[KH]

On 11/6/2013 9:04 AM, news wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 8:56:15 AM UTC-8, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Scott wrote:

On Monday, November 4, 2013 12:22:08 PM UTC-8, Gary Eickmeier wrote:


You can develop the entire system, from microphones to number
snip

A major part of the distinction involves the fact that we cannot, nor does
the system attempt to, reproduce a perfect "you are there" complete acoustic
picture of some original sound scene. It is not recorded that way, and it is
not supposed to be played to achieve that. The microphones are placed much
closer to the instruments than a dummy head or the live listener would sit,
and the channels are recorded and built to mimic that live sound at the
front of your room, and then let the natural acoustics localize the sound
and place it in a real space.

To push the analogy one step further, think of my player piano analogy.
Oscar Peterson records a song on a player piano. You put that player piano
in another room and play the digital keystrokes.

Well, you aren't playing "digital keystrokes", you are using digital
technology to perfectly recreate the actual keystrokes on a real piano.

It sounds perfectly real,
and undeniably so.

Because it *is* real. There is little, if any, resemblance between
recording mechanical movements (keys), and recording an acoustic event.

Then substitute microphones for the digital cartridge
that recorded him and speakers for the player piano. The speakers should
have a similar radiation pattern to the piano, and should be placed
similarly to the way the original was placed. It will sound just as real.

No, it won't. The piano has it's own distinct radiation pattern, and
you aren't recording that information at all, not to mention
inaccuracies in the microphones themselves. Just putting that signal
into speakers that are "similar" to the piano's, in "similar" locations,
will not result in a similar sound. *You* might think it sounds real,
but it will not sound like the piano playing in the same space.


You have done stereo with no reference to the human hearing system.

So? You've created a stereo piano that doesn't sound like the "real" piano.

snip

If you duplicate the SOUND of a live event in another space,


You can't. So your premise is dead in the water right there.

I hope that you can see that this would be a false goal for stereophonic, as
opposed to binaural.

Uhm, nope.

A whole different system with different goals.
Audiophiles have been laboring for a hundred years now under the mistaken
assumption that the recording contains this perfect picture of some original
sound,

Really? Funny that none of them have ever posted in this group.
Absolutely the opposite is routinely stated here, and given as the
primary reason a "perfect" reproduction is unobtainable.

shot from the best seat in the house so that if you play it back with
enough "accuracy" it will transport you to the location of the microphones.
We need to erase that assumption and replace it with the actual system as
described above. Not easy.

Because, IMO, it is simply a wrong assumption, and an inaccurate
characterization of the "opposing" position. If you can make the
playback system sufficiently "accurate", control the radiation pattern
and room interactions, you can recreate the acoustic signal that was
recorded. We all know that will *NOT* recreate the sound at the
microphones. Once again, the recording is a 2 dimensional
representation of a 3-dimensional acoustic, and information describing
that 3rd dimension is *irretrievably* lost.


I realize that I am always beating this horse,

It's dead, you can stop now.

Basically, you want to give up all pretense of being accurate to the
recorded signal (to the extent practicable) in favor of a system that
has "realism" as you - personally - see it. In essence, further
divorcing it from an accurate (again, to the extent practicable)
playback of the recording by introducing a panoply of reflected sounds.
Sounds which, importantly, were *not* present in the original venue,
or on the recording, to create an artificial sense of spaciousness that
you find realistic. You look at this as creating a new "performance" in
your room, while adding reflections "similar" to those that would be
obtained from the musicians playing in some venue. To you this is
realism. I look at it as distortion of the recorded signal through
addition of comb filtering artifacts, superposition distortion, and
inaccurate and unrealistic directional information. Both of these
positions are valid, the distinction being in the ear of the beholder.

I find it astounding that you can read Scott's description of HIS ideal
system, and still think that he would listen to your ideal system and
through an epiphany, change his mind about realism. Or mine.

You simple refuse to believe that people have different interpretations
of "realism".

As the man said, "When all else fails, we can whip the horse's eyes/And
make them sleep, and cry." Time to let that poor horse catch some zzz's.

Keith