an entire spoken podcast (typically boring, as it's one source in one direction) wherein the 'caster walks around and uses his location to emphasize certain points or thoughts!
3) Has anybody had any experiments in building a binaural dummy head? This website has silicone ears for purchase, as well as instructions for construction. Any observations or criticisms (as I, myself, have some)?

Wow I'm glad I found this thread! I'm currently writing an essay for college entitled "Specialization for the ipod generation" focusing on just this.

The main reason as far as I can tell for it not taking off commercially is the difference in HRTF values between individuals. This amounts to it working MUCH better for some people than others (going as far as a person walking in front of you to one person can sound like a person walking behind you to another). Additionally, up until relatively recently limitations on processing power have been a factor when it comes to running algorithms.

One way I will suggest this can be overcome is to basically sense (via sensors) all HRTF values of the listener that are practical to sense, and input these into these into the algorithm. Going the algorithm rout will allow the listener to hear all perviously recorded music in this way, and would mean that recording studios wouldn't have to buy a whole new load of kit and engineers wouldn't need to learn a whole new set of skills. As well as meaning music can still be played back on stereo systems.

Additionally, as someone else mentioned, with a binaural head you cannot eq the kick and snare separately for example as it the whole thing is recorded onto 2 channels. If the HRTF values are done after the event you can do all that then make it sound like it is out in-front of you.

I don't know how to focus this essay, tbh. I was told that what I have is essentially going over what we did in class (we covered binaural generally and have covers specialization generally) and I'm not sure if this topic (focusing on why it hasn't taken off) has enough substance... the essay is worth a LOT of marks but is a low word count... if anybody can point me in the right direction of any papers or books that might help me on this I would be HUGELY grateful.

One area I'm sort of focusing on is how a specialization algorithm will work with an ipod and ear buds. I may abandon this however as I cant find any reliable info on how the ear buds perform... the diagram on the apple site seems to indicate that they out perform the top Grados and the Senheiser HD800s! . Anybody have any info on this? Maybe its better to think for the future than right now anyway.

I'm struggling for focus so I have more than half a mind to just focus on a specific field of application i.e. ask bob about his hugely impressive work if he will talk to me about it!

P.s. I think what I have said is correct but if I do have anything wrong someone more knowledgeable please tell me, as bar my recent research I am new to this myself.

T

[chadster]

Here's my two cents.

From what I've read the main thing that gives binaural its sound is the head in between the two microphones. The head shadow is what gives you the specific stereo image based on things like high frequency differences and left/right delay. Both AB and ORTF micing techniques are based on this concept.

The ear canal in head mic's like Fritz is there to help reinforce the stereo image created. If they were going for an ear-like natural EQ i don't think it would be made of plastic.

There is a great book by Ron Streicher called "New Stereo Soundbook" that has an entire section dedicated to binaural recording and playback. It also has extensive info on stereo and 5.1 sound as well. I know Ron to be very thourough and detailed in his research and experience.

In addition, anyone wanting to hear some sweet binaural stuff really needs to look up Tchad Blake. He even did some binaural stuff with Pearl Jam for their album Binaural (Gee, I wonder where that title came from).

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by chadster

Here's my two cents.

From what I've read the main thing that gives binaural its sound is the head in between the two microphones. The head shadow is what gives you the specific stereo image based on things like high frequency differences and left/right delay. Both AB and ORTF micing techniques are based on this concept.

Not really, that is a common misconception. ORTF or AB have absolutely NOTHING to do with binaural sound reproduction but with loudspeaker reproduction and the necessary time and/or level differences to create a certain angular placement of a sound source and even energy distribution over the sound stage between the speakers.

Also the spacing of mics in ORTF (17 cm) has nothing to do with the head diameter.

AB and ORTF are not binaural techniques. They are techniques for stereo speaker reproduction in a standardized stereo triangle (±30 degree incidence of sound from speakers)