In Reply to: Re: What Constitutes Accurate Musical Replication? posted by andy19191 on April 20, 2007 at 00:59:39:
>> The idea that the signal generated from the mics is in anyway going to translate into any sort of *reproduction* of *The original acoustic event* is laughable.<<
>No. The brain is very good at filling in missing information so long as the cues are correct.<Missing cues? I'm talking about complete missing information. You have an acoustic event that is happening in literally millions of cubic inches and you have mics with distinctive characteristics of their own trying to capture this event with anywhere from a a few square inches to a few dozen square inches of transduders. As far as reproduction is involved the very idea is absurd. But the people who designed stereophonic recording and playback knew *reproduction* was an absurd goal which is why they went for a stereophonic *illusion.*
>Proper multichannel recordings played back over loudspeakers are a substantial step towards "being there" type accuracy compared to stereo recordings.<
Actually they aren't at all. Multi-chanel in essense, is just another stab at a stereophonic illusion with more chanels. It still is an attempt at an *illusion* rather than a *replication* of an original event and it still can only attempt to create an illusion from a single fixed perspective.
> Accurate binaural recordings are an even bigger step. Both these involve straightforward established knowledge and fairly cheap hardware compared with the typical prices of audiophile hardware.<
Binaural is just two channel stereophonic playback. The differences are very much a matter of detail. The basic approach is exactly the same.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: What Constitutes Accurate Musical Replication? - Analog Scott 10:17:25 04/20/07 (17)
- Re: What Constitutes Accurate Musical Replication? - andy19191 10:27:10 04/20/07 (16)
- That's funny - Analog Scott 11:45:00 04/20/07 (14)
- Re: That's funny - andy19191 22:16:24 04/20/07 (11)
- Am I confident in my source? - Analog Scott 16:24:15 04/21/07 (0)
- How many channels do YOU think are found in binaural? - E-Stat 07:49:49 04/21/07 (3)
- Re: How many channels do YOU think are found in binaural? - Pat D 13:25:21 04/22/07 (2)
- Right, different miking. Didn't I say that earlier? Yes, I did. (nt) - E-Stat 13:39:43 04/22/07 (1)
- Also different playback. - Pat D 18:22:13 04/22/07 (0)
- Re: That's funny - Pat D 06:43:24 04/21/07 (5)
- It is merely stereo - Analog Scott 12:19:32 04/21/07 (4)
- Wouldn't stereo be a subset of binaural? ( nt) - Pat D 13:16:34 04/22/07 (3)
- No - Analog Scott 14:27:19 04/22/07 (2)
- But our hearing is binaural. - Pat D 18:29:20 04/22/07 (0)
- Exactly (nt) - E-Stat 16:18:33 04/22/07 (0)
- So you look in a dictionary for a technical term??? - Pat D 13:49:44 04/20/07 (1)
- He said look it up and I did. - Analog Scott 14:47:29 04/20/07 (0)
- So how many ears do you have Andy? - E-Stat 11:09:03 04/20/07 (0)