What is audio meant to do?

[Wombat]

I'm unashamedly hoping to recreate a real acoustic performance in my home. For the reasons you mention, it seems logical to me that an acoustic recording that was created with omni mics which capture sound from all around it, should be reproduced by a omnidirectional point source speaker. So I bought the only such speaker in existence that I'm aware of... But have been waiting for quite a while for delivery. https://www.morrisonaudio.com/design-overview/

EDIT: but since quite a lot of recordings are not made that way, I also have a pair of more conventional box speakers as well, for dry studio recordings (the Dutch & Dutch 8Cs).

Interesting.

 

[Cosmik]

Although an audio system cannot perfectly recreate the exact sound field of the performance in your living room, this does not mean that it couldn't fool you into thinking you are hearing a real performance. And your mind might be particularly susceptible in the right circumstances.

A friend of mine always leaves a radio tuned to Radio 4 when she goes out as an anti-burglar measure. Gave me quite a shock when we came back to her house and could hear voices engaged in a heated discussion inside. I was fooled into thinking there was actually someone in there but it was just a large table radio.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Two key words: Target and precision.

Target is neutrality and precision is how far away you are from that target.

Both Genelec and AES Fellow John Watkinson have made great contributions to our understanding of that target. Both argue for the point source ideal. My experience tells me they are on to something. Implicitly most weight is on speakers, less on (already transparent) enough electronics.

My own experience tells me that the size of the drivers (and of course the headroom of the supporting electronics) matter. Size matters. And I believe it’s better to operate with a margin of safety than no or too little margin (i.e. rather too big than too small drivers, rather more power/headroom than too little power/headroom).

Precision around a target of neutrality applied around well-sized drivers created a great playback vehicle.

A great playback vehicle should NOT have as a target or ideal to create emotions. Emotions and audio are two separate things.

 

[Cosmik]

Two key words: Target and precision.

Target is neutrality and precision is how far away you are from that target.

Both Genelec and AES Fellow John Watkinson have made great contributions to our understanding of that target. Both argue for the point source ideal. My experience tells me they are on to something. Implicitly most weight is on speakers, less on (already transparent) enough electronics.

My own experience tells me that the size of the drivers (and of course the headroom of the supporting electronics) matter. Size matters. And I believe it’s better to operate with a margin of safety than no or too little margin (i.e. rather too big than too small drivers, rather more power/headroom than too little power/headroom).

Precision around a target of neutrality applied around well-sized drivers created a great playback vehicle.

A great playback vehicle should NOT have as a target or ideal to create emotions. Emotions and audio are two separate things.

But I know that there are people who may demur from this. They, I think, would say that there is no logical reason for it to work like that: Two point sources are not going to recreate the original sound field, so maybe something more is needed. They hope that this multi-dimensional undefinable 'something' may already have been stumbled upon by the practitioners of the ancient craft of speaker building.

Their method for rendering the quest scientific is to take existing speakers and play them at listeners in controlled experiments and ask them to rate them. This is science apparently - but maybe the hypothesis part is somewhat flimsy...

I agree that the simplest possible approach you outline above is pleasingly elegant (often indicative of 'rightness'), was what Blumlein originally had in mind(?) in his patent, and seems to work outstandingly well in my non-scientific, holistic experience.

N.B. 'Simplest' does not mean simple hardware. The simplest system is the one that linearises everything as much as possible, which may require complexity in the hardware.

 

[maverickronin]

I also see audio reproduction as about reproducing a recording as opposed to the event captured by it.

Definitely this.

The alleged ideal of reproducing an actual live event is not even theoretically possible with the way music is currently recorded or mixed.

I've never understood the allure of this goal in the first place as I'm not a fan of live music. It's almost always too loud, unless you go to a proper symphony the acoustics will probably suck, and crowds of people detract from the experience of the music itself. Besides that I think a mixed sound field is a much better artistic medium than a live performance. You can do things with it that impossible or impractical to do live.

 

[oivavoi]

Definitely this.

The alleged ideal of reproducing an actual live event is not even theoretically possible with the way music is currently recorded or mixed.

I've never understood the allure of this goal in the first place as I'm not a fan of live music. It's almost always too loud, unless you go to a proper symphony the acoustics will probably suck, and crowds of people detract from the experience of the music itself. Besides that I think a mixed sound field is a much better artistic medium than a live performance. You can do things with it that impossible or impractical to do live.

It depends what you mean by "live event". For me, as a lover of classical and jazz etc, it's about acoustic unamplified music. Those events are typically not too loud. I couldn't live without it, and the more so the smaller the venue and the ensemble is. There is a certain magic to it. Recent research suggests that it's not "magic", but an actual sense of community between the musicians and the audience, a kind of subconscious tuning in to each other. https://neurosciencenews.com/music-brain-synch-8740/

EDIT - here's some more research on how the brain responds to creating music together with others: https://www.fastcompany.com/3050215...with-other-players-forming-a-giant-hyperbrain

When it comes to PA concerts, it obviously becomes meaningless to talk about fidelity to the original event. The music is amplified to begin with. There is still something to be said for the amplified concerts, I think. A certain sense of community that I don't get when listening to electronic music alone in my home.

 

[Wombat]

Definitely this.

The alleged ideal of reproducing an actual live event is not even theoretically possible with the way music is currently recorded or mixed.

I've never understood the allure of this goal in the first place as I'm not a fan of live music. It's almost always too loud, unless you go to a proper symphony the acoustics will probably suck, and crowds of people detract from the experience of the music itself. Besides that I think a mixed sound field is a much better artistic medium than a live performance. You can do things with it that impossible or impractical to do live.

Artificial construction is better than real except for 'proper' symphonic?

A solo acoustic performance can be reproduced much more realistically than a symphony orchestral performance.

 

[maverickronin]

It depends what you mean by "live event". For me, as a lover of classical and jazz etc, it's about acoustic unamplified music. Those events are typically not too loud. I couldn't live without it, and the more so the smaller the venue and the ensemble is. There is a certain magic to it. Recent research suggests that it's not "magic", but an actual sense of community between the musicians and the audience, a kind of subconscious tuning in to each other. https://neurosciencenews.com/music-brain-synch-8740/

I'm not going to dispute that such psychological and neurological effects are real, but I will say that not everyone gets those feelings. I've seen what happens to most people who go to live events, but it sure as hell doesn't happen to me. I think how much you'd get into it relates to levels of extroversion, but that's just armchair speculation.

While I'm at it, when I hear people say that they want their system to 'sound' like a real event it usually seems they really want it to inspire the same feeling they have at a live event which just isn't going to happen without the presence of other humans. Lots of people on less objective forums seem to substitute emotional involvement with their gear for missing human element.

 

[andreasmaaan]

You under-estimate the potential in beam-forming from multiple sources, and AI to figure out how to make it work. Also remember we don't have to recreate the entire soundfield in situ, we only have to create the soundfield as it would exist in the close vicinity of the listener's torso and head.

I totally agree if we are reproducing the sound via headphones - then we have a binaural recording which in theory I believe could perfectly reproduce this soundfield if listened to on headphones that match the HTRF of the listener.

The problem is with reproducing the recording using loudspeakers. Even if a speaker is capable of beam-forming infinitely well, the microphone that captured the original sound will still have captured both direct and reflected sounds from a multitude of sources in the space in which the acoustic event took place. So, perfectly controlling the directivity of the speaker reproducing that recording won't actually solve the "problem", as the speaker will still be reproducing both the direct and reflected sounds that the mic captured, which did not radiate from the same point in space (the mic position) at the original event, but must emanate from the same point in space (the speaker/s) upon being reproduced.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I'm unashamedly hoping to recreate a real acoustic performance in my home. For the reasons you mention, it seems logical to me that an acoustic recording that was created with omni mics which capture sound from all around it, should be reproduced by a omnidirectional point source speaker. So I bought the only such speaker in existence that I'm aware of... But have been waiting for quite a while for delivery. https://www.morrisonaudio.com/design-overview/

EDIT: but since quite a lot of recordings are not made that way, I also have a pair of more conventional box speakers as well, for dry studio recordings (the Dutch & Dutch 8Cs).

Interesting, and please post how this sounds once you have it

I still think there is an error in the logic though - the mic captures sounds radiating from a multitude of points in space (all the reflections), while then the omni speaker reproduces these sounds from only one point in space.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Although an audio system cannot perfectly recreate the exact sound field of the performance in your living room, this does not mean that it couldn't fool you into thinking you are hearing a real performance. And your mind might be particularly susceptible in the right circumstances.

A friend of mine always leaves a radio tuned to Radio 4 when she goes out as an anti-burglar measure. Gave me quite a shock when we came back to her house and could hear voices engaged in a heated discussion inside. I was fooled into thinking there was actually someone in there but it was just a large table radio.

I've had a similar experience. It's definitely possible to be fooled, in fact it was possible even back when recording and reproduction were incredibly crude and low-fi by today's standards.

 

[Cosmik]

...we have a binaural recording which in theory I believe could perfectly reproduce this soundfield if listened to on headphones that match the HTRF of the listener.

As long as real listening doesn't involve moving your head by a single millimetre throughout the performance.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Two key words: Target and precision.

Target is neutrality and precision is how far away you are from that target.

Both Genelec and AES Fellow John Watkinson have made great contributions to our understanding of that target. Both argue for the point source ideal. My experience tells me they are on to something. Implicitly most weight is on speakers, less on (already transparent) enough electronics.

My own experience tells me that the size of the drivers (and of course the headroom of the supporting electronics) matter. Size matters. And I believe it’s better to operate with a margin of safety than no or too little margin (i.e. rather too big than too small drivers, rather more power/headroom than too little power/headroom).

Precision around a target of neutrality applied around well-sized drivers created a great playback vehicle.

A great playback vehicle should NOT have as a target or ideal to create emotions. Emotions and audio are two separate things.

But I know that there are people who may demur from this. They, I think, would say that there is no logical reason for it to work like that: Two point sources are not going to recreate the original sound field, so maybe something more is needed. They hope that this multi-dimensional undefinable 'something' may already have been stumbled upon by the practitioners of the ancient craft of speaker building.

Their method for rendering the quest scientific is to take existing speakers and play them at listeners in controlled experiments and ask them to rate them. This is science apparently - but maybe the hypothesis part is somewhat flimsy...

I agree that the simplest possible approach you outline above is pleasingly elegant (often indicative of 'rightness'), was what Blumlein originally had in mind(?) in his patent, and seems to work outstandingly well in my non-scientific, holistic experience.

N.B. 'Simplest' does not mean simple hardware. The simplest system is the one that linearises everything as much as possible, which may require complexity in the hardware.

I agree with both of you, but insist nevertheless that the original soundfield can't be recreated by loudspeakers for the reasons I gave in the OP.

Given this, then all we can hope for is precision in respect of the reproduction of the recording, not the acoustic event recorded.

 

[andreasmaaan]

As long as real listening doesn't involve moving your head by a single millimetre throughout the performance.

I'm trying to think through whether head-tracking may go some way toward mitigating this obstacle...

 

[svart-hvitt]

I agree with both of you, but insist nevertheless that the original soundfield can't be recreated by loudspeakers for the reasons I gave in the OP.

Given this, then all we can hope for is precision in respect of the reproduction of the recording, not the acoustic event recorded.

Forget about the event; can't be reproduced.

The captured sound; yes, in terms of electronics, hardly in terms of in-room sound (even anechoic room?) which will always be a multifactor problem

 

[andreasmaaan]

Forget about the event; can't be reproduced.

The captured sound; yes, in terms of electronics, hardly in terms of in-room sound (even anechoic room?) which will always be a multifactor problem

I would suggest that a perfect replica of the event can be recreated, but with the major qualification that it be transparently recorded in an anechoic chamber and then transparently reproduced in an anechoic chamber.

Or at least, this would negate the conundrum posed in the OP. I'm now searching for additional reasons (something that can be more rigorously defined than "emotions") that would separate the reproduction from the original event...

 

[svart-hvitt]

I would suggest that a perfect replica of the event can be recreated, but with the major qualification that it be transparently recorded in an anechoic chamber and then transparently reproduced in an anechoic chamber.

Or at least, this would negate the conundrum posed in the OP. I'm now searching for additional reasons (something that can be more rigorously defined than "emotions") that would separate the reproduction from the original event...

No, you can't replicate the event lest you add visual, smell, etc. So an audio scientist will be very careful to use "the event" in his writing. I suggest one forgets about "the event" altogether.

 

[andreasmaaan]

No, you can't replicate the event lest you add visual, smell, etc. So an audio scientist will be very careful to use "the event" in his writing. I suggest one forgets about "the event" altogether.

I was using “event” as shorthand for “acoustic event”.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I was using “event” as shorthand for “acoustic event”.

I see what you mean, but in practice it’s impossible to turn off one’s senses to focus on just one sense. «The event» is used so often on internet audio forums where people mess everything together - somehow expecting a one-sense reproduction can be compared to a multi-sense event.

That’s why I suggest we use a more precise term.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I see what you mean, but in practice it’s impossible to turn off one’s senses to focus on just one sense. «The event» is used so often on internet audio forums where people mess everything together - somehow expecting a one-sense reproduction can be compared to a multi-sense event.

That’s why I suggest we use a more precise term.

I'm happy to use the full term "acoustic event" from now on

And yes, I'm trying to separate the possibility of "being fooled" (which in any case was done over 100 years ago with terrible quality equipment) from the theoretical possibility of transparently recreating an acoustic event exactly as it was when it occurred, including in terms of soundfield, which is the one aspect that our current model of recording and loudspeaker reproduction can never - even in purely abstract terms - do correctly.

Given that our current model is per se not capable of doing this, I'm going on to wonder what instead the current model is trying to achieve.

I believe that a clearly defined answer to this question might lead to interesting implications for decisions about how that model should work.