Fascinating article that was well written and filled with interesting and thought provoking information and concepts.  Thanks for sharing it.

     If rocket scientist Choueiri's BAACH filter- “Band-Assembled Crosstalk Cancellation Hierarchy" - is proven to work as well on regular and hi-rez stereo content as it currently does on the lossy MP3 content,  I'd definitely give it a try.


Im glad you enjoyed the article. I'm going to be rereading it as it really was thought provoking. I know it was a long one but I hope others get a chance to sink their teeth in as well. 

Interesting read!  Matthew Polk addressed this in the 80’s with SDA technology (Stereo Diminsion Array) quite effectively.

Good read. Pleasantly surprised to see it was written by Gopnik. I read his ’Paris to the Moon' which is one of my favorite books.

Um, I found it boring and not very informative. Understanding on how 3D sound works is something we all should have known many moons ago. Also, the relative reason we are attracted to music and its recreated form is not news, either.

At one time we all were listening recreated music through compromised electronics. It was the love of music and the exposure to quality that got us moving. However, some folks will never value quality as much as we do. And, for them, good enough is good enough.

I'm a burger fan but I would never eat a McDonalds' burger. Although, many burger fans only eat at McDonalds. That doesn't make them any less of a burger fan.

     There's one like you in every group.

     Sometimes it's better to resist posting if you have no constructive input.

     I think your now the undisputed leader for Audiogon's 2017 WORST POST OF THE YEAR award!

Congrats Sunshine,

Because I said it was well written but not informative. Because I said what attracts folks to music is different.

I because I said I like burgers but not McDonald's but that doesn't make me better or worse than anyone else.

I'm miffed.

If the way I said it offends you, well, my apology. It wasnt meant to.

I think if you read any post I have ever submitted you'll agree that I'm straight forward and without malice.
If this article shed  new light on an old subject for you, that's great. For me it didn't. And I would guess for most here it doesn't.

But thanks for sharing and I'm glad new folks are exposed to this.

BTW, in 30 years when you read an article which covers this again you'll understand better my comment. 


The thing that struck me about your first post was how negative it was.  
Here's how I saw it:
fourwinds posts and links an article he read that he thought fellow members might find interesting.
I saw his post yesterday, read the linked article and thought it was well written.  It contained  information that was new to me and  I considered it thought provoking.    
I posted a reply telling him this and thanking him for sharing.

The next several posters basically do the same.

Then you posted stating the article was boring, not very informative, contained information we should have all already known, why we are attracted to music is old news, we all began by listening to music via compromised electronics, love of music spurred us to higher quality gear, some people just accept lower quality and your not fond of McDonald's burgers.

My thoughts were in order:
"Boy, that's an odd and unnecessary reply post."
"Why so negative?"
"Why did this guy even feel the need, and take the time, to post that nonsense?"
"Maybe this guy's diaper is just full."
"I should reply and give this guy some shit."

You may be straight forward and without malice.  But I don't know you and perhaps I made a somewhat hasty negative judgment about you due to your overly negative post,  
 I was more puzzled than offended by your reply post.  But I responded mainly because I thought you were being needlessly rude to the OP, fourwnds,

I have no malice towards you. I just thought you could use a little tuneup.

Your summary is for the most part correct. I was just giving my opinion on the artical, which since it differed from others, felt it had value.

However, I did not mean to condescend those that found it of value bit rather point out I did not find anything new there and to underscore that the love of music is the love of music regardless of quality.

Peace out.

@raymonda  your opinion is perfectly valid and well expressed, and contributes to the thread. Thanks for sharing it and don't sweat the criticism.
Hi raymonda,

     I don't see my last post here. How'd you read it?

     I think the moderator deleted it because I swore.

Although I don't believe the articles intended audience was necessarily the audio playback crowd and aside from being something very well written about my favorite subject-audio, and how often does one come across that, I was particularly intrigued by a box that could provide 3D sound. It's been an elusive and kind of a grail type quest that I've encountered to varying degrees through various system changes. I had subscribed to the conventional wisdom that source was where it all starts and speaker/room relationships were key to gettin her done. If I'm to take the author at his word and ancillary equipment and room questions aside,my audio world view has been rearranged.  a '13 iPod MP3 blue toothed the Stones into the room?  Anyway the article is an archived one and little has come of this majik black box, that I'm aware of anyway and at least for now can rest but for how long who knows that all my hard work and money hasn't been misplaced. 

       Dr. Choueiri of Princeton has a website devoted to his 3D audio research.  This is a link to the site:
Noble100, thank you for that! I'm looking forward to checking out the link ASAP.