3 ms·
Binaural recording is not a substitute for spatial audio because humans don't all have identical head-related transfer functions, and because most people don't
by mrob 3y ago
Binaural recording is not a substitute for spatial audio because humans don't all have identical head-related transfer functions, and because most people don't listen with their head strapped in place like in A Clockwork Orange.
You only have two ears, but the signal received at the eardrum depends on the interaction between the ear/head and the 3D sound field. The point of Dolby Atmos and similar techniques is to approximate this sound field so you hear a convincing illusion of sounds positioned in 3D space even when you move your ears.
- harry8 3y agoGreat, let's call it that then and say it clearly. Something like: This new "Atmos" is a breakthrough for music because unlike previous 3D immersive sound (using headphones which /will/ be better than speakers) this has the feature of keeping the sound stationary when you turn your head. I mean clearly, other things being equal, that is better, right? Whether that is an incremental improvement on a scale that Brian flipping Eno needed to do 3D audio on one of more of his albums and whether it's what someone needs to listen to it is something that it really doesn't matter what I think, does it? And whatever anyone thinks of that, 3D audio remains as a thing that is not new. But yeah I think you mis-wrote 'perfect substitute' in your opening sentence and the degree of imperfection is something that probably needs to be both described and supported. >people don't listen with their head strapped in place ... Relative to the sound source, when wearing headphones, they absolutely do.