[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

KH wrote:
On 5/27/2012 11:29 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
OK, I have been sufficiently worked over for now. I thank you all - or
both - for some great discussion. You have read what I said, and that
is all
I can ask.

NOW, assuming I am all washed up, that my statements that there is no
stereo
theory even at this late date in audio history is wrong, I sit at your
feet
as a student.

How does stereo work?

Gary Eickmeier

I don't think you want to know "how stereo works", you appear to want
some theory that ties everything together, and that when adhered to
results in *A* correct, optimally realistic reproduction. There is no
such single solution, and there never will be for the myriad reasons
presented to, and apparently ignored by you. A few:

1. The recorded signal does NOT contain all the information from the
original space, and short of an infinite number of mics and channels,
never will. This is a simple fact.

To be exact we don't need all the information, we only need enough information.
But none the less stereo is not enough information. So maybe some large 3D grid
of microphones would do -- only it'd be unwieldly and expensive and unusable for
live events (who wuld like to see orchestra behind something looking like a web
of some enormous technospider).

Well meby in the future some technologies for more discrete soundfiled capture
would get developed. For example stealth airplane guys came with a method of
measuring airflow speed and direction around a planewithout protruding devices
(which are a big no-no in highly stealth aircraft) -- instead of putting tubes
and vanes into airstream they just throw few laser beams into it and then
measure backscattering. So maybe someone sometime will come with an realisable
method of remotely (from few meters away) measuring some tiny volume of air
itself with mucg greater precission than required by an airplane... But now it's
pure science fiction.


2. The stereo effect is an *illusion*, and always will be, again, unless
multitudinous speakers are used to replay the recording from equally
multitudinous mics.

Or are replaced by something different (some sound projectors, or even some real
applied science fiction stuff).



3. There is no objective reference for realism. There is only
*preference* for various implementations of the illusion.

Unless that illusion contains enough cues from varius perspectives and of
sufficiently different types to convince something like 95% of people. But we're
not there so that point is moot.

We're not even there with binaural systems -- for example my hearing system must
me somewhat untypical that while artificial head recording work pretty well for
me most (in fact all I've ever heard) syntethic attempts to create 3D
presentation fail on me (while they do work on others). While those others enjoy
those 3D demos trhu headphones for me the 3D image folds and nearly collapses.
Yet for some reason artificial head recording do work for me (with all the
caveats of soundspce rotating with listener and thus worsened front/back
positioning of central axis sources).


[...]
It's a fallacy to think that there is a single solution to disparate
interpretations of realism.

Well it in fact might exist but rather not on stereo... I was told be a man who
I know has extraordinary hearing that some 12-speaker system in specially
prepared experimantal studio did work spectacularily.

As long as you refuse to accept that your
preference of illusion is neither universal, nor normative, I doubt your
quest will have a happy ending.

Keith

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)