[[email protected]]

On May 3, 8:09*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On May 2, 2:08*pm, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:

wrote in ...
It isn't about realism. If it is real it sounds real. Period. Sounds
better..... sounds worse....... That is certainly in play, but realism
isn't an issue with live acoustic music. It is real.

But it is an issue with reproduced music. The goal should be realism, not
"accuracy." I know this is heretical, but we are not "doing" accuracy,
because the recorded signal is not what we are trying to reproduce. We are
trying to reproduce the original acoustic event, the "thing" that was
recorded and compressed down into two or more audio channels. Running them
through two point sources and aiming them at your face is not the answer.

I think that depends greatly on the nature of the recording.
If you're talking about an unamplified acoustic guitar floating in
space about 5 ft in front of you or a vocalist softly singing, then
the direct nearfield approach works very well.
But if you're trying to recreate a concert hall with full orchestra
then the
more indirect approach works well to create that hall ambience which
can
be diminished with excessive directional cues in near field or in the
small room where the visual and audio cues become too contradictory.

If the direct cues are excessive in the near field then they are
simply excessive in the recording. I can make a very long list of
orchestral recordings in which this is not the case. But I still don't
see nor have I experienced the phenomenon of using the listening
room's own reverb in any way helping the illusion of transportation to
the original venue.


Realism is a perception which is subjective. Therefore there is no
best solution,
only a preferred solution.
I agree with the idea that accurate sonic recreation of the original
event isn't always adequate to create a convincing deception of being
in the presence of a live event. *Some of the most convincing systems
I've heard of being in the presence of an instrument being played were
not technically accurate systems at all. *They also had some
limitations that did not lend themselves well to all types of music
etc., but in limited cases they provided the most "realism" I've
experienced.

I think one has to consider that there is no "accurate recreation"
going on whatsoever in audio. Stereo recording and playback does not
in any way attempt to document and recreate the original three
dimensional soundspace of the original acoustic event in real time and
then reconstruct that. It is an aural illusion much like 3D glasses in
the movies and it has at least two *conversions* of energy from one
type of signal to another. With this in mine we can ask the question
about accruacy in each step in the chain and it's effect on the
illusion that is trying to be achieved. IME there seems to be euphonic
colorations that are universally helpful, colorations that are helpful
sometimes and colorations that are universally unhelpful. IME early
reflections in the playback room fall into catagory number three.