Absolute...

[Dave Clark]

Saw this in a post on the site and am curious what others think...

 

"If Audiophiles are in pursuit of recreating what was recorded exactly, note for note and bit for bit, and have it sound as close to the live experience as possible"

 

How many are of this side of the fence? That we are out to recreate the recorded event as accurately as possible and/or have it sound as close to the live experience as possible?

 

Or on the other side of the fence in that we have no idea what it 'should' sound like since we were not there and who knows what accuracy should sound like since we do not have access to the master tapes and besides playback in a studio will never sound sound playback in our house because it is a completely different chain, room, etc., etc..

 

So in the end we are simply out to make what we have sound like what we want it to sound like, though obviously we want it to sound as good as possible - whatever that may mean to the individual.

 

[Thomas J]

Any assessment of sonic merit judges from a reference, tacit or express, of what sounds best. It could be that the sound of the acoustic wave that fed the microphone might sound better to some if changed. Apart from that possible aspect of the reference of what sounds best, it seems to me the remainder of such reference must be the acoustic wave itself, whatever that may have been. Jitter, for its part, is a sonically disturbing non-correspondence. Etc.

 

[salwani]

I think that the first two portions of the statement would be generally accurate, but the last portion ("and have it sound as close to the live experience as possible") is dependent on the type of music. If live acoustic, then i would agree. In this case, the presentation, in my opinion, can have a substantial impact on the overall listening satifaction, in addition to the performance and the SQ.

 

 

 

[manisandher]

I'm often reminded of Plato's three perspectives - the Good, the True and the Beautiful - in these types of discussions.

 

I think we have to be careful not to reduce these three perspectives into one. Yes, an audio system should be 'true'... but 'beauty' will always remain in the eye of the beholder.

 

The Good is interesting also. Habermas's validity claim here is 'justness'. I think the audio industry (in general) could do with being more 'just'.

 

Mani.