"the unreality of recording and reproduction is such that most people can tell the difference between a recording and a real person, even if they've never met the person who has been recorded, or been to where they were recorded." Just change out real person with live acoustic music.

Quote

"the unreality of recording and reproduction is such that most people can tell the difference between a recording and a real person, even if they've never met the person who has been recorded, or been to where they were recorded." Just change out real person with live acoustic music.

Would anybody here be along the same lines with me in this matter: The biggest difference between sound from high quality speaker system and natural sound source (instrument or person) is the original 3D radiation pattern missing from the speaker sound? In other words, a high quality speaker would be much harder to distinguish from a natural source if it had means to radiate the original 3D frequency responses?

Example: have you been to bars or halls with a live jazz pianist, entering the place without knowing whether there is live music or not? Isn't it easy to say, yes, this is live piano, even not yet seeing where the sound is coming from? So, in this example the frequency response from different directions is essential, it doesn't matter whether there is background noise or even a great distance to the sound source.

In other words, a high quality speaker would be much harder to distinguish from a natural source if it had means to radiate the original 3D frequency responses?

I believe this is the same concept that many audiophiles already have about using live music as a reference. If you are listening to a recording of live acoustic music in a concert hall you gain your reference by having listened to live acoustic music in concert halls numerous times. As you point out "the unreality of recording and reproduction is such that most people can tell the difference between a recording and a real person, even if they've never met the person who has been recorded, or been to where they were recorded." Just change out real person with live acoustic music.

Beyond this, I'm not sure people care about accuracy as much as they think. A nice sounding recording might not sound like the original event at all. But often it will sound like an idealised version - what we'd hope the original event would have sounded like had everything been perfect.

(That's the sound of another can of worms being opened).

Quote

"the unreality of recording and reproduction is such that most people can tell the difference between a recording and a real person, even if they've never met the person who has been recorded, or been to where they were recorded." Just change out real person with live acoustic music.

Would anybody here be along the same lines with me in this matter: The biggest difference between sound from high quality speaker system and natural sound source (instrument or person) is the original 3D radiation pattern missing from the speaker sound? In other words, a high quality speaker would be much harder to distinguish from a natural source if it had means to radiate the original 3D frequency responses?

Quote

I believe this is the same concept that many audiophiles already have about using live music as a reference. If you are listening to a recording of live acoustic music in a concert hall you gain your reference by having listened to live acoustic music in concert halls numerous times. As you point out "the unreality of recording and reproduction is such that most people can tell the difference between a recording and a real person, even if they've never met the person who has been recorded, or been to where they were recorded." Just change out real person with live acoustic music.

The problem with this test is that it is a truism. It is unreasonable to expect listeners to fail to be able to distinguish between a live person talking and a speaker reproducing the same source. A test that always has the same outcome for all alternatives that could be tested is no test at all.

So, the example fails on the grounds that is proposes a test whose outcome is always the same, regardless of the person speaking, the microphone, the loudspeaker, the room, or the listener. The difference between the live speaker and the reproduced speaker can reasonably be expected to always be detected.

Quote

Quote from:  link=msg=728441 date=0

Beyond this, I'm not sure people care about accuracy as much as they think. A nice sounding recording might not sound like the original event at all. But often it will sound like an idealised version - what we'd hope the original event would have sounded like had everything been perfect.

(That's the sound of another can of worms being opened).

yes indeed that is another can. I addressed it when I asked the question why have references? I mean if it is an issue as to what should be a reference one has to ask the question why have references on some level otherwise it is a completely arbitrary choice to have them at all.  For me the answer is quite simple and made for a very easy choice of reference. But I don't think I am allowed to talk about it since it involves subjective opinions. 

Check out the dictionary definition of the word  test that applies to this context. A test always involves a comparison to a standard.  So the question now degenerates into "Why  test?".  Why not just go out and buy the cheapest stereo you can, and never compare it to anything else?  Feel free to answer this question Scott, using you yourself as an example... ;-)

Quote from: distill on 2010-10-25 16:59:30

Quote

"the unreality of recording and reproduction is such that most people can tell the difference between a recording and a real person, even if they've never met the person who has been recorded, or been to where they were recorded." Just change out real person with live acoustic music.

Would anybody here be along the same lines with me in this matter: The biggest difference between sound from high quality speaker system and natural sound source (instrument or person) is the original 3D radiation pattern missing from the speaker sound? In other words, a high quality speaker would be much harder to distinguish from a natural source if it had means to radiate the original 3D frequency responses?

Exactly. I would state the problem another way: All possibilities of realistic reproduction are always lost in the original microphone technique. Since the recording is irrecoverably flawed that early in the process (like at the beginning), there's no way that it could ever be reproduced in such a way that it couldn't be distinguished from live.

I think it's interesting that most people can tell a live vs recorded piano, or live vs recorded person, from the next room! Sometimes the next street!!!

That's mostly (I think) about how loudspeakers interact with rooms. Nothing like people's voices, or pianos. Even wavefield synthesis doesn't solve this if you're outside the room, so I don't know what the key is - though I guess most people would be happy if it sounded realistic in the room.

Few recordings preserve the dynamics of real instruments - but a very very good PA at a significant distance (i.e. beyond the reach of the "real" sound), driven with an uncompressed signal, can sometimes sound somewhat real. No DRC, and probably not in a room, and audio works better. Though I'd much rather listen to things in a room that outdoors - but outdoors some of the "falsity" of reproduced audio (e.g. speaker interaction with room) isn't a problem.

Sorry, this is all a bit OT!

Cheers,
David.

Hmm. I guess my experiences have been a bit different than yours and Arny's.

While in most cases i would agree that I can quite easily tell the difference between a live instrument and playback from the next room or even further and in most cases playback is easily distinguished from live I have experienced some pretty convincing illusions of live music with certain recordings on certain systems including my own. I remember the first time I auditioned the Vandersteen 2cs at Optimal Enchantment many years ago. My friend and I heard them playing a solo cello as we were waiting to come in. We actually asked each other if it were a live cello or not.

I suspect that your executional circumstances were somewhat contingent on your psychological state at the time. Somehow, you had suspended disbelief, which you seem to be far more prone to do than I.