On 10/14/2012 09:45 AM, Richard Lee wrote:
well, depends. iirc, theile's argument is that a two-speaker
phantom source should be a mess in terms of spectrum, but isn't (as
two-speaker stereophony demonstrates). so for some reason, the
brain is able to sort it out. more than two correlated sources, and
things go awry, e.g. L/C/R
with too much crosstalk is a pitiful mess.
Err.rrh! Actually two speaker stereo IS a mess in terms of spectrum.
Just compare a mono signal panned to CF with it panned to hard left
or right. It's one of the things which draws attention to the
speakers & spoils the illusion.
well, some people are more sensitive to this than others. fwiw, the
timbral quality of a center phantom source doesn't bother me much.
iiuc, günther's main point is that a phantom sourse generally measures
much worse than it sounds. in his doctoral thesis, he is suggesting
quite an interesting and very simple experiment:
see http://www.hauptmikrofon.de/theile/ON_THE_LOCALISATION_english.pdf
page 11.
even if performed in a non-anechoic environment, the effect is quite
striking.
here, our binaural hearing apparatus is clearly very beneficial.
regardless of whether you consider a two-source phantom spectrum good or
bad, i guess we can agree a three-source one is waaaay worse?
this is the problem with ambisonic systems which have too many speakers
for their own good - more speakers makes for more crosstalk.
if you want to impress your neighbours with eight speakers in a ring,
pray impress them with at least third order. even if your ambi-trained
brain can sort it out, your neighbour's very likely cannot.
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT
http://stackingdwarves.net
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
