On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 16:14, davidrclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Mark, > > Thanks for your reply. You're welcome. > > Previously I had asked if anyone would be interested in my packaging > some of my work so that others could use it. As you may know, this can > be a daunting task, I don't, but I imagine it might be. > and I wanted to know whether or not anyone would > find the "capability" useful before dumping a lot of time in creating > a useable "program." It's like before I build you a car, I ask you > if you have any need for transportation. > > If everyone is happy with the second (and fourth) clip, then I won't > bother trying to write the requisite GUI interface and docs that > I need to convince everyone to look at. I'm perfectly happy with > my command-line and scripts, what I have called a "retro-UNIX" environment, > for audio. This would likely work for many people I'm sure if the goal was to preprocess a complete recording. > > So my question is whether or not anyone else has a use or need for this > type of sound --- vastly improved headphone sound? This is the part of your presentation that I find interesting and somewhat different than my view. I personally don't think good headphones make most recordings sound bad. Bad headphones sound bad no matter what the recording. Bad recording can sound very bad in headphones, but really good recordings sound quite good. (To me... I listen to about 3-4 hours of music a day on headphones and am quite used to hearing certain recordings both ways.) Headphones do tend to sound a lot more 'close in' than listening in an open room though and certainly you're technology tend to give more sense of space. This could also have some uses in just some specialized mixing applications where you want to give some distance to a single instrument, for instance, so I'd encourage you to think about bit about how this technology relates to bus oriented reverbs, etc. > This is a way of > creating accurate but simulated binaural recordings for larger rooms from > a monophonic, dry signal. It's a better way of producing what you actually > hear in a room than that which is done with the typical mixer and synth. So is this IR based? I've been testing a new IR reverb that's not on the market yet. It's quite nice. > > Thanks again for your response. My pleasure. - Mark
