Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
1
I’m beginning to wonder if lossless codecs are really important.
After all, in a live setting, which is what we’re all trying to reproduce, there’s a lot going on. Various reflections and absorptions from walls, furniture, the ever-changing (from performance to performance) cast of listeners, various microphones and amplifiers, the humidity and (outside) the breezes of the air, the various pinnae of different ears, etc. It seems to me that the transmission medium from instrument or voice to listener is the ultimate in lossy media.
What can we do about this? Well, instead of obsessing about lossless (or not) codecs, elaborate DACs, frankenchains of expensive and exotic gear, or possibly non-existent noise, perhaps we should concentrate on reducing the lossy medium as much as possible. This is in the spirit of concentrating on speakers and room conditioning, but goes further. Instead of speakers booming out reflections over all and sundry, perhaps headphones or even better IEMs should be considered the ultimate in high-fidelity reproduction.
Even better would be direct neural stimulation of the audio centers, with a device such as the Neuralink or even better, NIBS. We could go beyond purely aural experiences and have integrated audio/visual/muscular symphonies, possibly with aromas and tastes as well.
But until that’s perfected, perhaps the best way to reproduce the unpredictable lossy medium of a live performance is to introduce random variations into our codecs. Sometimes it’s 64 kbps MP3 (someone between you and the performer has gotten up and is shuffling their way to the rest rooms), sometimes it’s lossless 24/192 FLAC (a rare moment of perfect stillness and air conditions in the concert hall), varying continuously from second to second. This would be especially helpful for studio recordings, which are often felt to be still and lifeless compared to live performances. And fed directly into the ears via IEMs.
This approach could be incorporated into the Roon DSP settings, for instance.
Obsessing over things is rarely a good practice … but deliberately introducing artifacts isn’t either … if done professionally well, I do mostly prefer live recordings to perfected and lifeless studio efforts, no matter if via my speakers, IEMs, or open back over ears … direct brain transfer seems to open endless, currently unfathomable horizons, though …
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
3
Indeed. I think it would be an enticing piece of gear. I’m a bit surprised I couldn’t find prior evidence of experiments in this direction.
There is the God Helmet, of course, which includes a specialized DAC, said to be the core of the technology. But it doesn’t seem to be used for music.
Electromechanical sound reproduction has had a good, long run. But in due time, future music listeners probably will view dynamic drivers of today to be just as primitive as contemporary music listeners view purely acoustic amplification horns of Edison’s day.
But even if sound reproduction becomes direct to brain, where will that leave sound recording? I suspect that electromechanical capture will persist longer. After that, perhaps bioelectromechanical capture via cadavers’ or lab grown ears will be the next frontier.
Can’t recall where, but recently read an article about a scientific paper from a Fraunhofer Institute regarding first working samples of MEMS audio receptors, that basically work like the human inner ear, which will open a much wider frequency and dynamic range band in future iterations, than any currently existing (bio-)mechanism.
I totally disagree with this, I’m a huge fan of studio albums. I’m also a big fan of electronic music. Recreation of a live setting is about the last thing on my mind when listening to recorded music.
Sorry but I don’t want music direct to brain you would lose it’s impact as you still feel it even with headphones, this is all part of the enjoyment without this not sure you would get the same feeling at all.
1 Like
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
9
That’s an interesting point. I really like the sound I get from IEMs, but the bone-shaking bass is missing. Maybe IEMs with a powered subwoofer?
Come on, use your imagination!
Why stop at auditory stimuli, as with that advanced technology you’ll even get all the impact transmitted as well, and there’ll be a knob to tweak intensity, even!
you state a lot going on in your opening paragraph.
there’s a lot going on. Various reflections and absorptions from walls, furniture, the ever-changing (from performance to performance) cast of listeners, various microphones and amplifiers, the humidity and (outside) the breezes of the air, the various pinnae of different ears, etc
I would argue that lossless will give you a much truer representation of all the things you mention as long as the engineer who mastered the recording has done a good job of the recording takking into consideration the things you mention. It is however down to an individuals perception as to what makes a good ’ moderate or bad recording.
At the live shows I go to you wouldn’t hear the fart, but you might smell it
3 Likes
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
20
Yes, I agree, Garry.
I think I screwed up the original post by confusing two things. One is the lossy characteristic of the sound waves and acoustic transduction system we use to convey the sound from the speakers to the ears. Eliminating as much of that as possible seems like a good thing to do, via IEMs or even direct brain stimulation.
Another, and really quite separate, concern is the randomly lossy characteristics of a live performance. I could see DSP filters that might be able to add some of that quality back into a studio performance. But that’s a whole other topic.
As other have said, I don’t think there’s any “quality” that can be found in a live performance that you may want added to a studio recording - which is basically perfect. A unique listening experience can be generated every time by using “immersive” techniques, i.e. HRTFs, head tracking and DSP to recreate the original placement of sound sources, independent of the listener’s position.
