Re: Sound reproduction versus Sound Production

[so what]

JoVee wrote:


> (or would SOMEBODY tell me please is it "Hear Hear"?)


Very good. In fact, it is.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 20:18:48 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>> I suppose if you've nothing better to do on a Friday night you could
>> argue that reproducing the instrument would require that the speaker
>> duplicate the instrument's radiation pattern.
>
>Yes, if the playback is supposed to sound like that instrument IN THE ROOM WHERE
>PLAYBACK OCCURS. But that isn't usually what we're interested in.

Your argument seems to be that transfering the instrument and the
original room into the listening room is possible because the direct
sound from the speakers dominates the listening experience. I
actually don't disagree with this.

I would not even disagree that the goal of verbatim reproduction
*should* ideally be to superimpose the original room onto the (given)
listening room. Just never been very convinced by any I've heard. Yet!


>> Verbatim reproduction is a false god?
>
>It's the right god, but few people want to worship.

The alternative god, that the emotional content is a separate thing
to be captured, is also very seductive. I wonder how much they really
conflict? Lots still to learn, for me.

Chris Hornbeck
"Amadeus II "Wolfie's Revenge!""
-William Sommerwerck

[Benjamin Maas]

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message ...
>
> > But, all of this really is irrelevant. The point that the original
poster
> > was making is that the whole process of recording and reproduction
> > exists to produce an illusion. You're just arguing about the accuracy
> > of that illusion. Either way it's not a real orchestra behind there,
it's a
> > simulation, and that simulation only varies in degree.
>
> I hate to jump on you for this, Scott, but such a view is just a lame
excuse for
> producing lousy-sounding recordings. See the interview with the world's
leading
> recording "experts" in the current Abso!ute Sound. They don't know what
the hell
> they're talking about. It's pathetic.
>

Blah, blah, blah... As I said. Recordings lie.

We choose which lie we like the most and go with it. Some may be better
than others, but there is no way that a microphone and a speaker can
reproduce sound the way that our ear hears it. Ears are pretty amazing
things if you think about it. The way that they can pick up faint sound and
perceive directionality is pretty amazing. Speakers give us an
approximation, but it ain't the real thing. Period.

--Ben


--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

[Bob Cain]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>What I'm really saying, though, is that since no speaker (reproduction) sounds
>>convincingly like an instrument (production), maybe we should concentrate on
>>making recordings we like the sound of & not be overly concerned that we
>>haven't achieved verisimilitude, which I maintain isn't achievable anyway.
>
>
> It IS achievable, with existing technology.

No it isn't and not even approximately. First it could only
possibly work in the original room with nothing in it
having moved and even then it can't because there is
absolutely no way within the realm of the possible to
recreate the exact time varying pressure field at every
point in a room that existed there when generated in a
different way than by a loudspeaker. Too damn much
information by an enormous margin. Enormous isn't a big
enough word. All of that is required for versimilitude.

Plausible illusion is all that is possible and I doubt
anyone will complain if they are hearing something
believable and appropriate whether it is accurate or not.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Scott Dorsey]

Benjamin Maas > wrote:
>
>Blah, blah, blah... As I said. Recordings lie.
>
>We choose which lie we like the most and go with it. Some may be better
>than others, but there is no way that a microphone and a speaker can
>reproduce sound the way that our ear hears it. Ears are pretty amazing
>things if you think about it. The way that they can pick up faint sound and
>perceive directionality is pretty amazing. Speakers give us an
>approximation, but it ain't the real thing. Period.

And I will say that what we need is a way to totally reproduce the
three-dimensional wavefront coming from all directions toward the listener,
so that the actual pressure at any point in your room is exactly equivalent
to the pressure at that point in the section of the original room around the
listener. Until that happens (and it's going to happen someday), we don't
even have a very good approximation.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

> We choose which lie we like the most and go with it. Some may be better
> than others, but there is no way that a microphone and a speaker can
> reproduce sound the way that our ear hears it. Ears are pretty amazing
> things if you think about it. The way that they can pick up faint sound and
> perceive directionality is pretty amazing. Speakers give us an
> approximation, but it ain't the real thing. Period.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

If you would set up a W/X/Y Ambisonic array with really good mics, and play it
back through first-rate speakers, you'd be startled.

It is possible to come pretty damned close, in playback, to what you heard live.

[S O'Neill]

Scott Dorsey wrote:


> And I will say that what we need is a way to totally reproduce the
> three-dimensional wavefront coming from all directions toward the listener,
> so that the actual pressure at any point in your room is exactly equivalent
> to the pressure at that point in the section of the original room around the
> listener. Until that happens (and it's going to happen someday), we don't
> even have a very good approximation.


How can that happen? The sound of the listening room will be
superimposed on the recording, unless you're suggesting anechoic living
rooms.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

>> If you would set up a W/X/Y Ambisonic array with really good mics, and play
>> it back through first-rate speakers, you'd be startled.

> > It is possible to come pretty damned close, in playback, to what you heard
> > live.

> I am sorry but your wrong
> There is no possibility that a collection of wires magnets and paper can
> deviler to us anything even close to the experiance of sitting in a room
> with a musician can
> we settle for the best we can
> but sound reproduction is like tofu steak


I'VE DONE IT. YOU HAVEN'T. Don't make claims about something you've never
experienced.

[ScotFraser]

<< It is the difference between bringing you to the performance, and bringing
the
peformance to you.
The former requires an acoustically dead recording, while the latter requires
correctly recording and reproducing the original ambience. Totally different.
>>

Someday you'll have to explain how you're seeing these as unrelated, because
I'm hearing you describe two variations of one activity. Somewhere we're
missing each other semantically.


Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< Go out and make a B-format Ambisonic recording, as I've suggested (and have
done
myself), then come back and we'll talk.
>>

Fine, but that B Format recording has to play back through speakers, & that's
where the illusion utterly fails to convince. A violin in the room & speakers
playing that same violin performance simply are not going to be plausibly
interchangeable. The problem is not in obtaining a reasonable recording. The
problem is in transducing that recording.


Scott Fraser

[Arny Krueger]

"George" > wrote in message


> There is no possibility that a collection of wires magnets and paper
> can deviler to us anything even close to the experiance of sitting in
> a room with a musician can

Why would you want something devilered to you, George?

BYW George, the problem is probably not the wires, magnets, and paper, but
rather trying out what to do with them. AFAIK in terms of total realism,
we're already screwed by the time the audio signal hits the output terminals
of the mic.

However, in the end music is about emotion, not sound waves accurately
impinging on our ear drums. At times I can get the same emotional experience
as live listening, from even fairly medocre reproduction of a modest
recording. To me, the emotion is primarily in the playing and the music.
Good reproduction just sometimes makes it easier. OTOH, if you're not in the
mood...

[Scott Dorsey]

Bob Cain > wrote:
>William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> Okay. If you really know anything about Ambisonics, then you know that
>> Ambisonics has a "dirty little secret" that no one wants to talk about in
>> public. I discovered it on my own, and learned it was common knowledge among the
>> people promoting it.
>
>Pray tell.

Are you referring to the inability to present phase cues? That's no secret.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "George" > wrote in message
>
>
> > There is no possibility that a collection of wires magnets and paper
> > can deviler to us anything even close to the experiance of sitting in
> > a room with a musician can
>
> Why would you want something devilered to you, George?
>
> BYW George, the problem is probably not the wires, magnets, and paper, but
> rather trying out what to do with them. AFAIK in terms of total realism,
> we're already screwed by the time the audio signal hits the output terminals
> of the mic.
>
> However, in the end music is about emotion, not sound waves accurately
> impinging on our ear drums. At times I can get the same emotional experience
> as live listening, from even fairly medocre reproduction of a modest
> recording. To me, the emotion is primarily in the playing and the music.
> Good reproduction just sometimes makes it easier. OTOH, if you're not in the
> mood...
>
>

but we are not talking about haveing a enjoyable experiance
the way I read this thread is one camp is saying that they can deliver
the exact same aural fingerprint of a acoustic instrument through a
recording, I say it will never happen
not that we can't feel the excitment but one can not recreate the tone
of a instrument , not even remotly, in a recording

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Okay. If you really know anything about Ambisonics, then you
>> know that Ambisonics has a "dirty little secret" that no one wants
>> to talk about in public. I discovered it on my own, and learned it
>> was common knowledge among the people promoting it.

> Pray tell.

Why? If you have any practical experience with Ambisonics, you know this.

Ask John Hayes.

[William Sommerwerck]

> << But what if the playback sounds like the original venue?>>

> It won't.

> << There's something wrong
> with that?>>

> So you're distinguishing between a recording of an instrument & a recording of
> an instrument in an ambient space? Is this the crux of what I'm not getting
> about your contention?

Yes, that's exactly the point.

What is so confusing about this? As I said, the issue has been around as long as
we've had commercial recording.

Modern (ie, electrical) recordings are almost always made "live" -- that is,
they contain some sort of ambience -- either "natural" or synthetic -- that is
either supposed to represent the original venue, or simply sound pleasing. In
this sense, the listener is "brought to" the venue.

To put it the other way 'round, the listening room is not supposed to make a
significant ambient contribution to the playback.

[George]

> > you must have a very low regard for the actual sounds of acoustic
> > instrument to claim the experiznce of hearing one live can be fully
> > duplicated with a recording
>
> First of all, I didn't make such a claim. I claimed that you could come
> pretty
> damned close, with existing technology. I stand by that statement.
>
>
not even remotly close IMO.
I guess this is where we part ways
George

[Bob Cain]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> These remarks demonstrate that you DO NOT understand Ambisonics. It does not
> work that way. Now, if you mean that's what you're trying to do... That's
> another matter.

I just don't know what to say to that. If you find anything
with what I've said incorrect in a technical sense how about
addressing it in a specific technical fashion instead of this
"you're wrong, I know better" stuff. You've said nothing
so far which indicates that you have a clue.

> By the way, Bob -- You've never said whether you've actually made recordings, of
> any sort.

I think I've stated the answer to that in numerous ways in
the past. Yes I have, of many sorts.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Bob Cain]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>>Okay. If you really know anything about Ambisonics, then you
>>>know that Ambisonics has a "dirty little secret" that no one wants
>>>to talk about in public. I discovered it on my own, and learned it
>>>was common knowledge among the people promoting it.
>
>
>>Pray tell.
>
>
> Why? If you have any practical experience with Ambisonics, you know this.
>
> Ask John Hayes.

No, I asked you, who claimed to know it. If it is correct,
I'm certain it is in no way secret.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Bob Cain]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> One of the reasons I have long been a supporter of Ambisonics is that it
> resolves the conflict between simple miking and multi-miking -- you can make a
> single-point recording that is free of the psychoacoustic artifacts that plague
> conventional single-point recording.

It's different all right. Care to be more technically specific about
those psychoacoustic artifacts?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"George" > wrote in message ...
>
> > > you must have a very low regard for the actual sounds of acoustic
> > > instrument to claim the experiznce of hearing one live can be fully
> > > duplicated with a recording
> >
> > First of all, I didn't make such a claim. I claimed that you could come
> > pretty damned close, with existing technology. I stand by that statement.
> >
> >
> not even remotly close IMO.
> I guess this is where we part ways
> George

Simply because I've done both live and studio for almost 30 years, and
I know you're heavy into the reinforcement side, I think what these guys
are getting at (given both specific recording *and* playback parameters
are met) is not entirely impossible. At least they have the faith (desire)
to believe they'll one day prove it's possible. I doubt their faith will cloud
their reasoning... too much... <g>

DM

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message...

> It's about as tall as a person, and it has fire shooting out of the top.


Good one.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 04:53:37 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> wrote:

>> I even had some sort of speaker A@R seems to come to mind that the
>> tweeter was two vertical clolums that some how passed ions or some
>> crap
>
>I'm a big fan of Acoustic Research, especially of the late 60s and
>early 70s products, so I'd hate to think it was A/R. Such an odd
>sounding concept (salespitch?) would definitely intice me to suggest
>to *who ever* the manufacturer was, that they bury their head in the
>sand over that one.... even _before_ hearing it !

This whole flap seems like a conflation of the French (?) modulated
ion gap speakers and inert gas electrostatics of about a decade
later. No relation that I know of to AR, other than the K in KLH.


Chris Hornbeck

[George]

In article >,
Chris Hornbeck > wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 04:53:37 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> > wrote:
>
> >> I even had some sort of speaker A@R seems to come to mind that the
> >> tweeter was two vertical clolums that some how passed ions or some
> >> crap
> >
> >I'm a big fan of Acoustic Research, especially of the late 60s and
> >early 70s products, so I'd hate to think it was A/R. Such an odd
> >sounding concept (salespitch?) would definitely intice me to suggest
> >to *who ever* the manufacturer was, that they bury their head in the
> >sand over that one.... even _before_ hearing it !
>
> This whole flap seems like a conflation of the French (?) modulated
> ion gap speakers and inert gas electrostatics of about a decade
> later. No relation that I know of to AR, other than the K in KLH.
>
>
> Chris Hornbeck

I really dont remember the brand , as a retail sale man I was allowed to
take most anything home on a 30 day note, or buy any trade in for very
ceap
I had doens of diffrent systems during that period and they all blend
together in the fog of my memory
George