Originally Posted by GregLee
The defined reference is the original sonic event. Exactly.
Exactly what? Where? Let's grant that for a specific orchestral work, for example, you have in mind a specific venue in which it was performed. I'll even grant that you know which performance on which day by a specific orchestra. We're going to recreate that actual performance, that is your original sonic event.
What seat in the hall is your exact reference? Measurements taken at various locations for the same short segment of music will all be different, and not trivially so. Is your reference for the first half, before the guy seated in front of you had to leave, or the second half? Is your head tilted a bit to the left... or rotated a little right?
Wait, you say, doesn't matter, its all the same sonic event. Sure, but measurements for all of these variations will be noticeably different. If you are going to attempt "corrections", you need a defined objective reference to correct to. You're in the objective world, this needs to be something measurable. If you can't point to a specific criteria that is the reference, your definition of fidelity is vacuous.
Perhaps you say the small variations don't actually matter, aren't audible, etc. Actually, it is our impressive ability to receive and process this wavefront information that allows us to know we are in a real space, not listening to a reproduction, and is why your proposed abx test would fail. The little variations as our head position changes or the guy in front moves within that 3d wavefield provides us those perceptual clues. And conventional techniques are incapable of capturing and delivering the wavefront information.
Maybe you mean that a blind test between original sonic event and reproduction in real time is the test and criteria, bypassing any measurement middlemen. Fine, but as the two will be easily distinguished you again are faced with population preference trend and no objective measure of fidelity that necessarily applies to an individual.
That's fine if that is your reference and criteria. It happens to be mine too. But it isn't fidelity. Words have meanings, and this one doesn't mean that.
Could we have some clarification, or possibly even some evidence?
I hope I've clarified my exception to your definition. As for evidence, you've made some pretty big assumptions and bold claims that "it can be worked out" and I won't be bothered with setting up an impractical or even impossible abx test to simply show null results.