Talk:Binaural recording

Merge from Dummy head recording
I suggest this article be merged with Binaural recording since they really cover the same thing, just with different names. -- Egil 20:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: I agree. (am changing tags to to/from specific) -Quiddity 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Disagree. Dummy head recording is one particular way of doing binaural recording (there are minor variations, mostly regarding the head, wig, dress, placement); there are many other ways of making binaural recordings. You could make a section of the binaural recording article about dummy head recording, I suppose, but at that point a link to this article (expanded, I hope) would be equally in order, and help elminate the confusion that they are two names for the same thing. htom 15:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dummy head recording is indeed a subsection of Binaural recording, and a merge would make that clearer. Dummy head refers to a specific method of capturing the audio, for a binaural recording. Having them separate means that all has to be explained twice. The example audio file and image are already at Binaural.
 * Also, look at any featured article to see how long they generally are. Length is a good thing, it encourages collaboration at a single location. --Quiddity 06:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm replacing the merge tags that were removed, and copying this thread to Talk:Binaural recording. --Quiddity 06:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Still opposed to the merge. Stereo recording <> binaural recording <> Dummy head recording. That this article confounds dummy head with binaural is a good reason to re-write this article; it is a very bad reason to merge the two, which would only perpetuate the confusion of the two (well, many) different techniques. Binaural is perhaps more properly characterised as a goal, with dummy head as a method -- one of several -- of approaching that goal. Reducing the number of articles for the sake of reducing the number of articles while continuing a mispreception is not, or should not be, a goal of good encyclopedic editing. htom 05:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody said anything about stereo recording. (?!)
 * And you seem to agree, that "Dummy head recording" refers to a specific method for obtaining a "Binaural recording". As in, that is all it's ever used for. Hence, it belongs as a subsection of Binaural recording. I've moved the merge tag and image down to make that clearer. The redirect would lead to the specific article section.
 * Lastly, I'm trying to increase the comprehensiveness of this article, not reduce the article count!
 * That make sense? --Quiddity 06:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Opposed to merge. Manikins used for this purpose are not only used for audio recording in the arena of recording studios and music. These manikins, such as KEMAR, are used extensively in Audiology research.  I have seen many manikins wearing hearing aids to investigate the effects of hearing aid processing on speech signals.  In fact, a lot of these instances are done as monaural recordings, rather than binaural. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.116.93 (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
 * The above comment about mono recording with a dummy head is most likely true, and does make sense. However until some references are provided to justify this position from a scientific point of view, I would go with the merger of the two articles. The dummy head article can always be created again if needed, if strong foundation is provided--Mike Sorensen 05:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now: I wanted to support the merge until I read that it is also possible to create binaural recordings by sticking microphones in your own ears. I now think it is fine to develop the articles separately for a while. Let's put more effort into developing copy and citations and less into deciding how it should be organized. --Kvng (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Anatomically accurate ear with canal - explanation seems incomplete
The reasoning behind this in the current [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binaural_recording&oldid=1041505255] doesn't seem complete. As I understand it, binaural recording is generally intended to record sound intended for reproduction by a listener wearing headphones or earbuds, rather than to capture the sound heard by a listener for scientific analysis or whatever. Therefore the purpose of capturing audio from with the ear canal seems unclear. While there are obvious differences between ear buds and over the ear head phones, neither significantly bypasses the ear canal. In both cases the audio still needs to go through the ear canal before it is heard or in other words the sound should be captured at the level either just before the ear (for over the ear headphones) or just inside the ear canal (for earbuds). Recording from within a stimulated ear canal would seem to just result in a "double" ear canal effect rather than increasing accuracy for the listener, although accepting that the sound produced by ear buds or ear phones is still likely to be far off from that which reaches the ears in a live situation. Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking into those more, both examples seem to be for testing headphones and earbuds where obviously what I said above wouldn't apply, instead it's more a form of scientific analysis where you do want to sense what the eardrums will receive. Neither of them seems related to binaural recording. I wonder if whoever added this didn't understand the purpose of binaural recording. Nil Einne (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of your points. However, I would add that that section did make the additional point that a truly accurate binaural microphone would place the capsules at the entrance of the canal, but keep a canal anyway to allow the sound-pressure wave to pass the capsule unobstructed (since in reality, there is no obstruction at the entrance of one's ear canal). Anyway, I read the section twice and feel that it was confusing at best. Since it didn't add anything of value to this article (just further confusion), I boldly removed it. – void  xor  18:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2021 and 25 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eric.collazo94. Peer reviewers: JFlor42, Azg20, Jwozniak19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Dummy head recording into Binaural recording
Too much overlap in the current shape of both articles to stand independently. Specifically, (1) the merge target BR article lists a bunch of dummy heads to record from [more than the DHR article does], and (2) the merge source DHR article also wants to touch the HRTF-simulated aspect. In addition, the monoaural DHR aspect mentioned in the 2007 merge-oppose argument never materialized in the text. Artoria2e5 🌉 09:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging participants from the 2006–2011 proposal, in case they are still active and interested: —   void  xor  22:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge: I agree wholeheartedly. I've been watching this article for awhile and apparently never bothered to follow the link to the DHR article. If I would have seen how much overlap there is... —  void  xor  01:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge: Per my comments in the two earlier merge discussions. I also still wonder if Holophonics ought to be at least mentioned/SeeAlso'd in this article. I'm not familiar enough with the topics to help, I just appreciate a good field-recording. Thanks for the ping, and for any improvements here! Quiddity (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge: Seems like dummy head recording would fit very well as a section of this article on binaural recording. The length of the dummy head recording article, which is quite short, looks like an appropriate length for a section in this article. Also, it's really cool that we got a response from almost 17 years ago. LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the East (talk &#124; worse talk) 01:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Unconditionally support.  02:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I support merging and any competent reviewer of this proposal should be able to read and understand the comments without bold barking of catchwords.  23:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Bad link in reference
Re this revert: I did not actually change the link target. I just moved it from "url" to "archive-url" and restored the original URL for this reference, so that the original source of the information is documented. This reference was one of a bunch, across many articles, where an editor fixed dead links in references by obtaining copies of them, hosting them on his own website, and replacing the original URL of the reference with one that pointed to his site. I fixed a bunch of these. When I edited this article yesterday, I kept the link to the "archive" but correctly recorded the original URL of the reference for posterity, linking to the archive as an archive.

The problem with users archiving references on their own sites is of course that those sites may eventually go down. Something like that may have happened here. The link worked fine for me yesterday, but today my antivirus flags the link target as a phishing site. I have removed the informal "archive" and left the link dead, since I have not been able to find another copy of the article online for free.

The reference does not appear to be a reliable source anyway, although it might qualify for use under WP:SELFPUB; it's hard to tell since I can't access a copy. -- Srleffler (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification; "botched" just made it sound like you were fixing a dead link using your WordPress site, or something.
 * You must use Avira, right? I ran the PDF through VirusTotal, and none of the 59 antivirus engines accused it of being infected. Scanning both URLs, Avira flags the AirSpeaker domain as phishing and that's it; the other 90 AV scanners allege no issues.
 * I had the same thought about WP:SPS. I'm not sure what to do there. It seems like a legit research paper from a legit organization. I'm not sure why they used WordPress. Like you, I sometimes disregard WP:SPS when it's a group-published PDF that's been reuploaded to a personal blog or website. —  void  xor  01:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)