It would be possible to capture a very realistic sound field and reproduce it. It would take a very specific kind of miking, and a custom speaker array that is precisely matched to it. It would be basically a "capture only" system. You couldn't edit or overdub or balance levels. The result would be realistic, but not very exciting. We hear realistic sound every moment of our lives. Recorded music is intended to be *better* than real... more organized, more balanced, more clear, more interesting sounding.
The problem isn't that realism is unattainable. It's that pursuing realism is a waste of a great deal of materials and effort for minimal returns. The first law of being an artist is to know how to use your medium to its strengths. Recording is no different.
I agree that the majority of the time we are trying to make it "better than real". However, there are some music genres where this isn't the case, effectively where we're trying to make it better so that it does sound real. Quite often in audiophile discussions the topic is brought around to the comparison of a live acoustic performance, such as orchestral music, with a recorded equivalent. The problem here is quite different to the "better than [and not even directly concerned with] real" which is the case with the non-acoustic genres. In the case of acoustic genres such as orchestral, I would re-word the part I've highlighted in bold to: "The result would often not appear to be entirely realistic or very exciting, because what we hear at an orchestral concert is not real in the first place!" - What actually enters our ears and what we perceive are two different things. Our brain will filter/reduce what it thinks is irrelevant, such as the constant noise floor of the audience for example, and increase the level of what it thinks is most important, such as what we are looking at (the instrument/s with the solo line for example). This isn't "real" at all, although of course it feels entirely real. Clearly, even with a theoretically perfect capture system, all we're going to record is the real sound waves but when reproduced, the brain is generally not going to perceive those sound waves as it would in the live performance because the visual cues and other biases which informed that perception are entirely different. So, the trend over the decades has been to create a orchestral music product which sounds realistic relative to human perception rather than just accurately capture the sound waves which would enter one's ears. To achieve this we use elaborate mic'ing setups which allows us to alter the relative levels of various parts of the orchestra in mixing (as our perception would in the live performance). However, a consequence of this is messed-up timing, as sound wave arrival times are going to vary between all the different mics (which are necessarily in significantly different positions). This is an unavoidable trade-off, we're always going to get messed-up spatial information but with careful adjustment during mixing we can hopefully end up with a mix which is not perceived to be too spatially messed-up (even though it still is). This "careful adjustment" is done mainly on speakers but is typically checked on HPs and further adjustments may be made if the illusion/perception of not being spatially messed-up is considered to be too negatively affected by HP presentation. This brings me back to what I stated previously, that pretty much whatever we listen to and however we're listening to it (speakers, HPs, HPs with crossfeed, etc.) we've always got messed-up timing, "spatial distortion" or whatever else you want to call it.
PS. I know you're probably aware of all this already bigshot.
I'd say anyone who recognizes and understands the benefits of crossfeed is spatially enlightened.
Following on from what I've just stated: In the case of acoustic genres such as orchestral music, where an illusion/perception of reality is a serious concern then whether or not crossfeeding is beneficial will depend on these variables: The various mic placements used to make the recording in the first place, the "careful adjustments" made during mixing, the further adjustments made when checking the mix on HPs and your personal perception/preference. From all this we can make certain statements/deductions:
1. One thing is certain, crossfeeding cannot and is NOT correcting/fixing "spatial distortion", it's there, baked into the recording and cannot be un-baked! All we're talking about therefore is just different presentations of that spatial distortion, not about a type of presentation which doesn't have spatial distortion.
2. While one may have a personal preference for crossfeed, it is likely to be contrary to the intent of the engineers/artists and to "fidelity", assuming the mix has been checked/adjusted on HPs. Unless of course that checking/adjusting was done with crossfeed but that would be exceptionally rare.
3. Anyone who believes/perceives that spatial distortion ceases to exist, disappears or is fixed by crossfeed is deluded and by definition NOT spatially enlightened but the exact opposite! Now, as it's all based on illusion/delusion in the first place, with any type of presentation, that's not as outrageously insulting as it appears. Nevertheless, in direct response to the quote: If you are ONLY able to "recognise and understand the benefits of crossfeed" but not able to recognise or understand it's disadvantages and not able to recognise and understand that you've still got spatial distortion, then you are CLEARLY NOT "spatially enlightened", you are (and must be) DELUDED!!! So again, enough with the "I'm spatially enlightened" BS, you're not, you're actually spatially deluded but just don't (and/or won't) realise it!
G
