I still think an assessment with ear and brain and a defined reference is superior in terms of measurement, in terms of what matters to the listener.
In other words, an ABC/hr double-blind test.
I still think an assessment with ear and brain and a defined reference is superior in terms of measurement, in terms of what matters to the listener.
Reproduced music is all but live music. Best you can do is maintain tonal accuracy through the producing chain and illusion of orchestra. Don't even dream of replicating the acoustic power of a band in your room
Power of an orchestra might be 70W, but in what [concert hall] volume? At what listening range? You do not need that power (level) in your room, at a few meters (It will deafen you). And even it a speaker efficiency is 3% (sounds way low, maybe another ‘matter of definition’ disconnect), yet regardless, there is hardly a problem providing 2.3kW of (now electrical) amplification.
Now you'll have to define what you mean by "source" and "true to". Since none of those recording "events" could possibly have the detailed information available to create or recreate them, they'll have to be TONS of interpolation. That may be incredible, but no more "true to the source" than having tech that can get Jimi to play "Purple Haze" in my living room.We can take it - the concept - even further. At some distant future, thanks to progress of the AI, everyone will have a personal copy of “pocket Genesis” (Peter Gabriel‘s Genesis that is), “pocket Pink Floyd” (don’t get me started, whose Pink Floyd), “pocket Beatles” (maybe we can settle on just George)... Upon demand, we would summon those to play a tune-or-two for us. And it will be undeniably, unquestionably “true to the source” high-fidelity experience... Someday.
And that's ***ALL*** you get from 2 channels.
It's a fact, live with it.
@j_j It's illuminating. Makes sense for the complexity of a [large] orchestra in a concert hall. Does the same applies to an all-electric rock concert? (Yes, there is/might still be a 'venue', but all the 'live' music goes through a limited number of speakers). What about a (relatively small) chamber or jazz trio/quartet? What about a solo singer? Can those be captured (eg binaurally) and represented with "high fidelity'?
What about 5.1? 7.1? Any hope for [better] high-fidelity there?
And, can you elaborate a bit on your "Well, in a nutshell, first arrival is very important under 500Hz, and first arrival of the signal envelope likewise over 2kHz"? You lost me there, quite a bit...
*
It's simply not correct, two microphones at a distance can do it, even with a symphony orchestra,
1. Lie detectors suck. Pseudo science at best. So just a messy example.
2. Fair enough, but ultimately we should be able to (and I am confident we will be able to) model why particular emotional responses arise and predict them given a set of inputs (e.g., a room, a recording and measurements for a given audio device chain).
3. Facebook, google are farther along doing this sort of thing for consumer preference/emotional response than I think people realize. Things are progressing rapidly in this space. Prediction of individual thoughts based on group data plus some individual modeling is getting pretty good. I don't know if you count that as reading thoughts, but if the system makes the correct predictions for you, then it is essentially doing so (by some definition).
I think you need a bit more reading to be in Page of the people explaining stuff to you.Are we sure about that? Is there some reading you can point me at? [I am genuinely curious about the state of it in the audio. Just a few posts above we were saying that any signal can be represented by a combination of amplitudes and phases... That and [linear] superimposition... ]
Do we really have to put up with this?No I do not, it seems a bit like it is you who do not know how stereo works
Apparently not...Do we really have to put up with this?
No Sir you do not.Do we really have to put up with this?
Hmm.... There are still many things we dont understand and dont know, esp. our brain. Maybe one day, we can really measure these emotions/feelings from our brain. Maybe one day, we are able to measure every aspect of sound.
Some of the de-noising approaches also add signal (e.g., when, for a given time increment, there is significant signal drop when noise is accounted for - essentially trying to reconstruct the signal that was masked by the noise). Isn't that adding lost information - based on the surrounding signal, the model makes a guess about what was lost.Removing artefacts that look like noise is indeed common and been used for decades.
It is very, very different from attempting the impossible of adding "lost" information when there is no way to know what was lost.
You cat train modern AI (eg, a neural net) on a bunch of faces, so the AI can compose a realistic-looking face following the trained pattern, or fill in missing pixels... But if I delete my mustache from a photo, it will never guess and reconstruct its shape or color. The same with audio - there can be (are?) some pattern-based [reconstruction] filters, and the AI now can even compose music pieces - again by identifying and following patterns... but it cannot recreate missing uncorrelated, non-redundant sound information.