Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
Satisfying is not necessarily realistic. And that is all he stated, satisfying.
You need to listen to Tomlinson Holmans 10.2 and see iwhish is more realistic. No, Toole didn't support you and confirmed the earlier study.
As I stated, someone should actually ask Toole what he meant in his statement. His statement is interesting, simply becuase what does he consider satisfying? Not being realistic satisfied him? I dont know; but the subject of the paper was realism. He was not clear as to his opinion here.

On another note, I can tell you that it does not matter how realistic Tomilson Holman's 10.2 system may be; under certain circumstances, with a certain stereo and with specific recordings, stereo does sound realistic too me, compared to live acoustic events as my memory remembered them. Is the 10.2 system going to sound more real then the isolated circumstances/variables when a stereo has sounded realistic too me? How? Is the 10.2 going to sound more realistic then live performances? Remember, it is my perception at subject here. My perception was that stereo unde special conditions sounded realistic. Simple. I could be under the influence of bias, etc.. But like my earlier post stated, if such factors can cause such a perceptual effect, then what is the problem? I'm sure a proper multi channel recordig/playback process will produce realistic effects that are reliable(unlike stereo) and can be geared towards mutliple listeners and over broader seating ranges, unliike stereo.

-Chris