[Fwd: 16:9 Aspect Ratio]

[Dan.Strassberg]

If the TV that displays the four-way videoconference were equipped
with, say, 5.1 surround sound (I'm not positive I understand what that
technogibberish means--but I think I have an idea), is it more likely,
less likely, or equally likely that a viewer/listener could pick out
what a particular individual was saying and make sense of it--compared
with what the viewer/listener could do if all of the sound from all
four conference participants were mixed into a single loudspeaker of
similar quality?

-----
Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net)
eFax 1-707-215-6367

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Doherty" <dave@skywaves.net>
To: "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@bimajority.org>
Cc: <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: 16:9 Aspect Ratio]


>> That doesn't necessarily imply *listening* to four things at once,
>> just monitoring them to the point of determining which one requires
>> immediate attention.
>
> Agreed.  I was thinking about actively listening and comprehending.
>
> The cleanest scenario I can think of is a quad-split video
> conference in which all four participants are on screen
> simultaneously. They can be moving about, gesturing, scratching,
> whatever without being overly disturbing.  But if all four speak at
> once, it is impossible - in real time - to sort out what they are
> all saying. With really good digital processing applied to an
> excellent recording, you might be able to sort it out afterwards.
>
> -d
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@bimajority.org>
> To: "Dave Doherty" <dave@skywaves.net>
> Cc: <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 12:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: 16:9 Aspect Ratio]
>
>
>> <<On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:52:14 -0500, "Dave Doherty"
>> <dave@skywaves.net> said:
>>
>>> Absent earbuds, we can only listen to one aural source at a time.
>>> With
>>> earbuds, and with long-term practice, we may be able to actively
>>> monitor as
>>> many as two aural channels.
>>
>> Obviously you haven't traveled with Mr. Fybush.
>>
>> I think it's possible to handle about four distinct sources,
>> provided
>> they are all physically separated.  That doesn't necessarily imply
>> *listening* to four things at once, just monitoring them to the
>> point
>> of determining which one requires immediate attention.  My own
>> hearing
>> isn't good enough to do more than three, sometimes two.  (I also
>> have
>> trouble keeping up a conversation in a noisy restaurant, for the
>> same
>> reason.)
>>
>> -GAWollman
>>
>>
>