Why haven't you posted examples of those after all these months when asked? After all, you've claimed that there are lots of those.Yes.
dave
I meant the microphone during the initial recording, it is picking up ie measuring, everything that is then being reproduced. What do you mean by the microphone will only capture part of the wave front? If you are just going to quote other people, as usual, don't bother answering
It was you who made the claim. The onus is on you to prove it.I’m not Toole or Novick.
No, you haven't. You quoted examples of certain brain waves not being measurable, not the sound waves people can hear.And i already supplied an example.
I meant the microphone during the initial recording, it is picking up ie measuring, everything that is then being reproduced.
No matter where it is the microphone only captures a small part of the wavefront — why we often see way more than a pair of microphones — and one of the reasons that with current recording technology no hifi is going to be able to reproduce a real world performance. We are starting with a facsimile of the event being captured (ignoring recordings that were never “real” in the 1st place (most studio recordings or even computer generated tracks).
dave
Same as our earsNo matter where it is the microphone only captures a small part of the wavefront
Same as our ears
You really think your ears work like microphones?
Before I do - explain what you understand by "only captures a small part of the wavefront" & "ears have a limited physical extent"?
Because I suspect when I give the explanation you will say that's what you meant.
Edit: I really should have said I need to know what your understanding is so I can formulate an appropriate answer to where you are currently in your understanding of auditory perception?
Because I suspect when I give the explanation you will say that's what you meant.
Edit: I really should have said I need to know what your understanding is so I can formulate an appropriate answer to where you are currently in your understanding of auditory perception?
Last edited:
Same as our ears
True. But ears are usually a binary pair separated by a head function, with a lifetime of programming to sort out all sorts of details.
Back here;
To quote Floyd Toole:
Two ears and a brain are massively more analytical and adaptable than an omnidirectional microphone and an analyzer.
dave
A wavefront exists in 3D space (4D if you count the progression of the wavefront). A mic captures a 2D point in the wavefront.
Ears have the ability to capture a more complex portion of that wavefront. 2 ears spaced apart on either side of the head, complex earlobes, and a huge amount of processing power trained to analyze the raw data.
dave
Ears have the ability to capture a more complex portion of that wavefront. 2 ears spaced apart on either side of the head, complex earlobes, and a huge amount of processing power trained to analyze the raw data.
dave
If you are reluctant, maybe the other Scott wants to explain what was meant as he seemed to be sure ""only captures a small part of the wavefront" (your phrase) & his phrase, "ears have a limited physical extent" both meant the same thing?
The wavefront is everywhere, recordings routinely use multiple microphones sometimes many feet apart. AFAIK you have two ears probably less than a foot apart (limited extent). As far as I'm concerned this whole discussion of not being able to sample exactly the wavefront impinging on your ears is a red herring. At some point the audio information is contained in two 2D signals (amplitude vs time) and the information they can contain is limited by fundamental principles.
At some point the audio information is contained in two 2D signals (amplitude vs time) and the information they can contain is limited by fundamental principles.
But the brain provides way more analysis capability than a mic.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- Is there more to Audio Measurements?