This post is with regard to Sursound Digest, Vol 6, Issue 1; specifically, Dr.
Robert Greene's post:
**This whole discussion is to my mind a living illustration of why no progress
to speak of ever occurs in audio. Nothing is made precise, no one does any
experiments on what happens to sound like what was there, everyone just talks
about what sounds nice to them or what sounds like what they think music sounds
like, no one has any standardized arrangments for speaker playback, it is all
just anecdotes...**
Clearly, a few appeared to have taken *offense* to this, but it's something of
great interest to me.
As with many areas of science and technology, there have been tremendous
strides in the field of acoustics and recording. Standards are in place,
whether they're the agreed-upon references for decibels (m, V, u, etc.),
digital formats, MKS system of units, etc. But when it comes to replication and
validation of experiments involving hearing, psychoacoustics, and *real-world*
representation of sounds (music or other), there is no system or reference that
validates the accuracy of playback, at least not to the extent that a person
can say, *at this listening position, there is an objectively-measured
representation of the 3D soundfield that closely approximates the actual
(recorded) acoustic events.* or *By virtue of this microphone technique,
loudspeaker arrangement, listening environment, loudspeaker design (and
whatever else makes up the recording/playback system) other persons can achieve
the same level of realism, or, at very least, expect the same
experimental results (within calculated confidence intervals) for a sample of
n listeners.*
Duplicating an experiment isn't difficult assuming we use the same equipment
and arrangements as fellow researchers, but this only guarantees reliability,
not validity. Both reliability/repeatability and validity are fundamental to
the scientific method.
In a world where many musical sounds are intentionally modified, electronically
generated, it is a lot about subjective impressions--and this is perfectly
valid in the arts. There's science behind the creation of these sounds. Tonal
and artificial sounds are used in scientific research, and these sounds have
furthered our understanding of how we hear. But only in non-artificial
situations (or controlled but accurate replications of these situations) can we
learn more about how we LISTEN. Aside from THD, IMD, frequency response, and
more *static* types of audio-equipment performance standards, and I would be
interested in a *standard* that can be used to validate recording and
reproduction (including the spatial component) accuracy. This type of standard
may not be what Robert had in mind, but I'll agree with him that our *art* may
be lagging when compared to other areas of science. An argument against this is
that scientific advancement isn't always
paramount: Heck, look at the number of young musicians who want to go *retro*
with their vintage analog gear and instruments in a age of digital exactness.
But if we're going to argue about what is better (aesthetics aside) or more
accurate in terms of reproduction, we do need a reference standard that can
rise about media hype or personal opinions.
Best to All,
Eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130702/618effea/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
