Originally Posted by BobChutney
I know this is an age-old thread. I thought I'd revive it rather than starting a new one.
My brother, who is not a sound engineer but a geophysicist, tells me this should be possible, and that he uses deconvolution all the time in analogous ways. I work quite a bit with a singer who records his vocals through a cheap condensor mic in a Turkish cottage. So what my brother says to me is that yes, Bob, you can create a sort of un-cheap condenser and turkish bedroomizer. He's running something on a super-computer for me now. I'm not holding my breath.
but your brother uses deconvolution in a way to provide a statistical average information return based on predictability. What sound engineers want isn't a "predictable" result - but the original EXACT result. In this scenario you need the original information.
The reason it doesn't work in exact reductive circumstances is provable via induction. When using a convolution reverb or IR you are using a static model (or pseudo random seeded model) to provide apparent uncorrelated results. That very random nature (even if seeded) stops you from "deconvolving" since there is an uncorrelated output. For deconvolution to work you need correlated or at least statistically predictable correlation.
Not doable for sound or any other uncorrelated signal. You MIGHT get useful and pleasing results, but because of the random and uncorrelated nature you would never be sure of the original signal without having the original signal to compare...