EarSpace!!!!

[kumakuma]

16 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I have zero complaints about Jana is trying to do here - and it's showing the shortcomings of the particular rig, very clearly.

 

 

 

And what are these shortcomings?

[kumakuma]

25 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The original:

 

 

Starting at 6:09, the playback:

 

 

How many things would you like me to point out?

 

More than zero would be a start...

[kumakuma]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

So, you would find it almost impossible to separate those in an AB comparison, say focusing on the tonality of the instruments, and sense of original recording space?

 

Nice deflect. 

 

I ask the question again.

 

What "shortcomings of the particular rig" are being shown "very clearly" and how do you know these are shortcomings of the rig and not shortcomings of Jana's recording equipment or recording method?

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 And the classic deflect by all those who refuse to accept that the playback can be at fault, by claiming that any deviation must be the fault of the recording technique and equipment - umm, isn't it amazing how YouTube clips of live music recorded on the most "rubbishy" phones still captures the essence of liveness that was present; but always seems to fail to do this with captures of playback rigs operating - must be a conspiracy goin' on ...

 

So ya got nothing...

 

Why I am not surprised?

[kumakuma]

28 minutes ago, fas42 said:

You'll play the game of dancing so fast that your feet are a blur, no matter what or how I present something - "There are none so blind as those who will not see" ...

 

You stated that you could clearly hear shortcomings in the rig in the video.

 

I asked you what those shortcomings are.

 

You are unable to provide an answer to this simple question.

 

Who's the one dancing here?

[kumakuma]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I suggest you try a little experiment - find half a dozen YouTube clips made by ordinary people, using the "lousy microphone in a video camera" of real world, live acoustic events; and another half dozen similarly made by audio enthusiasts of their "brilliant hifis" in action - and play these at random, with video not seen, to people who have little interest in audio. The game is: name the type of source - speakers, or 'real' sound?

 

How would this experiment prove that you have the ability to "listen through" Jana's recording to evaluate what the rig actually sounds like?

[kumakuma]

37 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I'm not interested in what the rig "actually sounds like" - rather, whether the information is audible that the setup has some problems or not. That is, I'm not looking at the big picture, but if there are key, 'signature' giveaways in what I hear that signal some issue. This is particularly important, because it is exactly those sort of anomalies that prevent a full illusion occurring - if I can hear faults via a less than perfect capture, then those aspects will be extremely obvious in the flesh.

 

In this case, you have no way of knowing if the faults that you are hearing are faults in the rig itself or faults introduced by Jana's equipment or recording methodology.

[kumakuma]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

Frank is just practicing reference-less evaluation.

 

Current methods for automatically evaluating sound systems rely on gold-standard references. However, these methods suffer from penalizing sounds that are correct but not in the gold standard. We show that reference-less sound metrics correlate very strongly with human judgments and are competitive with the leading reference-based evaluation metrics. By interpolating both methods, we achieve state-of-the-art correlation with human judgments. Finally, we show that sound metrics are much more reliable when they are calculated at the system level instead of the component level.

 

https://aclweb.org/anthology/D16-1228

 

Some paraphrasing was incurred in the above statement.  

 

I understand now.

[kumakuma]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 

In an absolute sense, no. However, I have been doing this type of thing for a long, long time, and the chances of the particular microphone or recording chain being the cause of the particular quality of the faults I would put at in the 0.000..x % level - just going by experience, .

 

Based on the apparent lack of critical listening skills you've demonstrated in recent posts, I have a very hard time believing this to be true. 

[kumakuma]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

Why bother with the performance? Just have it play in your head.

 

This assumes that your head is fully "sorted out".

[kumakuma]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Would love to hear the process for doing this! Does it involve rewiring?

 

I'm sure Frank has some strongly held opinions in this area. 

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

Haven't you heard the term, "down under"? We're hanging upside down, the blood rushes to our heads - job done!

 

Explains a lot...