Sabai -- Your disagreement with Geoff about Kal's views reminds me of my disagreement with him about Gravitational Lensing on the Magic thread. The point isn't really about the details of Kal's views or the details of Gravitational Lensing. It's about whether facts are being accurately represented or not. Unfortunately, even if you win this round, he will pivot to another topic. You have stumbled onto Geoffs infinite staircase. Come to think of it, I think Machina Dynamica sells one of those.
As far as the views expressed in the quotes of Kal provided by Geoff, I am in agreement with at least one of them: Kal's observation that two channel playback results in a spatial presentation in the listening space that often differs from the spatial presentation in the recording space (assuming there was one). That is because, a two channel playback system presents whatever ambient cues the recording contains primarily from two directions the direction of the two speakers. But the ambient cues in the recording space were presented from all directions.
The listening space itself can augment the ambient cues of the recording, and in the best cases, the ambient cues of the listening space RESEMBLE the ambient cues of the recording space. But for any particular system, there will be recordings for which the ambient cues of the listening space do not resemble those of the recording space. When that happens, what is heard at the listening position isnt a fully accurate representation of the recording space.
Having said that, I depart from Kal's views (assuming I understand them) insofar as I believe that it is possible to construct a listening space that is, to some extent, acoustically ambiguous. In other words, a space in which the *apparent* size, shape, and materials of the room change from recording to recording. My own listening room doesn't fit that description, but I've been in professional recording and mixing spaces that do. IMO, to the extent that a listening space is acoustically ambiguous, the ambient cues of a wider range of recording spaces are more likely to be realistically represented.
As for the issue of "holographic" sound, I for one don't believe that a fully accurate representation of the recording space is necessary for the sound in the listening space to be "holographic." That is because, IMO, holographic sound is more about the realistic presentation of INSTRUMENTS AND PERFORMERS than it is about the realistic presentation of THE RECORDING SPACE ITSELF. And a two channel system is, IMO, quite capable of realistically presenting instruments and performers, even when it isn't a strictly accurate representation of the recording space. In other words, IMO, "holographic" sound is less about ACCURACY relative to the recording and more about REALISM relative to what instruments and performers actually sound like.
The ambient cues of the recording space may never make it to the listener, either because the recording does not contain them, the playback system misrepresents them, or the listening room alters them. Nevertheless, a playback system can still create the illusion that "They are Here." But when the ambient cues of the recording space are lost, what goes with it is the illusion that "You are There."
IMO, of course.
Bryon
As far as the views expressed in the quotes of Kal provided by Geoff, I am in agreement with at least one of them: Kal's observation that two channel playback results in a spatial presentation in the listening space that often differs from the spatial presentation in the recording space (assuming there was one). That is because, a two channel playback system presents whatever ambient cues the recording contains primarily from two directions the direction of the two speakers. But the ambient cues in the recording space were presented from all directions.
The listening space itself can augment the ambient cues of the recording, and in the best cases, the ambient cues of the listening space RESEMBLE the ambient cues of the recording space. But for any particular system, there will be recordings for which the ambient cues of the listening space do not resemble those of the recording space. When that happens, what is heard at the listening position isnt a fully accurate representation of the recording space.
Having said that, I depart from Kal's views (assuming I understand them) insofar as I believe that it is possible to construct a listening space that is, to some extent, acoustically ambiguous. In other words, a space in which the *apparent* size, shape, and materials of the room change from recording to recording. My own listening room doesn't fit that description, but I've been in professional recording and mixing spaces that do. IMO, to the extent that a listening space is acoustically ambiguous, the ambient cues of a wider range of recording spaces are more likely to be realistically represented.
As for the issue of "holographic" sound, I for one don't believe that a fully accurate representation of the recording space is necessary for the sound in the listening space to be "holographic." That is because, IMO, holographic sound is more about the realistic presentation of INSTRUMENTS AND PERFORMERS than it is about the realistic presentation of THE RECORDING SPACE ITSELF. And a two channel system is, IMO, quite capable of realistically presenting instruments and performers, even when it isn't a strictly accurate representation of the recording space. In other words, IMO, "holographic" sound is less about ACCURACY relative to the recording and more about REALISM relative to what instruments and performers actually sound like.
The ambient cues of the recording space may never make it to the listener, either because the recording does not contain them, the playback system misrepresents them, or the listening room alters them. Nevertheless, a playback system can still create the illusion that "They are Here." But when the ambient cues of the recording space are lost, what goes with it is the illusion that "You are There."
IMO, of course.
Bryon