Neutral electronics are a farce...


Unless you're a rich recording engineer who record and listen to your own stuff on high end equipment, I doubt anyone can claim their stuff is neutral.  I get the feeling, if I were this guy, I'd be disappointed in the result. May be I'm wrong.
dracule1
Sheesh are things really so dire? My stuff sounds great. Maybe on the bleeding edge.....

One thing never changes....worry about the things that matter that you can control, not those that do not as much and you can’t.

Obsessive compulsive audiophiles are fine. Someone has to worry about the outstanding details in a lab environment before something is ready for mass consumption.

Its just not me though.   I spend my time listening and enjoying the music whenever I can.

I’m an east coaster and usually try to get to Capital Audiofest each summer. Always some nice finds there.

I think it is a matter of how stable and how focused compared to live.
I recommend that you get a set of really good microphones (I use Neumann U-67s) and go out and make your own recordings. That's what I do (Canto General, which was produced on LP and CD, is one of my first reference disks, produced in 1986). Having been there at the recording site and having heard what the microphone feed did (and having heard many microphone feeds before and since), I can instantly if something is right or not. Having your own reference is really handy; how else are you to know if a recording is really sounding right?

Stable and focused is no worries.
I guess you can compare the difference between a photo taken with a 3 MP camera, a 5 MP camera etc.

What if you take a picture now with a 100 mega pixel camera?
They are all stable and focused but now you can see detail that only could have be seen in person.

My auto-focus uses quantum physics and is accurate to parts per trillion.
Semiconductor manufacturers do not make a device that can do this.
That's why I had to make my own devices.

Roger
The analogy does not hold up.

Do you have a method of measuring the effect you describe?
No doubt you can only reproduce what’s in the recording most all of which are flawed in some way, even the good live recordings which are the only ones relevant for comparing a live event to what you hear off a recording.

I find once your system is performing well, the recording is essentially always the biggest bottleneck by far in regards to sound quality or "like live".

You can’t reproduce what’s not there to start with.

In a lab experiment like Atmasphere’s with ultimate care in recording and playback, only then is one in a position to be talking about anything approaching zero distortion or perfection.

With the best live recordings I know of like teh best from Mercury Living Presence, Dorian or Mapleshade most good systems should sound like being there. Even my somewhat modest rigs do. I’m sure if I was at teh live performance recorded, with same perspective as the mikes, which alone is not likely, I might notice some differences. But why should that matter? They are ALL recordings.  Flawed and/or limited representations of real life.   Some might be like a high res photo and some like abstract Picassos,  some even just a total disaster like DT might say.  What matters is the illusion of a live recording. That happens with most any decent recording in a good setup, even if produced in a studio.