WHat a lot of ado. I am not talking about
understanding people. I am just asking :
If you use mike technique x to record a pink
noise source in position y , what does the result
sound like on playback?
This is a simple question. It is obviously
relevant to what recording sound like in terms
of sounding like the thing recorded.
It is not the whole story. It is not
a complete analysis of psychoacoustics or ancient
philosophy or what Plato really meant in
Thearetetus. It is a not a call for a
disquisition on the meaning of science.
It is just a simple and obviously relevant question,
and one of many such that could be investigated.
And it ought to be.
If people knew the answer to such things,
it would help them make better recordings.
So I believe. Why would knowing how things work
NOT help?
Robert
On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, [email protected] wrote:
Robert:
You (and others) speak of "science" as if it was one "thing" -- which
clearly it is not.
The history of science is filled with discussions of this matter and it
would be presumptuous to summarize them except to say that mathematics does
not equal science -- either as a philosophical or historical matter.
Humans are undoubtedly the most difficult "objects" for scientific
inquiry. In particular, it is widely agreed that the "science" of economics
has
failed -- leading to multiple present-day calls for starting over.
Likewise, as best I can tell, the "sciences" of psychology and sociology and
anthropology (and even history) are all today in comparable disarray.
As a result of the "simplifying assumptions" you mention, arguably we knew
more about humans 1000 or 2000 years ago than we do today. Indeed, after
making these "simplifications" it is doubtful that we are even "studying"
actual humans anymore.
Human hearing (which is inseparable from speaking, as reflected in our
neurological development) is arguably the single capability that must
fundamentally distinguishes humans from other primates. Among other things,
this
means that we can't take the route of "cognitive" psychology and experiment
on other animals.
If you want to understand humans, then you need to jettison the
"simplifications" (i.e. anything that lends itself to mathematics) and try to
sort
out some much more fundamental and enduring relationships.
My guess is that this is exactly what most artists strive to accomplish.
So, as regards the humans, "science" is what most people in recording
strive to do -- making what you call a "higher" standard in fact a "lower"
order
approach which is unlikely to be helpful to anyone.
That is perhaps why no one has been silly enough to try it . . . !! <g>
Mark Stahlman
Brooklyn NY
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130703/a24470aa/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
