-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
The End of The Objective Point of View?
- Thread starter VMAT4
- Start date
Einstein was brilliant, but Newton is a lot more useful for solving practical problems.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #3
True, depending on the frame of reference.
Galliardist
Major Contributor
Logic suggests to me that rather than irreconcilable realities, there was one underlying reality that allowed the observers to see different states.
OP
Let me use a simple analogy about what is considered "live performance".
Imagine yourself listening to a live piano performance. Now, imagine youself sitting or standing in these positions.
1. Right behind the person performing
2. 1m away from the soundboard, squating at a height of around 1m.
3. front row seat to the right.
4. 20m away left corner.
What you hear (or even recorded) will not be the same. even though they are all considered real live performance. So, they are all correct, but all different. There is no way to determine which is considered golden standard.
Imagine yourself listening to a live piano performance. Now, imagine youself sitting or standing in these positions.
1. Right behind the person performing
2. 1m away from the soundboard, squating at a height of around 1m.
3. front row seat to the right.
4. 20m away left corner.
What you hear (or even recorded) will not be the same. even though they are all considered real live performance. So, they are all correct, but all different. There is no way to determine which is considered golden standard.
I would need to highlight that reality is greatly affected by speed of light. Light from our Sun takes ~8mins to reach earth. This means someone at mercury (assuming someone is there) will have a different reality since light from sun takes ~3mins to reach mercury.
I would say they are all brilliant instead of doing a comparison. Do note that GPS would not be possible without taking special relativity into account. We now also know the ultimate speed in the universe, 299,792,458 m/s. This speed can never be broken.
Galliardist
Major Contributor
It can’t be reached, is correct. It’s an asymptote. Theoretically, you might be able to go faster but it seems unlikely since you can’t do it by acceleration.
No different to the argument of what is "accurate" in recording.
Accurate for the performers? The recording engineers? The mixing engineer? The mastering engineer?
The label lawyer at final sign-off?
All being listened to on different gear.
Closest we can get to trying to reproduce most accurate, is an un-amplified live acoustic performance.
You need to compress the space in front of you and expand it behind you. If you then travel on a tidal wave of warped space if driven by negative matter you should be able to travel faster than light. It hasn't been observed yet so if someone needs something to do...
Whatever. F=ma has proven to be really useful for me.
Yes it is possible to "break" the speed limit using this method. However, you are breaking any physics laws. This is because the limit only applies to an object traveling through space, not moving space itself.
No, its different and it has nothing to do with sound editing nor amplification. Because your position relative to the instrument will affect the way it sounds to you. They are all accurate and real un-amplified but they all sound different. Sound is also affected by the environment and distance as well. There is no way to judge which position is considered most accurate or standard.
When recordings are done, the mic is placed very close to the piano to capture as much as detail as possible. However, this is not a representation of real live performance since nobody sits that close to a piano in a real concert (other than the pianist).
It gets a little more complicated in an orchestra. I am sure most of us have seen musicians playing but do not seems to hear anything because other instruments are much louder and drown out the sound from that instrument. This is real live performance thats unamplified.
Last edited:
"The warp five engine was a type of warp reactor developed by Humans in the 22nd century in the Warp Five program and the NX Project."
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Warp_five_engine
A recording does not have to be accurate, because it is the work of art. A reproduction of this work of art has to be as accurate as possible.
There is still disagreement among fan of orchestral music as to whether a traditional 2 or 3 mic set-up or multi-mic set-up is better. There are arguments for and against each, multi-mic brings out more detail and tends to be more immediately impressive, but I tend to think a 2/3 mic set-up can better capture what the audience would hear (recognizing that that alters according to where you are in the audience). Ultimately it is probably about doing things well more than about which option is chosen.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,959
- Likes
- 38,101
I detest articles like this. They are poorly translating quantum theory and the experimental results into colloquial descriptions which are not really fit for the purpose. A very sloppy writer and one would need to go into much greater detail even for a layman reader for it to make any sense in regards to the experiment. This is just a sloppy clickbait title. The whole website looks that way, and refers to mostly pre-print articles.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,959
- Likes
- 38,101
Or the reproduction could also become a work of art with the recording just being the medium one is working with.
Similar threads
