Good point: No one who has had the actual experience will be capable of judging its reproduction!I imagine the part in the opening scenes on the beach where explosions cause temporary hearing loss to be pretty real.
Good point: No one who has had the actual experience will be capable of judging its reproduction!I imagine the part in the opening scenes on the beach where explosions cause temporary hearing loss to be pretty real.
No it can't. You can reproduce to a particular level of authenticity and that is it; currently.It can always be done. Be it recorded into mono and reproduced as a point source in a given space; or setting up speakers with the 60° equilateral triangle relation to resemble the 180° front field
If you want something more than that you can see before your eyes, just go multi-channel, that's what it is meant for.
Pearson had to concoct all manner of language and mythology in order to sanctify his 'anointing' or 'dissing' of audio components for an audience who needed to be told how to hear. He had to add enough poetics to make the process entertaining.
The 'absolute sound' at best is auditory memory with a recognition reflex. Both are vague and unreliable. Pearson wrote from on high as if he had an eidetic auditory cortex that he could re-play in his head and form judgments. I guess you could call that the 'absolute assertion' rather than the 'absolute sound'. The position is absurd, but people love their authorities and autocratic didacts, so he thrived on his fiction.
I do love it when my stereo fools me and makes me think it sounds very real, but it is usually a 'fly by' temporary situation, and it means it has engaged my cortical reflexes in a positive way. However, I would never make the pretense that it bears any resemblance to the original instrument in real space except by coincidence. It's possible that some renditions on the stereo might sound more 'real' due to recording and playback techniques than the original performance.
People seem not to be remembering that the audio system isn't providing the accompanying visuals, etc. to go with the audio it is producing. This is bound to affect your perception as to whether it is 'fooling you'.
Even if the audio was a perfect facsimile of an event, or perfectly plausible, the lack of the rest of the experience would be enough for many people to be incapable of judging it so. Part of the 'skill' of listening to audio may be to learn to hear past *all* the missing information.
People seem not to be remembering that the audio system isn't providing the accompanying visuals, etc. to go with the audio it is producing. This is bound to affect your perception as to whether it is 'fooling you'.
Even if the audio was a perfect facsimile of an event, or perfectly plausible, the lack of the rest of the experience would be enough for many people to be incapable of judging it so. Part of the 'skill' of listening to audio may be to learn to hear past *all* the missing information.
When you summon invisible musicians to your living room, how should it work? A girl-and-guitar; a pianist playing a grand piano that would actually not fit into your room; an orchestra in an auditorium that is 100 times the volume of your room?Alas, I was born to late to expect to ever experience a real "holodeck" experience like as portrayed in the Star Trek series of TV shows and films. I hope if such "multimedia" experiences they do come along in the future - immersion style and not via goggles - some of you younger people here will still be around to experience tham. (And debate the realism factors of such technologies.
I was an usher for the Chicago Symphony during my high school days in the 1950's when Fritz Reiner was conductor, and subscribed to the San Fransisco Symphony for a few years much later. With a fair amount of classical concert attendances under my belt, I can still appreciate classical music - even orchestral pieces - on a decent stereo. In the same manner, I can still enjoy photos or a video of Yosemite Valley, even though no electronic reproduction will ever bring back the thrill of standing on the top of Half Dome and looking over the edge into the valley, or enjoying views at overlooks at many other scenic areas.
Unrealistic expectations can prevent enjoyment of many good things in life.
Obviously there's the challenge with the recording and optimal recording techniques and the speakers need to be superb, but oivavoi touched on something that doesn't seem to be very popular to debate here and that is the acoustics. You cannot take this part out as it has a huge effect one areas lik the timbre, localization, resolution, spaciousness, etc.. You have to emulate the concert hall acoustics to some degree and that's actually possible with a dedicated room of decent size. It was studied over decades.
And they really would not want them played back at the real volume.In addition, raw, uncompressed, un-normalized, live mic feeds are not actually what most people want for home reproduction.
I've always wondered if this would work well, good to know it does. If recordings were delivered like this it would allow all sorts of optimisations in the reproduction system, a speaker for drums could be different than the vocal speaker etc, and they could be placed at optimum points in the playback room for the job they do.I've found doing close miking either in a dead room or a large space, playing back that one microphone feed over one speaker makes for a big jump in realism. I've done simple experiments where I had 3 to 5 musicians with each having their own mike. Then playback over 3 to 5 speakers so each musician gets a speaker.
Yep, just look at the first chart in the following.Why do audiophiles often eschew orchestral music in favour of solo violin or girl-and-guitar when demonstrating their systems? Because the problems don't stand out as much.
Harry Pearson of TAS comes in for a lot of derision especially among the objectivist crowd.... Again, various sins can be pinned to Pearson (his confidence in his auditory recall could be galling). But I see the above as part of the straw-manning I was mentioning. It paints any readers of TAS, or adherents to the principle, as gullible unthinking sheep.
if not to teach like Audio [Magazine]
You rightfully demonize TAS but leave out their partners in crime, most especially the leaders of the pack over at Stereophile.That unfortunately is TAS's true legacy.
Audio was also my favorite, I knew HiFi was on it's way out as a mainstream interest when they closed their doors. Marking the end of the days when a good HiFi was the centerpiece of most living room entertainment medium next to the TV.In retrospect, I think that Audio Magazine was truly my favorite over the decades, and now, ASR is filling a similar role, but with the great modern addition participant internet forums to replace the extremely limited concept of "letters to the editor."
Prior to bonding with the original Audio Magazine, my favorite audio publication was the short-lived Audiocraft, the hand's-on mag from the publishers of High Fidelity: https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Audiocraft_Magazine.htm It was my entry drug.In retrospect, I think that Audio Magazine was truly my favorite over the decades, and now, ASR is filling a similar role, but with the great modern addition participant internet forums to replace the extremely limited concept of "letters to the editor."