The End of The Objective Point of View?

[Galliardist]

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.

I think you just changed your terms of reference from a live unamplified performance to a particular form of recording (close miked). Live performances are miked in a number of different ways and as such from different positions. We are dependent on the skill of the recording engineer to select a suitable recording method and microphone positions for recording such a performance.

Of course, in studio recordings close positioning of microphones is a very common method, but even then not the only one. Anything done in a studio is essentially illusory, and its own reference.

I'd say your "phone" reference falls into the same error that the late Harry Pearson (sorry to bring religion into it) made all those years ago, when he specified a particular position in a hall as his reference. It's most unlikely that that one position or one seat/phone is going to give the most accurate tonality or allow access to the clearest exposure of a musician's skill for all instruments and performers.

 

[charleski]

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.

What's really unfortunate is that Wigner was a very important figure in the evolution of modern scientific philosophy, but that's all glossed over here. His paper on the 'Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics' still comes up repeatedly in discussions on the topic (there was one on World Science Festival recently).

Subjectivists like to claim that digital audio is actually 'analog', pointing to eye patterns and the old jitter trope. But Mathematical Realism holds that mathematical constructs actually form the only true reality, therefore what we think of as 'analog' is actually fundamentally digital.

 

[escksu]

I think you just changed your terms of reference from a live unamplified performance to a particular form of recording (close miked). Live performances are miked in a number of different ways and as such from different positions. We are dependent on the skill of the recording engineer to select a suitable recording method and microphone positions for recording such a performance.

Of course, in studio recordings close positioning of microphones is a very common method, but even then not the only one. Anything done in a studio is essentially illusory, and its own reference.

I'd say your "phone" reference falls into the same error that the late Harry Pearson (sorry to bring religion into it) made all those years ago, when he specified a particular position in a hall as his reference. It's most unlikely that that one position or one seat/phone is going to give the most accurate tonality or allow access to the clearest exposure of a musician's skill for all instruments and performers.

Hmm... you are not getting what I meant. Maybe its due to the way I phrase it. OK, I will just stop here. Perhaps if there is a chance in the future I could explain it in person or a video chat instead of typing on the forum, it will be way better.

Btw, let me guess, you are right handed? Don't take it in a negative way. I am left handed so I tend to think in pictures and quite often people have problems understanding me, esp. in words. Eg. when I was talking about the phone recording, I was not actually talking about the phone.

 

[escksu]

Subjectivists like to claim that digital audio is actually 'analog', pointing to eye patterns and the old jitter trope. But Mathematical Realism holds that mathematical constructs actually form the only true reality, therefore what we think of as 'analog' is actually fundamentally digital.

I don't quite get what you meant by digital audio is actually analog.

 

[charleski]

I don't quite get what you meant by digital audio is actually analog.

It's a common bit of marketing hand-waving: route a digital transmission line into an oscilloscope and point at the eye pattern then exclaim that the transitions aren't perfectly aligned, therefore the signal is actually analog and you need to buy their hand-made cryo-treated super-premium cable to make sure you get all the precious precious bits properly.

 

[escksu]

It's a common bit of marketing hand-waving: route a digital transmission line into an oscilloscope and point at the eye pattern then exclaim that the transitions aren't perfectly aligned, therefore the signal is actually analog and you need to buy their hand-made cryo-treated super-premium cable to make sure you get all the precious precious bits properly.

Oh ok. Talking about this, actually digital is sometimes worse than analog and is harder to "get it right". IMHO, people tend to think about digital as 1s and 0s and its not susceptible to noise unlike analog etc... However, its not that simple. Regarding alignmnent, I guess you are referring to phase or jitter issue. Yes, this is still an issue today even in modern equipment. Below is just something I have read quite some time ago about jitter.

https://www.analog.com/media/en/reference-design-documentation/design-notes/dn1013f.pdf

 

[nerdstrike]

Well... You know... analogue and digital are a false dichotomy. Assuming the correctness of the very successful works of Schroedinger, Fermi, Pauli etc. Reality is distinctly quantised to infinite states.

Analogue behaviour manifests where the quantised states are close together in energy that we cannot discern the steps. What we call digital in electronics is a macroscopic property of "analogue" behaviours that stabilise reliably into to two measurable states. Excluding quantum computing, but even there we have a journey to the macroscopic where we must approximate the fundamental states.

Personally I think mathematical realism doesn't apply here. A mathematical approximation can be self consistent and adhere to axioms, but that doesn't mean it applies to reality that it approximates.

 

[Jim Matthews]

Schrodinger’s cat is not impressed.

When YOU look in the box, maybe.

It might be your accent.

https://imgur.com/a/yi78iz9

 

[Jim Matthews]

I don't quite get what you meant by digital audio is actually analog.

"Subjectivists like to claim"

 

[escksu]

Well... You know... analogue and digital are a false dichotomy. Assuming the correctness of the very successful works of Schroedinger, Fermi, Pauli etc. Reality is distinctly quantised to infinite states.

Analogue behaviour manifests where the quantised states are close together in energy that we cannot discern the steps. What we call digital in electronics is a macroscopic property of "analogue" behaviours that stabilise reliably into to two measurable states. Excluding quantum computing, but even there we have a journey to the macroscopic where we must approximate the fundamental states.

Personally I think mathematical realism doesn't apply here. A mathematical approximation can be self consistent and adhere to axioms, but that doesn't mean it applies to reality that it approximates.

Yes, I fully agree. Digital signal does not actually exist.

However, regarding the steps, I think we can discern it (at least in theory) using planck unit. Eg. for time, it increases in increments of planck's time (10^-43 sec). So so planck's scale, we can list changes in steps. Of course, we currently have no means to measure it.

 

[charleski]

Personally I think mathematical realism doesn't apply here. A mathematical approximation can be self consistent and adhere to axioms, but that doesn't mean it applies to reality that it approximates.

Well I doubt that those writing on Mathematical Realism could care less about audio debates . But there are some compelling arguments in the field once you get into them. And, as you mentioned, quantum mechanics does seem to imply that Natural numbers have a real physical instantiation.

 

[mhardy6647]

Schrodinger’s cat is not impressed.

actually it was both impressed and unimpressed - at the same time.
'til someone peeked.

 

[Galliardist]

Hmm... you are not getting what I meant. Maybe its due to the way I phrase it. OK, I will just stop here. Perhaps if there is a chance in the future I could explain it in person or a video chat instead of typing on the forum, it will be way better.

Btw, let me guess, you are right handed? Don't take it in a negative way. I am left handed so I tend to think in pictures and quite often people have problems understanding me, esp. in words. Eg. when I was talking about the phone recording, I was not actually talking about the phone.

I do get what you are trying to say, or at least I think I do. You’re referring to the audience location not the recording medium. I was the one who wasn’t clear.

Yes, I am right handed…

 

[Galliardist]

I don't quite get what you meant by digital audio is actually analog.

Electrical digital signals are an analog signal switching between a high frequency representing 1 and a low frequency representing 0. Along with the transition between frequencies, and of course noise.

 

[ahofer]

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.

True, but we could determine the playback had the greatest fidelity to the sound at that position, or whether the final production has been degraded by equipment through the chain.

 

[tomtoo]

Electrical digital signals are an analog signal switching between a high frequency representing 1 and a low frequency representing 0. Along with the transition between frequencies, and of course noise.

Dont understand you? A digital signal is digital, couse you differ between two states.
It could be voltage,frequency ,flags or smell. If you can interpret two states, and do this, its digital.

 

[MRC01]

Einstein was brilliant, but Newton is a lot more useful for solving practical problems.

True. The original article is misleading as it extends an observable conundrum far outside the scope in which it can occur. It's a bit like allowing my knowledge of quantum tunneling, to make me worry that my coffee cup will fall through my desk.

 

[Timcognito]

Subjectivist or objectivist the quality of the recording and love for the music that moves you for outweighs a SINAD of 90 vs 115. For recording, placing 2 high performing microphones ~7 ft apart (L and R speakers) or ~7 inches apart (L and R ears) positioned in front of the orchestra in a equilateral triangle to the width of the orchestra should yield a accurate stereo recording depending on whether playback is on speakers or headphones. The closeness to the performer would vary with the number of the performers and type of instruments. Also nobody coughing or humming along helps too.

 

[Echoa]

Einstein was brilliant, but Newton is a lot more useful for solving practical problems.

Considering most of the modern technology you use is based on the work of him and his peers id disagree. Newtons laws dont scale down and only work on the macroscopic level. Once you get down to the subatomic and quantum levels newton falls apart.

I.E Your SSD (assuming you have one) uses quantum wave mechanics to accomplish its operation. These days CPUs are getting so small that we have to deal with the effects of quantum tunneling and electrons not behaving how we want them to, etc.

 

[Echoa]

See this link.

The thing about "Reality" and objectivity is that unless you know EVERYTHING you can never be truly certain of not only your experience but your results. Everyone views the world through the lens of your brain which will interpret things as best it can and there is always a time delay so we are creatures perpetually stuck in the past.

Science and measurement looks to remove the human filter from the equation but being designed and built by humans through our experience means that no matter what things are inherently flawed and as time goes on inevitably become more concrete or are dis-proven. There never was an objective view in the grand sense but objectivity within the confines of our current knowledge and experience is the best we can do.

Objectivity in Context is just fine, but objectivity in the grand scheme of things is a constantly moving goal post of re-evaluating information over time and proving it true or false under new context.