The End of The Objective Point of View?

[Blumlein 88]

There is still disagreement among fan of orchestral music as to whether a traditional 2 or 3 mic set-up or multi-mic set-up is better. There are arguments for and against each, multi-mic brings out more detail and tends to be more immediately impressive, but I tend to think a 2/3 mic set-up can better capture what the audience would hear (recognizing that that alters according to where you are in the audience). Ultimately it is probably about doing things well more than about which option is chosen.

You can do full surround recordings with as few as 3 microphones. I don't think there is any doubt if done equally well surround is more 'accurate' to the audience experience than stereo can be.

 

[JJB70]

You can do full surround recordings with as few as 3 microphones. I don't think there is any doubt if done equally well surround is more 'accurate' to the audience experience than stereo can be.

I think the multi-mic concept (a mic for each instrument or for groups of instruments) is more used to capture detail, if done well it is superb and it offers much more scope for mixing.

 

[escksu]

I think the multi-mic concept (a mic for each instrument or for groups of instruments) is more used to capture detail, if done well it is superb and it offers much more scope for mixing.

I am sure it does. However, that wouldnt be a representation of an actual un-amplified live performance. Because what the audience hear would be different.

So this is closely related to the age old question of whether a real live un-amplified performance is really the best.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I think the multi-mic concept (a mic for each instrument or for groups of instruments) is more used to capture detail, if done well it is superb and it offers much more scope for mixing.

Of course more channels to mix is more possible ways for the recording to sound. But that doesn't mean it will get you closer to an audience perspective. More often than not it is used for that detail, but when you listen live that abundant detail isn't there for you. Not saying such a recording isn't enjoyable just that one is mixing up whether enjoyment or an accurate audience perspective is the goal.

IMO, one method which isn't uncommon and works well is for a stereo pair and a pair of flanking omnis for hall sound mixed to suit one's taste. Plus a small number of spot mikes for problematic areas or to feature soloists.

 

[JJB70]

My own entirely subjective opinion is that listening to music played on audio is second best. But it is hugely enjoyable and addresses the issue that we don't live in concert halls with performers ready to play whatever we ask for. I have never really been that opinionated on the multi-mic Vs stereo pair question as long as however the recording is done is to a good standard. Even then, I still listen to Kleiber's Beethoven 6 which is panned for technical quality (I believe the available recording was taken from a cassette tape) and have a mountain of music from the mono era which are far from great technical recordings which I love.

 

[xaviescacs]

I detest articles like this. They are poorly translating quantum theory and the experimental results into colloquial descriptions which are not really fit for the purpose. A very sloppy writer and one would need to go into much greater detail even for a layman reader for it to make any sense in regards to the experiment. This is just a sloppy clickbait title. The whole website looks that way, and refers to mostly pre-print articles.

This is just money for clicks, and we are contributors.

 

[xaviescacs]

Logic suggests to me that rather than irreconcilable realities, there was one underlying reality that allowed the observers to see different states.

The opinion that quantum theory in general is not convincing from the metaphysical point of view is quite common among people of any kind, Einstein included. And this "gaps" in the theory (my teachers would kill me for saying this), this inability to convince people by heart that things work just like that, is used by many to write tons and tons of nonsense.

 

[Galliardist]

Let me use a simple analogy about what is considered "live performance".

Imagine yourself listening to a live piano performance. Now, imagine youself sitting or standing in these positions.

1. Right behind the person performing
2. 1m away from the soundboard, squating at a height of around 1m.
3. front row seat to the right.
4. 20m away left corner.

What you hear (or even recorded) will not be the same. even though they are all considered real live performance. So, they are all correct, but all different. There is no way to determine which is considered golden standard.

It’s not a good analogy to the article. All of your observers see the piano being played. What is suggested in the article would be more akin to one observer watching a performance and the other watching the piano being tuned…

 

[escksu]

It’s not a good analogy to the article. All of your observers see the piano being played. What is suggested in the article would be more akin to one observer watching a performance and the other watching the piano being tuned…

I am not exactly relating to schrodinger's cat. Its more of the 2 keywords in the title 'Objective' and 'Reality'. That even when it comes to a live performance (which many here regard it as ultimate reference or golden standard for audio quality), there is no real standard to what constitutes as reference even though they are all real.

Does the pianist's perspective considered reference? Or is it the audience's perspective? They all hear the same performance. But the sound they heard are all different. So, which is the most accurate one? You might feel that pianist should be most accurate. However, no audience sits there when listening to a live performance. So, how can it be accurate?

 

[xaviescacs]

If one goes to the original article (by the way, published in 2019), the point here is if quantum mechanics models should also account for relativity between observers, meaning that, like in Einstein's relativity, there is no preferred point of view, all are valid and the model provides equations to relate measures between different observes. The rest is invented stuff to make some money.

This is the last sentence of the abstract:

If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free-choice,
this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way.

And this is the last paragraph of the conclusions:

Modulo the potential loopholes and accepting the pho-
tons’ status as observers, the violation of inequality (2)
implies that at least one of the three assumptions of free
choice, locality, and observer-independent facts must fail.
The related no-go theorem by Frauchiger & Renner [5]
rests on different assumptions which do not explicitly in-
clude locality. While the precise interpretation of Ref. [5]
within non-local theories is under debate [21], it seems
that abandoning free choice and locality might not re-
solve the contradiction [5]. A compelling way to accom-
modate our result is then to proclaim that “facts of the
world” can only be established by a privileged observer—
e.g., one that would have access to the “global wavefunc-
tion” in the many worlds interpretation [22] or Bohmian
mechanics [23]. Another option is to give up observer in-
dependence completely by considering facts only relative
to observers [24], or by adopting an interpretation such as
QBism, where quantum mechanics is just a tool that cap-
tures an agent’s subjective prediction of future measure-
ment outcomes [25]. This choice, however, requires us to
embrace the possibility that different observers irrecon-
cilably disagree about what happened in an experiment.
A further interesting question is whether the conclusions
drawn from Bell-, or Bell-Wigner tests change under rel-
ativistic conditions with non-inertial observers [26].

 

[Galliardist]

I am not exactly relating to schrodinger's cat. Its more of the 2 keywords in the title 'Objective' and 'Reality'. That even when it comes to a live performance (which many here regard it as ultimate reference or golden standard for audio quality), there is no real standard to what constitutes as reference even though they are all real.

Does the pianist's perspective considered reference? Or is it the audience's perspective? They all hear the same performance. But the sound they heard are all different. So, which is the most accurate one? You might feel that pianist should be most accurate. However, no audience sits there when listening to a live performance. So, how can it be accurate?

An interesting question. Objectively, all can be said to be “accurate”, as you put it. Why? Because the music and the qualities and musical choices made in the performance can be heard from all the locations in the room. A sensitive musician will respond to their internal mood, the music being performed, the acoustic of the room, the instrument and the audience, and no matter where you are you will hear and respond to those, features more important than the exact tonality of the instrument heard from a particular position.

Of course, there is a designed tonality to the instrument that will be heard from one area of the room. Think of a classical guitar - that is clearly not designed to be heard from the performer’s position and the player and guitar’s abilities to project the sound are key to the performance. Even so, you can sit behind and still gat what is going on.,,

 

[Jim Matthews]

This article neatly parallels my experience as a younger Man regarding fairness in the marketplace and the (then, anyway) looming conglomeration that eroded consumer choice.

There was a great deal of handwringing and performative posturing when Newspaper cameras showed up on campus. The same clowns prattling on about the "Evils of Capitalism" were perfectly content to buy clothes at Walmart and get most of their meals made by minimum wage staff at McDonald's.

****

Focusing on a topic like this means you can be an expert in something that can't be verified from results as it's untestable in our "meat space".

It's the modern equivalent of monks arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Spkrdctr]

The opinion that quantum theory in general is not convincing from the metaphysical point of view is quite common among people of any kind, Einstein included. And this "gaps" in the theory (my teachers would kill me for saying this), this inability to convince people by heart that things work just like that, is used by many to write tons and tons of audio nonsense.

Great post with my little one word change!

 

[Sal1950]

A recording does not have to be accurate, because it is the work of art. A reproduction of this work of art has to be as accurate as possible.

Exactly!
Very few recordings if any, since the advent of stereo have ever been recorded where the hasn't been some artistic decisions made in the presentation of the final product by the people behind the consoles. Even in the most minimalist 2 mic recordings things have been tweaked in the balance, tonality, etc. With classical and small group, minimalist recording attempts are made to reproduce the live event with a soundstage across the front of the room and many are truly outstanding.
As we more forward into modern popular, jazz, etc; you have zillion mics feeding a zillion channels with the final product becoming near as much the artistic production of the engineers and producers as the musicians themselves.
Much work is done in multich that not only attempts to use the ambiance to put you in a seat in the concert hall, but also as a artistic work of its own, with the production creating an immersive experience. Think of walking into a room with not just a painting on the wall in a frame, but where all four walls and the space in the middle becomes part of the musical experience.
In the sense of musical production there is no "accurate", there are only the choices that have been made in the way everyone involved have decided to present it to you.
Accurate is about having the ability to recreate the experience in the way they wanted you to hear it. The tonality and soundspace all being relative to that desire. Either your system can do that, or it can't.

 

[escksu]

An interesting question. Objectively, all can be said to be “accurate”, as you put it. Why? Because the music and the qualities and musical choices made in the performance can be heard from all the locations in the room. A sensitive musician will respond to their internal mood, the music being performed, the acoustic of the room, the instrument and the audience, and no matter where you are you will hear and respond to those, features more important than the exact tonality of the instrument heard from a particular position.

Of course, there is a designed tonality to the instrument that will be heard from one area of the room. Think of a classical guitar - that is clearly not designed to be heard from the performer’s position and the player and guitar’s abilities to project the sound are key to the performance. Even so, you can sit behind and still gat what is going on.,,

I would say this becomes alot harder for someone to both objectively and subjectively determine if the sound produced by the speakers are considered 'reference' or not. Technically, no recording done professionally is considered 'reference' because no audience would put their ears close up the the instrument or even a singer's mouth during a live performance.

If I were to say what is "reference", I think it would be an audience using personal phone to record a live performance. Because that would be closest to what the person sitting there really hears.

Its not a problem but just something to ponder upon.

 

[Deleted member 9685]

Whether or not there is an objective reality, I would still rely on SINAD and SNR instead of subjective feelings when I choose a new audio equipment.

If you stop using SINAD and SNR, you end up with subjective reviews that aren't really useful.
With subjective reviews, you can promote any low quality audio equipment.

When it comes to audio quality, you don't need to care about philosophical implications of quantum physics.
Measurements are practical. Let's keep it simple and practical.

Since people like to be philosophical here, I'm going to quote Leonardo Da Vinci.

Simplicity is the highest form of sophistication.

 

[MediumRare]

Schrodinger’s cat is not impressed.

 

[Deleted member 9685]

Schrodinger’s cat is not impressed.

Schrodinger's girl friend was not satisfied.

 

[tmtomh]

See this link.

This is about epistemology, not empirical measurements of reality.

The article is an example of deeply unscientific reporting about science.

 

[Chromatischism]

I would say they are all brilliant instead of doing a comparison. Do note that GPS would not be possible without taking special relativity into account. We now also know the ultimate speed in the universe, 299,792,458 m/s. This speed can never be broken.

I was about to say. I consider GPS to be pretty practical.