[William Sommerwerck]

"John Williamson" wrote in message ...

Or, it was as close as a sketch (The alternative at the time) but more
fashionable and didn't involve finding an artist.

Which proves what? A daguerreotype is a far more "accurate"
rendition than a sketch.

In some ways, yes, but you've already noted that it only uses part of
the available light spectrum and the grey scale is off. However, you
seem to have already convinced yourself that your theory that
photographs are always accurate and faithful renditions of reality, so
there's nothing more I can say on the subject.

I feel like Rumpelstiltskin jumping up and down.

"you seem to have already convinced yourself that your theory that
photographs are always accurate and faithful renditions of reality."

Where did I ever say anything like that? Please post it.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

John Williamson wrote:

Oh, thank you. I suppose, then, a Kodachrome is not a photograph.

Not in common parlance round here, no. It's a slide. Even when it's not
mounted as one. Then again, people still talk about watching a film, even
when it's been digitally produced and projected.

Yea verily; we still talk about what's on tape, even when recording to hard
drive.

You left out the second yea: "Yea, verily, yea!"

This proves my point -- most people see things in isolation. In other words,
people care only about isolated facts, rather than principles.

[William Sommerwerck]

"John Williamson" wrote in message ...

Or, in my case, flash memory, which doesn't even use magnetism.

Why is memory necessarily magnetic? Core memory disappeared decades ago, and
prior to that there was electrostatic memory and acoustic memory.

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 1/10/2014 1:26 p.m., Neil wrote:
On 9/30/2014 4:52 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than
sound recording.

I *really* disagree with this opinion.
Perhaps you only own one lens? ;-)

There have always been lenses of different focal lengths (though not as
a wide a range as we've had since the middle of the 20th century). In
what sense does the presumed "compromise" of not having lenses that go
from 13mm to 2000mm have a parallel in sound recording?

The point is that *every* lens has compromises by design, whether in
DOF, color rendition, perspective distortion, resolution, etc., it's an
unavoidable aspect of lens design. Two lenses of different design will
not render a scene in the same manner, just as two microphones of
different design will not respond to an acoustic environment in the same
manner. Furthermore, every step in either process after those components
also impacts the "fidelity" of the final product, therefore, "fidelity"
becomes largely a matter of what is important to the producer, since
that is all the consumer has direct access to.

I've never heard a lens being described as having a particular 'character'
in the way almost all mics do ! (focal-length and gross technical flaws
excepted).

Though I do not at all agree with Neil on the broader issue of overall
fidelity, his point about lens "character" is largely correct. Complex lenses
vary in color rendition; a given manufacturer will try to get all its lenses
to have a similar balance. Digital image processing can remove this variation,
as it can image distortion. (Perspective distortion isn't distortion at all.
It varies with the distance from the object, and the "pitch" of the lens. It
is a normal part of projecting a three-dimensional object on a two-dimensional
surface, while retaining straight lines as straight, and right angles as right
angles.)

However, "Two lenses of different design will not render a scene in the same
manner..." is such a vague statement as to be meaningless. I doubt there would
be much, if any, visible difference between a shot made with an f2.8 Tessar,
and a seven-element f1.4 lens of the same focal length.

As for fidelity, I have a pretty good idea of what live sound "sounds like",
and this unavoidably informs my listening. The //apparent// fidelity of
recordings has noticeably improved since the introduction of SACD, but the
exact reasons for this improvement aren't clear.

About 20 years ago, J Gordon Holt made a recording of one of his articles (I
think it was "Why Experts Differ") using at least a dozen different mics. The
variation in sound was startling. I suspect that had the mics been limited to
the best professional condenser mics, the differences would have been
narrowed, but still plainly audible.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's
"realistic".

However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation
of the subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic
painting.

The hell it isn't. Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?
I'm not talking about "communication". I'm talking about
representation.

So was I, but that you see such a clear differentiation between the
two may be at the root of our disagreement. In the examples I gave,
"a good representation of the subject" is a matter of which
characteristics one chooses to compare and which to ignore. I really
shouldn't have to go into detail to get that point across.

I get your point exactly. But for the last century, photographs have
been more-accurate representations of their subjects than sound
recordings. This began to change only in the '50s.

Although you say you get my point, you persist in the notion that a 2D
representation of 3D space can somehow be accurate, which is not possible
unless one disregards the 3rd dimension, and that is a biggie. With audio,
both capture and playback is working in 3D space. I agree with Scott that
trying to compare photography and audio in this way is not very useful, so
I'll stop here.
--
best regards,

Neil

[John Williamson]

On 01/10/2014 15:18, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...

Or, in my case, flash memory, which doesn't even use magnetism.

Why is memory necessarily magnetic? Core memory disappeared decades ago,
and prior to that there was electrostatic memory and acoustic memory.

Read the post I was replying to. Hard drives use magnetism in a similar
way to tape.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[hank alrich]

John Williamson wrote:

On 01/10/2014 14:41, Jeff Henig wrote:
John Williamson wrote:


Oh, thank you. I suppose, then, a Kodachrome is not a photograph.

Not in common parlance round here, no. It's a slide. Even when it's not
mounted as one. Then again, people still talk about watching a film, even
when it's been digitally produced and projected.


Yea verily; we still talk about what's on tape, even when recording to hard
drive.


Or, in my case, flash memory, which doesn't even use magnetism.


See?? Right there is the whole problem with today's music! No
magentism!! g

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
I would just like to say that in the past four decades I have heard a lot
of
people make analogies between photography and audio recording and in every
single instance that I can think of the discussion broke down into a
senseless
argument. So I am inclined to avoid this particular analogy at all costs.
--scott

You folks will not agree with, or maybe even understand this, but I will put
it out there anyway.

The comparison between photography and audio doesn't work because it is the
wrong comparison. Stereo audio recording is not like 2D photography because
the photo has no perspective, or should I say 3 dimensionality to it. Stereo
is not like taking a "picture" of a soundscape as if through a large portal.
It is certainly not recorded that way, nor does it sound like we are
standing on the outside looking in. It is not always recorded naturally, nor
does it need to be.

Nor is it like a 3D photograph. I might be willing to allow a comparison
between a 3D photograph and binaural recording, but only if you view the
picture through a head mounted dual lens system, rather than from a distance
with some 3D glasses. Note the similarity between recording techniques with
binaural and 3D photography - they are both "taken" from a single viewpoint,
with a binaural head or a 3D camera from one point in space. When you look
or listen you get only that one perspective.

No, I am saying that a more valid comparison to stereo would be sculpture,
not photography.

If you could come around to my statement that stereo reproduction should be
seen as a model of the real thing, rather than a huge portal to another
acoustic, you might begin to see my point.

Specific example, Hank's recording. It was made with some close miking on
the singers and the instruments, plus a stereo pair above and fairly
nearby - not back in some audience position, but closer to the performers,
as most audio recordings are. To play it back, we place two or more speakers
in the room in positions that are geometrically similar to those of the
performers, out from the walls and in a left to right perspective. If the
summing localization process works as advertised, we can then hear all
singers and instruments in their proper positions all across, and there will
be depth of imaging because there is physical depth between the speakers and
the walls.

The overall situation on playback is more like sculptures of all performers
within your space than a huge enlargement of the scene of their production
as if from a camera further back in the performance room. You can walk
around in the playback space, and go nearer or farther from them, just like
in real life. Play them in a larger room, it will sound like they are in a
larger room.. Put some speakers on a stage in a real recital hall, it will
sound like they are performing right there in that hall. What's more, there
is nothing wrong with that, and that is not some inaccuracy, it is a natural
byproduct of the process.

So in my view we have

Binaural = 3D photography thru a viewer, head related systems of auditory or
visual perspective from a single point in space, ears or eyes isolated from
their actual physical environment with direct sensory input

Stereo = modeling or reconstructing the original sound fields within your
listening room - a field-related system whose perspective and size are real
and physically exist in the room right there in front of you. The audio
repro is not quite as robust as the sculpture, but to a certain extent you
can walk around and get different perspectives on the work just as with a
model or sculpture.

I could come up with a lot more analogies to illustrate this, but I suppose
your patience is wearing thin about now.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Gary Eickmeier

[Trevor]

On 30/09/2014 10:25 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 9/29/2014 6:10 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I neglected to lay emphasis on daguerreotypes. These were direct
photographs -- no negative or print was involved. When you see a
daguerreotype, you see the original, without manipulation or processing.

So maybe we should be recording straight into the horn and direct to
disk? That's going to be the original without manipulation or processing.

My point was that you get an image of much greater fidelity than the
sound of an acoustic recording -- or electrical recordings, for that
matter.

And how do you measure that claim? Obviously it is nothing more than
your unsubstantiated opinion, one which you get to have of course, but
totally pointless and irrelevant IMO.

In fact the only actual data comparison would be that the current state
of the art for digital photography is ~14-15 true bits of data, whilst
for audio it is ~20bits. Personally I would dearly love photography to
reach 16+ real bits and pretty much do away with the need for
multi-image HDR. But unfortunately the best prints still lag FAR behind
real life, and are a far inferior reproduction of the original than what
you can obtain in audio with even a cheap HiFi system these days AFAIC :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 1/10/2014 7:09 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
I would just like to say that in the past four decades I have heard a lot of
people make analogies between photography and audio recording and in every
single instance that I can think of the discussion broke down into a senseless
argument.

Well the whole argument is senseless to begin with, and goes downhill
from there!
Has anyone ever made a valid comparison between apples and oranges that
didn't simply rely on personal opinion?

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...
On 30/09/2014 10:25 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 9/29/2014 6:10 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I neglected to lay emphasis on daguerreotypes. These were direct
photographs -- no negative or print was involved. When you see a
daguerreotype, you see the original, without manipulation or processing.

So maybe we should be recording straight into the horn and direct to
disk? That's going to be the original without manipulation or processing.

My point was that you get an image of much greater fidelity than the
sound of an acoustic recording -- or electrical recordings, for that
matter.

And how do you measure that claim? Obviously it is nothing more than your
unsubstantiated opinion, one which you get to have of course, but totally
pointless and irrelevant IMO.

If you think that what comes out of an acoustic horn is remotely faithful to
what went in -- what can I say?

[Luxey]

четвртак, 02. октобар 2014. 05.33.13 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier је напи�ао/ла:

No, I am saying that a more valid comparison to stereo would be sculpture,

not photography.

Gary Eickmeier

Should have you thought some more, you'd come to relief.
Also, you may feel one, should you think less.

[Trevor]

On 2/10/2014 11:06 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message ...
On 30/09/2014 10:25 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 9/29/2014 6:10 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I neglected to lay emphasis on daguerreotypes. These were direct
photographs -- no negative or print was involved. When you see a
daguerreotype, you see the original, without manipulation or
processing.

So maybe we should be recording straight into the horn and direct to
disk? That's going to be the original without manipulation or
processing.

My point was that you get an image of much greater fidelity than the
sound of an acoustic recording -- or electrical recordings, for that
matter.

And how do you measure that claim? Obviously it is nothing more than
your unsubstantiated opinion, one which you get to have of course, but
totally pointless and irrelevant IMO.

If you think that what comes out of an acoustic horn is remotely
faithful to what went in -- what can I say?

If you think I said that, there is nothing at all to say! It's a wonder
you are still breathing when you can't even read what *you* wrote
"or electrical recordings, for that matter."
And you had to snip my bit comparison because that would be too obvious
I wasn't referring to acoustical digital recording right :-)
And of course your original (stupid) comparison made no mention of
acoustical or electrical recording anyway!

Trevor.

[None]

"Trevor" wrote in message
...
On 2/10/2014 11:06 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
If you think that what comes out of an acoustic horn is remotely
faithful to what went in -- what can I say?

If you think I said that, there is nothing at all to say! It's a
wonder you are still breathing when you can't even read what *you*
wrote

Li'l Willy can't read what he wrote. Hehe.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...

And of course your original (stupid) comparison made no mention
of acoustical or electrical recording anyway!

Both sound recording and photography are forms of recording. It's not "stupid"
to consider which (if either) is more accurate.

I'm not surprised you simply rejected the entire comparison without a moment's
consideration. Typical human response. Thank you, God, for making me inhuman.

[John Williamson]

On 03/10/2014 14:35, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message ...

And of course your original (stupid) comparison made no mention
of acoustical or electrical recording anyway!

Both sound recording and photography are forms of recording. It's not
"stupid" to consider which (if either) is more accurate.

I'm not surprised you simply rejected the entire comparison without a
moment's consideration. Typical human response. Thank you, God, for
making me inhuman.

From one of your early posts in this thread :-

"Sound recording (unlike photography) has always required compromises."

What has been pointed out in this thread is that sound recording and
photography *both* require compromises by both the artist and the
technicians involved, always have, and probably always will. There is
also no meaningful way of comparing the quality of a sound recording and
a photograph.

All that can be said of either item is that the recording of a musical
or vocal performance is that to whatever degree it is true, a satisfying
sound to the originator and the listener, and a photograph (Whether it
be on paper, projected from a slide or viewed on a computer screen) is a
pleasant rendition of the scene which satisfies the photographer and the
viewer. The absolute accuracy of each rendition isn't comparable.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Gary Eickmeier]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
recording.

So how do you gauge that William?

We could break down photography and audio into the perceivable aspects and
compare each aspect to the original. In the visual we have

1. Physical size
2. Brightness range
3. Color
4. Sharpness
5. Distortion
6. Perspective
7. Three dimensionality

In photography the comparison is:

1. Photo not as big as the original
2. Not as bright by a long shot
3. Color fidelity can be very good, but the gamut is not as large
4. Sharpness is fine, but not all over - depth of focus issues
5. Distortion not a problem. Today's lenses are very good.
6. Even with a normal lens, perspective usually off due to:
7. Photo is not 3D and has some boundary limits, usually rectangular.

In the audio realm, in real life we have:

1. Physical size
2. Power
3. Distortion - none in real life
4. Auditory perspective, spatial realism

How audio recording and reproduction compa

1. Usually not as big as real life but can be
2. Not quite as powerful but can be
3. Distortions such as frequency response and noise and others - largely
solved now
4. Imaging and spatial realism not perfect in two channel but can be with
more channels and good rooms.

The score? Looks like audio repro can be more successful, easier to achieve
than photographic reproduction. I scored 3 out of 7 for photography and 2
1/2 out of 4 for audio.

Gary Eickmeier

[Ralph Barone[_2_]]

John Williamson wrote:
On 03/10/2014 14:35, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message ...

And of course your original (stupid) comparison made no mention
of acoustical or electrical recording anyway!

Both sound recording and photography are forms of recording. It's not
"stupid" to consider which (if either) is more accurate.

I'm not surprised you simply rejected the entire comparison without a
moment's consideration. Typical human response. Thank you, God, for
making me inhuman.

From one of your early posts in this thread :-

"Sound recording (unlike photography) has always required compromises."

What has been pointed out in this thread is that sound recording and
photography *both* require compromises by both the artist and the
technicians involved, always have, and probably always will. There is
also no meaningful way of comparing the quality of a sound recording and a photograph.

All that can be said of either item is that the recording of a musical or
vocal performance is that to whatever degree it is true, a satisfying
sound to the originator and the listener, and a photograph (Whether it be
on paper, projected from a slide or viewed on a computer screen) is a
pleasant rendition of the scene which satisfies the photographer and the
viewer. The absolute accuracy of each rendition isn't comparable.


If I had a dollar for every time I've looked at a scene and thought to
myself "Nope... Can't capture that on film", I would be substantially
richer.

[[email protected]]

This discussion is ridiculous but i can't resist
Compare these two imaginary situations
You are led into a theatre
Case one you are blindfolded and can only hear the music
Can you tell if it is live or memorex
Case two, your eyes are open but your ears are plugged and you can see the stage
Can you tell if it is live or a projection

Silly

Mark

[Gary Eickmeier]

wrote in message
...
This discussion is ridiculous but i can't resist
Compare these two imaginary situations
You are led into a theatre
Case one you are blindfolded and can only hear the music
Can you tell if it is live or memorex
Case two, your eyes are open but your ears are plugged and you can see the
stage
Can you tell if it is live or a projection

Silly

Not silly. I would say that you could easily be fooled sonically, but
visually you could tell immdiately that it was a projection or the real
thing. That kind of supports the idea that sound can be more easily
replicated than photography.

Was that your point? Why did you call the question silly?

Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...

This discussion is ridiculous but i can't resist
Compare these two imaginary situations
You are led into a theatre
Case one you are blindfolded and can only hear the music
Can you tell if it is live or memorex
Case two, your eyes are open but your ears are plugged and you can see the
stage
Can you tell if it is live or a projection


This isn't a silly situation. But it's invalid.

The live-versus-recorded experiment has been done at least three times. The
first was the Edison Tone Tests, in which people were easily fooled into
confusing acoustic recordings with a live performer. The third was the AR/Dyna
of the late 60s, in which people will similarly fooled. (Both tests should be
repeated, but nobody wants to.)

The explanation, obviously, is that the hall acoustics mask the errors of
recording and playback. If this were not true -- if the reproduction were
"perfect" (or nearly so) -- then we would all be listening with AR-3a
speakers.

[[email protected]]

Yes that was my point exactly, and the answer you gave is correct and so obvious that is why the discussion is silly.

Mark

[Trevor]

On 3/10/2014 11:35 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message ...

And of course your original (stupid) comparison made no mention
of acoustical or electrical recording anyway!

Both sound recording and photography are forms of recording. It's not
"stupid" to consider which (if either) is more accurate.

Of course it is, that you can't see it says it all. But as I said, on
the only *objective* measure that I can see, audio reproduction is
actually superior, and I note you have not bothered to dispute that.


I'm not surprised you simply rejected the entire comparison without a
moment's consideration. Typical human response. Thank you, God, for
making me inhuman.


Well I'm glad I'm not as stupidly inhuman as you then.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

The live-versus-recorded experiment has been done at least three times. The
first was the Edison Tone Tests, in which people were easily fooled into
confusing acoustic recordings with a live performer. The third was the AR/Dyna
of the late 60s, in which people will similarly fooled. (Both tests should be
repeated, but nobody wants to.)

They get repeated all the time.

And yes, having done a more or less replica of the AR/Dyna test, I was
readily able to fool undergraduate students more than 3/4 of time, in spite
of the playback really not sounding very much at all like the live
performance. (We used the AR-4X which is somewhat bass-restricted.)

The absolute worst one I ever heard was from Real Sound Lab which conducted
a demo at the 1997 AES show. The difference between the live sound and
playback was totally different.... there was a dramatic tonal change when
going from live to playback. But people, who presumably were professional
audio people, were leaving the demo talking about how great it was. Go figure.

The explanation, obviously, is that the hall acoustics mask the errors of
recording and playback. If this were not true -- if the reproduction were
"perfect" (or nearly so) -- then we would all be listening with AR-3a
speakers.

I think the explanation is that listeners don't know what to listen for,
especially in a short demo. It's the same reason the Pepsi Challenge works
consistently every time.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

The live-versus-recorded experiment has been done at least three
times. The first was the Edison Tone Tests, in which people were
easily fooled into confusing acoustic recordings with a live
performer. The third was the AR/Dyna of the late 60s, in which
people will similarly fooled. (Both tests should be repeated, but
nobody wants to.)

They get repeated all the time.

And yes, having done a more or less replica of the AR/Dyna test, I was
readily able to fool undergraduate students more than 3/4 of time, in
spite
of the playback really not sounding very much at all like the live
performance. (We used the AR-4X which is somewhat bass-restricted.)

The absolute worst one I ever heard was from Real Sound Lab which
conducted
a demo at the 1997 AES show. The difference between the live sound
and playback was totally different.... there was a dramatic tonal
change when going from live to playback. But people, who presumably
were professional audio people, were leaving the demo talking about
how great it was. Go figure.

The explanation, obviously, is that the hall acoustics mask the
errors of recording and playback. If this were not true -- if the
reproduction were "perfect" (or nearly so) -- then we would all be
listening with AR-3a speakers.

I think the explanation is that listeners don't know what to listen
for, especially in a short demo. It's the same reason the Pepsi
Challenge works consistently every time.
--scott

William's suggestion is correct as well, meaning that it is quite easy to
reproduce a "they are here" impression of the performers being within your
acoustic space when that space overwhelms whatever is contained in the
recording. That is why the experiments are usually done with anechoic
recordings.

I think William's opening statement about sound vs photographic reproduction
was in reference more to the "we are there" type of recording, which is more
difficult because you just can't shoehorn the Philidelphia Orchestra into
your listening room.

But neither can you shoehorn a scenic of the Appalachians into an 8x10
print. Very accurate colors, sharpness, etc, but sorry Charlie, no cigar in
fooling anyone into perceiving realism there. It is a new form of art, not
an attempt to make us think we are there.

A recording is also a new form of art, sometimes crafted to take us to the
symphony, sometimes a whole new work made from whole cloth in the studio.
The latter is usually easier to reproduce because you can place the sounds
as desired and make it "say" what you want, including a few museum and art
pieces using sound as a medium. Or a movie.

Conclusion, it is a lot easier to reconstruct a sound scene in three
dimensions within your room by physically placing the sounds and using
radiation pattern and acoustics to make it REAL and not a trick, than to
project even the finest 3D movie and fool anyone into thinking we are there.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gray_Wolf]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 10:26:27 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's
"realistic".

However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation
of the subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic
painting.

The hell it isn't. Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?
I'm not talking about "communication". I'm talking about
representation.

So was I, but that you see such a clear differentiation between the
two may be at the root of our disagreement. In the examples I gave,
"a good representation of the subject" is a matter of which
characteristics one chooses to compare and which to ignore. I really
shouldn't have to go into detail to get that point across.

I get your point exactly. But for the last century, photographs have
been more-accurate representations of their subjects than sound
recordings. This began to change only in the '50s.

Although you say you get my point, you persist in the notion that a 2D
representation of 3D space can somehow be accurate, which is not possible
unless one disregards the 3rd dimension, and that is a biggie. With audio,
both capture and playback is working in 3D space. I agree with Scott that
trying to compare photography and audio in this way is not very useful, so
I'll stop here.


Research photogrammetry

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/6/2014 12:06 PM, Gray_Wolf wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 10:26:27 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's
"realistic".

However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation
of the subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic
painting.

The hell it isn't. Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?
I'm not talking about "communication". I'm talking about
representation.

So was I, but that you see such a clear differentiation between the
two may be at the root of our disagreement. In the examples I gave,
"a good representation of the subject" is a matter of which
characteristics one chooses to compare and which to ignore. I really
shouldn't have to go into detail to get that point across.

I get your point exactly. But for the last century, photographs have
been more-accurate representations of their subjects than sound
recordings. This began to change only in the '50s.

Although you say you get my point, you persist in the notion that a 2D
representation of 3D space can somehow be accurate, which is not possible
unless one disregards the 3rd dimension, and that is a biggie. With audio,
both capture and playback is working in 3D space. I agree with Scott that
trying to compare photography and audio in this way is not very useful, so
I'll stop here.


Research photogrammetry

Why? That is not the missing link that can solve the fundamental problem
at hand.

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

I had intended not to say any more on this, but...

I have a 60" plasma display. Given live (or taped) HD programming, one often
gets the feeling one is looking through a window at the actual objects --
albeit in 2D.

One can approach this with sound recording, but it's not as simple as
positioning the camera in front of the subject and providing "reasonable"
illumination.

QED. Again.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

The live-versus-recorded experiment has been done at least three times.
The first was the Edison Tone Tests, in which people were easily fooled
into confusing acoustic recordings with a live performer. The third was
the AR/Dyna of the late 60s, in which people will similarly fooled. (Both
tests should be repeated, but nobody wants to.)

They get repeated all the time.

And yes, having done a more or less replica of the AR/Dyna test, I was
readily able to fool undergraduate students more than 3/4 of time, in
spite of the playback really not sounding very much at all like the live
performance. (We used the AR-4X which is somewhat bass-restricted.)

The absolute worst one I ever heard was from Real Sound Lab which conducted
a demo at the 1997 AES show. The difference between the live sound and
playback was totally different... there was a dramatic tonal change when
going from live to playback. But people, who presumably were professional
audio people, were leaving the demo talking about how great it was. Go
figure.

I would guess that most of the listeners have no comprehension of the idea
that a recording ought to sound like the original. They probably thought they
were judging the playback on whether they /liked/ it.

There was an article in a 1958 "Tape Recording" in which the writer revealed
that most recording engineers preferred the "sound" of whatever medium they
commonly used (including acetate and wax disks). A significant percentage
could not hear the superiority of tape.


The explanation, obviously, is that the hall acoustics mask the errors of
recording and playback. If this were not true -- if the reproduction were
"perfect" (or nearly so) -- then we would all be listening with AR-3a
speakers.

I think the explanation is that listeners don't know what to listen for,
especially in a short demo. It's the same reason the Pepsi Challenge
works consistently every time.

I had never tasted Pepsi until about 1975, when I had it in Ecuador. That was
the end of any "preference" I might have had for Coke. And no, it was not
because Pepsi was sweeter (the traditional "explanation" of why Pepsi often
wins in blind taste tests).

Get bottles of sucrose-sweetened Coke and Pepsi. * Pour them into scrupulously
clean classes. Hold either under the nose of anyone in this group, and have
them sniff, without even tasting. ** EVERYONE will be able to immediately tell
which is Coke, and which is Pepsi, without having to sniff the other glass!
This is because Pepsi has a piney/aromatic aroma that is instantly
recognizable.

* I suspect HFCS changes not only mouthfeel, but the overall "taste" of sodas.
Pepsi occasionally sells sucrose-sweetened products, and the difference is
big.
** Technically, smell is the principal component of "taste".

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
I had intended not to say any more on this, but...

I have a 60" plasma display. Given live (or taped) HD programming, one
often gets the feeling one is looking through a window at the actual
objects -- albeit in 2D.

One can approach this with sound recording, but it's not as simple as
positioning the camera in front of the subject and providing "reasonable"
illumination.

QED. Again.

Let's make a 3D, 4K video of an orchestra playing in a great auditorium. How
should we reproduce it?

No preconceived notion, just asking.

Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

I have a 60" plasma display. Given live (or taped) HD programming, one
often gets the feeling one is looking through a window at the actual
objects -- albeit in 2D.

One can approach this with sound recording, but it's not as simple as
positioning the camera in front of the subject and providing "reasonable"
illumination.

QED. Again.

Let's make a 3D, 4K video of an orchestra playing in a great auditorium. How
should we reproduce it?
No preconceived notion, just asking.

You mean the image? It should be at a distance from the viewer where the image
size matches that of the orchestra. You also need to match perspective. (I'm
not going to explain the latter in detail. If you understand photographic
principles, you know what I'm talking about.)

This would be an interesting experiment.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

Let's make a 3D, 4K video of an orchestra playing in a great auditorium.
How should we reproduce it?
No preconceived notion, just asking.

You mean the image? It should be at a distance from the viewer where the
image size matches that of the orchestra. You also need to match
perspective. (I'm not going to explain the latter in detail. If you
understand photographic principles, you know what I'm talking about.)

This would be an interesting experiment.
Well no, I mean both the picture and the sound.

I agree so far. If you could find a room with a screen that big, project
life size, the depth requirement wouldn't be all that great. So they would
look real. Now are we in they are here or we are there territory? How about
the audio?

Gary

[John Williamson]

On 07/10/2014 06:20, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

Let's make a 3D, 4K video of an orchestra playing in a great auditorium.
How should we reproduce it?
No preconceived notion, just asking.

You mean the image? It should be at a distance from the viewer where the
image size matches that of the orchestra. You also need to match
perspective. (I'm not going to explain the latter in detail. If you
understand photographic principles, you know what I'm talking about.)

This would be an interesting experiment.
Well no, I mean both the picture and the sound.

I agree so far. If you could find a room with a screen that big, project
life size, the depth requirement wouldn't be all that great. So they would
look real. Now are we in they are here or we are there territory? How about
the audio?

At the very best, it would look as if the performers were behind a window.

Similar experiments with sound only have given an impression that the
performers are in the room, as long as the listeners eyes are closed.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=eZGsEu0VDiE
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

I agree so far. If you could find a room with a screen that big, project
life size, the depth requirement wouldn't be all that great. So they would
look real. Now are we in they are here or we are there territory?

We are there. Obviously.

How about the audio?

The only correct way to do the audio is Ambisonics. However, Ambisonics is a
much-less-compromised recording system than plain stereo, or even multi-ch
recording.

[William Sommerwerck]

"John Williamson" wrote in message ...

At the very best, it would look as if the performers were behind a window.

Even in 3D?

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=eZGsEu0VDiE

I have no argument with his perspective -- but that isn't the way these
demonstrations were billed.

It is true that AR, KLH, and other New England companies emphasized the fact
that sound reproduction should be accurate, not "pleasant", and this
undoubtedly had an effect on the development of American audio equipment.

[Gary Eickmeier]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
I agree so far. If you could find a room with a screen that big,
project life size, the depth requirement wouldn't be all that great.
So they would look real. Now are we in they are here or we are there
territory?

We are there. Obviously.

So then they are here as well.

How about the audio?

The only correct way to do the audio is Ambisonics. However,
Ambisonics is a much-less-compromised recording system than plain
stereo, or even multi-ch recording.

Problem: Ambisonics would be good for one or two people only. Or can it be
done for larger audiences as well? I'm leaning toward just good old surround
sound, to the extent that we would need it. I mean, we would already be
generating live sound fields from the front speakers that would have their
own reverberant field in our room. If "our" room needs some support, then
fine, surround sound would help. Three or five speakers up front.

Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

Problem: Ambisonics would be good for one or two people only.
Or can it be done for larger audiences as well?

It works better than anything else for large audiences.

Of course, I was originally making a point about fidelity -- not how many
people could view a photo or listen to recorded music. You're introducing
issues that have little to do with the point I was making.

[John Williamson]

On 07/10/2014 15:57, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
At the very best, it would look as if the performers were behind a
window.

Even in 3D?

Until they find a way to project a 3D image onto thin air, yes.

The closest I've heard about is a decent headmounted VR set. The new
Rizzo? is reckoned to be close enough for training emergency service
operatives, but that gets its input from a CGI generator, not cameras.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.