Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> writes:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 04:48:42AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
I'm against the useless physical units and denominator. Just the ratios of the positions to one another matter; the whole thing is scale-invariant for all practical purposes.
Well, it is not scale-invariant, yeah the world sucks ... The speed of sound is not infinite and more distant speakers will have their signal hit the listener later. That causes a phase shift and could change a 2*sin() to 0*sin().
In the range of sane distances, is this really an issue? I'm thinking anywhere from headphones to theaters. Somehow I suspect the speed of sound and the frequencies involved make it irrelevant but I didn't work out the math.
Audible wavelengths range roughly from 20m to 0.02m. If there is coherence between the channels, interference effects are readily observed moving around a room with two speakers. Any half-decent surround sound system has adjustable delays per channel to allow compensating for speaker placement.
So a system of a speaker at 1m and one at 2m will would sound different from one with a speaker at 1km and 2km (with the volume turned up sufficiently)
WOW I want those speakers! :)
Iam not saying that there is any need or sense to store this nor that i would know what a decoder would do with that information, but i do know copper purity counters will prefer NUT over other formats if the distance is stored.
Well I would like to see some mathematical/physical reason that it's potentially useful rather than the opinions of people who pay for solid-gold *digital* audio cables to give their sound "more body"...
Agree. -- Måns Rullgård mans@mansr.com