I happen to know for a fact that Nrchy is an idiot, so don't put much stock in what he says!
Frogman, you raise a lot of valid points and I hope I can clarify some of what I intended to state.
Thr issue is not that I would not be able to recognize voices I know in different venues, but that there are too many unknowable (I coined a word?!?) variables in any recording whether it is acoustic music, or electronic to be able to use live music as a standard.
Most audiophiles claim to use live, acoustic, unamplified music as the standard by which they judge the quality of their own systems. I think this is a noble sentiment, but practically impossible since there are too many variables which the listener cannot solve.
The same violin will sound different in Carnegie Hall than it will Stephan's Dom. I think it is practically impossible to be familiar enough with the majority of concert venues were recordings are made to be able to determine the specifics of that recording session.
I admit people like John Atkinson will have an advantage over the casual audiophile. Sitting in on the planning, recording and mastering of the CD allows for intimacy the rest of us will never possess.
We don't have enough information to determine what the recording should sound like, even if we attend live concerts regularly.
I have attended concerts in five different venues in my own home town, apart from various bars over the year. They all have good qualities which make the event enjoyable, but telling the difference between the venues later (on a recording) would be all but impossible except between the worst and best of them.
It is just disingenuous to say that one uses live music as their standard for putting a system together. So I wonder what the standard used by the average audiophile is based upon?
Frogman, you raise a lot of valid points and I hope I can clarify some of what I intended to state.
Thr issue is not that I would not be able to recognize voices I know in different venues, but that there are too many unknowable (I coined a word?!?) variables in any recording whether it is acoustic music, or electronic to be able to use live music as a standard.
Most audiophiles claim to use live, acoustic, unamplified music as the standard by which they judge the quality of their own systems. I think this is a noble sentiment, but practically impossible since there are too many variables which the listener cannot solve.
The same violin will sound different in Carnegie Hall than it will Stephan's Dom. I think it is practically impossible to be familiar enough with the majority of concert venues were recordings are made to be able to determine the specifics of that recording session.
I admit people like John Atkinson will have an advantage over the casual audiophile. Sitting in on the planning, recording and mastering of the CD allows for intimacy the rest of us will never possess.
We don't have enough information to determine what the recording should sound like, even if we attend live concerts regularly.
I have attended concerts in five different venues in my own home town, apart from various bars over the year. They all have good qualities which make the event enjoyable, but telling the difference between the venues later (on a recording) would be all but impossible except between the worst and best of them.
It is just disingenuous to say that one uses live music as their standard for putting a system together. So I wonder what the standard used by the average audiophile is based upon?