A mind boggling question.

[chessrock]

Whether it's a physically discrete channel is not the issue, obviously it's not, but the sound itself will have it's own location in the audible 3d space.

Uh . . . no.

Kind of like pulling out mono vocals in a stereo recording, they have programs that do that, just not as extensive as the one in question.

Oh brother.

it appears most of you are missing my point

That's because it only exists in your imaginary, pretend world where the laws of physics apparently don't apply.


Look Junior . . . like I said previously, you might want to address your use of drugs and how they affect your reasoning skills.

 

[regebro]

Anyhow, thx for the replies guys, but it appears most of you are missing my point .

No, you are missing ours.

Maybe if we simplify: Don't try to store an infinite number of sounds in a stereo field. It's too complicated, and we get these bogusarguments that "it's impossible to decode". Yes it ism but that's beside the point.

We'll just try to store an infinite number of morse code signals on one piece of tape, by encoding them with different frequencies. This is completely possible to do. No problem, in fact. And we can decode them too.

This has the exact same questions and implications as your question. There is an infinite amount of frequencies available. Even if we limit ourselfs to the 20-20k band, the amount of frequencies in between is still infinite. 1000Hz and 1000.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 Hz are not the same frequency.

So, it's possible? No. Because tape does not have infinite headroom. Which is explained to you earlier. As we add frequencies, to avoid distorting the tape, we have to lower the level of each signal. And that sooner or later brings us under the noise floor.

So, the theoretical answer is still: No, no matter how much you try, you can't store infinite data in finite storages.

And the answer to: "But WHY???" depends on the media, because different media have different limitations.

 

[NuTT98]

You cannot pull out individual tracks from a stereo recording unless they are mono. Even then it pulls out all the mono tracks together. There are no "programs that do that".

Indeed there are not, simply because there are no real meaningful uses for the idea. But by comparing the amplitude of a sound between the two stereo channels, a certain sound that has it's own effective space or pan can be distinguished from the other stuff on the track. If you can't understand that, I can't help you, but then I never expected you would.

Like I said, my question has already been answered, no need to beat a dead cow. The dudes at audio asylum were much more helpful than most of you, no offense. Getting into a hissy fit because you can't look past your own 'logical reasoning' certainly doesn't help.

And like I said, you are missing my point, not the other way around. If you can't even begin to answer my question, you obviously have no comprehension of what it is that I'm trying to say. Again, it's a very trippy topic and I didn't expect most would grasp the same concept as I have, but if you can't answer my question and you have the patience to try, please do so. However if you're gonna be a stubborn dick, just don't reply, it's quite simple really. I'm sure you can at least understand that.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

But by comparing the amplitude of a sound between the two stereo channels, a certain sound that has it's own effective space or pan can be distinguished from the other stuff on the track. If you can't understand that, I can't help you, but then I never expected you would.

YOU apparently don't understand it -- because it doesn't work that way........

 

[kylen]

Two tracks. That's all it's mixed down to, guys. You could start out with a million tracks . . . but ultimately when you combine them in a stereo recording, they become two. Now, you don't have infinite tracks anymore. Just two extremely busy and infinitely noisy ones.

Right Chessrock...I didn't make it thru the whole thread - my brain hurts, he he

If you mix or multiplex the stuff together there is no way to unmultiplex it or unmix it...

This is another flavor of the 'how do I remove the vocals' problem...anything mixed unequally (L-R) across the stereo field is there to stay.

Also in the example this thread uses due to panning and masking and localization cues and whatnot you'd end up with the mess chessrock predicts.

Oops, now I'm doing it - my brain hurts again just thinking about it...hehe

 

[regebro]

Indeed there are not, simply because there are no real meaningful uses for the idea. But by comparing the amplitude of a sound between the two stereo channels, a certain sound that has it's own effective space or pan can be distinguished from the other stuff on the track.

It's not that easy, but OK, this is all theoretical anyway, so it's beside the point. It's easy enought to assume that it's possible.

Like I said, my question has already been answered, no need to beat a dead cow. The dudes at audio asylum were much more helpful than most of you, no offense.

OK, so how did they explain it?

Getting into a hissy fit because you can't look past your own 'logical reasoning' certainly doesn't help.

No, so stop it.

Again, it's a very trippy topic and I didn't expect most would grasp the same concept as I have

Seems to me most have grasped it. Did you read my explanation above? It poses the same questions as your question and has the same answer, but without any questions about if it's possible or not, because that certainly IS possible. So, did you read it?

 

[chessrock]

by comparing the amplitude of a sound between the two stereo channels, a certain sound that has it's own effective space or pan can be distinguished from the other stuff on the track.

This would only be the case if you had only two sounds, and one was panned all the way left, and the other all the way right.

Anything in between does not "have it's own effective space," as you put it. Not even in theory. And not even hypothetically speaking. It doesn't even meet those criteria, so don't even go there. It's just a little louder in one channel than it is in the other. That's it. Not only is the hypothetical stero "field" a complete auditory illusion -- but it's a pretty bad one at that, and won't even hold up very well in the imaginary world you're trying to create.

Does that make any sense to you yet?

And don't tell me I don't understand the question. You're trying to say it's theoretically possible to tell some program: Locate a particular sound based on it's relative volume level accross these two channels. Simple, right?

EEEERRRGH ! ! ! Sorry. Try again.

It doesn't work, Einstein.

Think about it for a while. I'm not going to feed the answer to you. It should be obvious.

 

[kylen]

I guess you could run a simple practicle experiment too...

Put 2 'things' into the stereo field - one at 10'oclock at the other at 2'oclock...save the mix.

Now bring the mix up in an editor, use any time domain or frequency domain tool you can think of to seperate them again into 2 unique things they were originally...

Once we get that down maybe it's a pretty simple jump to building one of those Star Trek transporters - seems similiar to me - he he you first...

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Like baking a cake....

Try extracting the flour, eggs, sugar, milk from the cake after it's been baked......

T'ain't gonna happen.........

 

[kylen]

Like baking a cake....

Hmmm - cool mind experiment Blue Bear, he he I could see how that could work once someone invents the un-oven...

 

[StevenLindsey]

tsk. tsk.. Some of you people need to come down here and rake my yard. ( that ain't as easy as it sounds. ) You obviously don't have enough to do.

 

[regebro]

Of course it's possible to separate the sounds. Your brain do it all the time. QED.

I'm not gonna tell you how it can be done though, because it's beside the point. The question is not "how can the sound be extracted" the question is "why can't you store infinite data that way". And I'd rathe finish that question properly first.

 

[chessrock]

The question is not "how can the sound be extracted" the question is "why can't you store infinite data that way". And I'd rathe finish that question properly first.

Don't even bother, because idiot's not gonna' get it. He'll complain that you don't understand his question and he'll get all huffy at you.

 

[regebro]

He already did that. But I give people more than one chance.

 

[Richard Monroe]

OK, I think I'm stoned enough to answer now. I won't even address the data storage issue, because that's already been handled. The key point being overlooked here (in some cases, I suspect, intentionally) Is that sound is not data. Data is used to attempt to model or replicate, and store a facsimile of sound for retrieval. This is true whether the storage medium is analog or digital. It is also true regardless of the of the sampling rate and density.
Real sound is a physical effect that consists of waves that travel through a solid, gaseous, liquid or plasma medium. Then those waves impact the diaphragm of the ear (or a mic, which is a model of an ear), and the brain attempts to model the sound again as a biochemically created electrical impulse, and then to store the model chemically for retrieval, which you call memory. Not only is the storage medium limited in it's ability to store this model of sound as data, so is the brain.
Moreover, no matter how many sources are combined to create a pair of signals, the diaphragms of the ears can only vibrate in one way at a time, which means that all the data of these theoretically infinite sources are combined into one signal, which still has the same amount of total data!
Because of the limits of the data storage system, whether mechanical or biochemical, and the limits of the replicator (speaker) used to turn the data back into a physical wave form, as the limits are exceeded, "frequency saturation" sets in, and the infinite signals create multiple real world wave forms which compete for acoustic space, creating phase distortion and a disordered jumble of wave forms called "white noise".
What nutcase said would be true, if the speaker was the mouth of God, and the sound travelled through infinite air to the ear and mind of God! But- neither data storage, nor air, nor the brain of man is infinite. The assumption that it is is the inherent flaw in the original train of thought.-Richie

 

[chessrock]

"frequency saturation" sets in, and the infinite signals create multiple real world wave forms which compete for acoustic space, creating phase distortion and a disordered jumble of wave forms called "white noise".

Ding ding ding ! ! !

RM's got it right.

You now win a lifetime supply of Salami and Rice Cakes.

 

[kylen]

yeah - good one RM - I think you've got the munchies by now anyway, he he party over at chessrock's place !

 

[vox]

In theory you can cut a pie into an infinite number of pieces, but that doesn't mean you can feed the world with it.

 

[freeztar]

here's a more appropriate example...
Take a song, any song, and isolate one channel. Now try to mess with the EQ to get a certain sound isolaated (pretty rough huh)
If the bass is in the middle, then you will have it protruding into the guitar that is panned far right. If you manage to somehow "isolate" the guitar part, then you will be astounded to find out that the guitar part has some bass sounds in it. No matter how much you play with EQ, or Comp, or whatever, you will not end up with an individual sound.
Your theory is interesting, but it is not even a theory. It is a bunk hypothesis. If you don't think so, then follow the scientific method and carry out your experiment. I've outlined one above, and many others have stated the same thing in less words.
But...
If you could store infinite data on infinite medium, then it would be possible to store everything, because you have infinite space.
Yes it is trippy.
No it's not deep.
Let us know when you come back to earth.
Until then (and after then), formulate your thoughts before you speak (or type).