In Reply to: The idea that the posted by Presto on May 24, 2012 at 08:50:37:
"The idea that the ...acoustic "information" of the venue is captured in such a way that it can be recreated is wrong.
A large amount of information about the acoustics of the original recording venue can be captured by two microphones. There are certain spatial symmetries that can't be resolved, but in general if one puts a source of impulses at various places in the sound field the recording will change and in such a way that it is possible (e.g. by a computer) to recognize points from these patterns. If sufficient additional information is provided, e.g. a calibration grid, then it will be possible to locate the sound sources in real space. Similarly, if the walls are moved the patterns will also change, making it possible in principle to recognize hall acoustics. Left and right information is obviously present, but so is depth (it even appears in mono). There is also height information because of reflections off the floor or ceiling.
Note that I am talking solely about information that's on the recording, not whether (or how) it can be "decoded" by the human ear/brain/mind system. The sonic patterns at one's head when a stereo is played are not the same as those in a seat at a live concert, so they will have to be decoded different. The ability to "hear" microphone patterns on recordings, for example, is not something that an untrained listener can do, but an experienced recording engineer can do this with a good playback system.
You can tell if a system is "accurate" is by playing a large corpus of reference recordings. This is the way that mastering engineers fine tune their systems and is something that can not be done by measurements alone, although measurements play an essential role in the setup process. Recording and playback of music are an art as well as a science.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: The idea that the - Tony Lauck 08:02:15 05/25/12 (14)
- RE: The idea that the - Presto 09:16:38 05/25/12 (13)
- RE: The idea that the - Tony Lauck 09:38:04 05/25/12 (12)
- RE: The idea that the - Presto 10:13:36 05/25/12 (11)
- RE: The idea that the - Tony Lauck 10:39:34 05/25/12 (10)
- Try - rp1@surfnetusa.com 23:01:08 06/27/12 (0)
- RE: The idea that the - Presto 09:15:04 05/28/12 (3)
- RE: The idea that the - Tony Lauck 13:21:09 05/28/12 (2)
- RE: The idea that the - Presto 09:11:38 06/05/12 (1)
- RE: The idea that the - Tony Lauck 10:20:19 06/05/12 (0)
- RE: The idea that the - tomservo 12:00:30 05/25/12 (4)
- "Breakfast in the Field" you say? - E-Stat 08:28:35 05/27/12 (3)
- RE: "Breakfast in the Field" you say? - tomservo 16:31:18 05/27/12 (1)
- RE: "Breakfast in the Field" you say? - E-Stat 17:32:14 05/27/12 (0)
- RE: "Breakfast in the Field" you say? - geoffkait 08:32:28 05/27/12 (0)