3 ms·

Here's a floobada. It newly enables you to "drink water." You can't dispute that not knowing what a floobada is? 3D sound has existed for four decades at leas

by harry8 3y ago

Here's a floobada. It newly enables you to "drink water." You can't dispute that not knowing what a floobada is? 3D sound has existed for four decades at least, much like you were able drink water before I invented the floobada. (He boldly claimed. ;)

coldtea 3y ago
This is so confused, it's not even funny. Yes, we know 3D sound has existed before. Eno knows it. Dolby knows it. This is not your grandfather's stereo, nor his binaural recording, not even surround. It's also not about the concept of 3D sound being a new invention. This is a specific implementation, with specific features. It's not some guys in the studio running two tape recorders. It is also a new supported format available for different setups and uses, including features not existing before. Nor does Eno says anywhere this is the first case 3D sound. He speaks in general about 3D sound and spatial audio, and has his albums out remastered for Atmos and Spatial Audio. I guess you just wanted to put him down, because you saw a word you recognized, so it must be the exact thing you already knew. "This guy says he's excited about this new bunch of cars coming out? My granpa had a Model-T back in 1920! And people think this Tesla is some innovation, as if we didn't have cars before. You just need an axle, some wheels, and an a combustion engine, DUH!"
- harry8 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Atmos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Atmos tl;dr New surround tech with added height channels. Great. I can imagine there could be uses. Like any new tech before you've analysed it, could be good, could be trash. Additional surround height channels cannot possibly be as good as 2 channels, properly recorded and mixed to drive stereo headphones for generating 3D sound. This is key. You can't beat headphones for 3D sound. If you can't understand why then the conclusions which follow will seem even more incomprehensible, grandparents involvement or no. Best way to meet that impasse head on is to go get your headphones and find some older 3D audio and listen to its quality. Or make some, like I did in the 1980s. It's really great stuff, good fun and can be used creatively and with elegance. I don't doubt for a second Eno could do something worthwhile with it. And could have in the 1980s on the 2 tracks of an LP while instructing the listener to use headphones had he so chosen. Adding height channels to surround cannot make better 3d audio than you could achieve with headphones. So I'm putting Eno down because this is a marketing claim that is garbage. He could have done top notch, first rate, headphone 3D sound on his albums at any time in the past, did he even try? Has he said? He's releasing stuff using $some_new_tech (atmos) for which you need to buy a bunch of kit and justifying it claiming 3D is wonderful. And it is! And he never needed that new tech to take advantage of it and could very, very easily, right now, get whatever he has done with this atmos remaster and use it to release a "3D mix for headphones" that means anyone could hear it without buying new kit. So yeah, seeing that made me pretty suspicious of atmos and annoyed with Eno but hey, I didn't know atmos beyond the incontrovertible fundamentals of what it clearly can't do because nothing can, laws of physics etc. Someone else on the thread posted Benn Jordan on atmos, he's clearly done some work to understand what it is and its merit. https://youtu.be/5Dw3aKbw5Wo https://youtu.be/5Dw3aKbw5Wo What's your guess on this, was Eno paid for this Atmos stuff by Dolby? Benn Jordan claims he got an offer and he's a little less famous and revered than Eno. This kind of "buy tech to listen to my stuff" is quite unlike Eno in the past. But people do change their minds without being paid to do it.

by harry8 3y ago

coldtea 3y ago

This is so confused, it's not even funny. Yes, we know 3D sound has existed before. Eno knows it. Dolby knows it. This is not your grandfather's stereo, nor his binaural recording, not even surround. It's also not about the concept of 3D sound being a new invention. This is a specific implementation, with specific features. It's not some guys in the studio running two tape recorders. It is also a new supported format available for different setups and uses, including features not existing before. Nor does Eno says anywhere this is the first case 3D sound. He speaks in general about 3D sound and spatial audio, and has his albums out remastered for Atmos and Spatial Audio. I guess you just wanted to put him down, because you saw a word you recognized, so it must be the exact thing you already knew. "This guy says he's excited about this new bunch of cars coming out? My granpa had a Model-T back in 1920! And people think this Tesla is some innovation, as if we didn't have cars before. You just need an axle, some wheels, and an a combustion engine, DUH!"

harry8 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Atmos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Atmos tl;dr New surround tech with added height channels. Great. I can imagine there could be uses. Like any new tech before you've analysed it, could be good, could be trash. Additional surround height channels cannot possibly be as good as 2 channels, properly recorded and mixed to drive stereo headphones for generating 3D sound. This is key. You can't beat headphones for 3D sound. If you can't understand why then the conclusions which follow will seem even more incomprehensible, grandparents involvement or no. Best way to meet that impasse head on is to go get your headphones and find some older 3D audio and listen to its quality. Or make some, like I did in the 1980s. It's really great stuff, good fun and can be used creatively and with elegance. I don't doubt for a second Eno could do something worthwhile with it. And could have in the 1980s on the 2 tracks of an LP while instructing the listener to use headphones had he so chosen. Adding height channels to surround cannot make better 3d audio than you could achieve with headphones. So I'm putting Eno down because this is a marketing claim that is garbage. He could have done top notch, first rate, headphone 3D sound on his albums at any time in the past, did he even try? Has he said? He's releasing stuff using $some_new_tech (atmos) for which you need to buy a bunch of kit and justifying it claiming 3D is wonderful. And it is! And he never needed that new tech to take advantage of it and could very, very easily, right now, get whatever he has done with this atmos remaster and use it to release a "3D mix for headphones" that means anyone could hear it without buying new kit. So yeah, seeing that made me pretty suspicious of atmos and annoyed with Eno but hey, I didn't know atmos beyond the incontrovertible fundamentals of what it clearly can't do because nothing can, laws of physics etc. Someone else on the thread posted Benn Jordan on atmos, he's clearly done some work to understand what it is and its merit. https://youtu.be/5Dw3aKbw5Wo https://youtu.be/5Dw3aKbw5Wo What's your guess on this, was Eno paid for this Atmos stuff by Dolby? Benn Jordan claims he got an offer and he's a little less famous and revered than Eno. This kind of "buy tech to listen to my stuff" is quite unlike Eno in the past. But people do change their minds without being paid to do it.