The problem with sound being a secondary object is the "continuity of existence" paradox.
And therein lies part of the crux of our hobby.
Next, what these theories of sound have to do with my design thought process.
The problem with sound being a secondary object is the "continuity of existence" paradox.
And therein lies part of the crux of our hobby.
Next, what these theories of sound have to do with my design thought process.
You're one deep dude Gary.
Thanks, Jack and Tom. When I started this thread, I was worried that I would lose everybody on the forum. But it also clarifies things in my own mind when I take the effort to distill the concepts down to simple concepts and analogies.
Take for example the "continuity of existence" paradox to cables. If music goes in one end, and music is an object, when it comes out the other end, is it still the same object?
Still "digesting" the thread content Gary, this is the sort of reading where one needs to go back again...three times now in my case. Great stuff!
Isn't it that every stage creates a copy?Originally Posted by garylkoh
Sorry that this thread has taken so long to continue...... Reading the thread mep started about measurements and correlation to what we hear prompted me to continue on this one. What is on the recording vs correlation to what we hear.
Take the argument of live vs recorded. If you were to record a solo guitarist, and then play it back on your hifi system, does it sound the same? How close to "live" is it?
I would ask the question in a different way. How would you record someone playing a guitar and how would you play it back in order for the recording to sound "live"?
If you subscribe to the Proximal theory of sound, you would place a binaural dummy head where you are seated and make the recording, and then listen to the recording using headphones.
If you subscribe to the Distal theory of sound, you would close mike the guitarist, and then place a loudspeaker where the guitarist is, and play the recording through the loudspeaker, and listen where you are.
If you subscribe to the Medial theory of sound, you would place two microphones between you and the guitarist, and play back the recording through two loudspeakers placed where the two microphones were.
Unfortunately, in the vast majority of recorded music, the recording technique and the playback technique are not congruent with respect to the nature of sound.
From that example the Medial looks the go to me ...
Frank
Good choice. Aristotle, in his "On the Soul" said that sound was a particular disturbance of the air, and was a supporter of the Medial theory. It then took the better part of the next 1,700 years for scientists to develop the wave theory of sound.
However, there are a number of shortcomings to the Medial theory - the most important to us is that the Medial theory does not allow for imaging and soundstage, which is the Located Event theory, a subset of the Distal theory of sound.
This being a philosophical discussion, there is no right or wrong answer, or even an answer at all.......
Now, back to food
Ah, if music be the food of life listen to a highly optimised, Medial friendly system, that's what I say!
Now, back to food
Frank
Gary, would you care to explain further why you believe imaging, etc aren't part of Medial (after you've had your meal, of course
Frank
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks