Is live reproduction the goal of audio?

Jax2 thinks he's clever; one of the wisest moves he made was his cessation of posting a month or so ago. Unfortunately, he's not so wise anymore.

LOL Cdc...touche! Charlie 101 - I've no doubt produced greater wisdom out
of the crack of my derriere than your witty retort has demonstrated you to be
in posession of.

Seriously...I do regret my acerbic post went a bit overboard, nonetheless the
core sentiments are heart felt (or is that fart felt?), though personal insults
were not intended in that post, believe it or not.

I think it's a natural expectation to want to try to attain the experience of live
reproduction. After all, it is truly miraculous that these groups of boxes and
circuits and wires can do what they do and bring so many aspects of
reproducting space and time through sound to an entirely different space and
time. Whether it's possible or not to reproduce, verbatim, given the current
state of technology should not even be an issue to anyone who's been around
the hobby very long. Like many such debates, this one seems to draw out
two distinct camps: The scientists who, come from the head/mind, and
demand white papers, bars and graphs and numbers, statistics...something
tangible to justify their existence, and in this case, their investment. Then
there are the artists, who come from the heart and tend to trust in their
feelings, experience, perceptions, sun, moon, stars and tofu ice cream. For
me...well, I guess I can see both sides as being full of it, though I'd count
myself among the artists. Both are trying to justify their existence here (aren't
we all), whether it be through audio gear, music, or some earth shattering
invention or profound artistic statement. It's all quite wonderful, it's all a load
of crap, and in the end, none of it matters, and it's all entirely relative to our
own personal experience here. We all leave as we came, with nothing. The
question brought to bear makes as much sense to me, and the answers as
meaningless as if asking, "What's the ultimate goal of vanilla ice
cream" or "What's the pinnacle of beauty in a human being"
or "What's the best car (beer, wine, bicycle, watch...or fill in the blank
with any such thing we like to banter about, obsess over, and get passionate
about). It's all relative, there is no "right" answer, and none of it
means anything, except what we each make it mean. I make no apologies
that this does not seem to be a popular view to those who wish to put their
"passions" on a pedastal. There is no Santa Claus kids, and there
is no "Absolute Sound" (unless you are talking about a bi-monthly
magazine). It's just my crotchity, existentialist point of view these days. I'd
heap it in among those I addressed in my previous post, and laugh at how
ridiculous I am (I'm sure many of you have got the jump on me there). BTW,
though you wouldn't know it from what I'm saying here perhaps, I am quite
passionate about music and the audio gear I use to enjoy it...I think it's all
pretty wonderous and amazing. It just strikes me as so wrong (ain't this
ironic) when folks start talking in absolute terms...right/wrong...bad/
good...black/white...the ultimate. So when I see it, I feel compelled to say
something. Perhaps it's a knee-jerk reaction. But there it is.

Even if the question were met with a rousing and unanimous "
YES", and even if actual verbatim live reproduction were indeed possible
via the technology available, I can guarantee you that there would be many
among us who would still prefer some form of "colored" version,
or some control over how "reality" sounded in their own space.
But then you folks in agreement could take great comfort in the company of
one and other's assurances that yours is the "right" way, and there
is only just one "right" way. Sound familiar? Hitler used it to his
advantage. It is the 'glue' of fundmentalist religious propoganda (Muslim,
Christian, ....etc.), Jim Jones sold his grape Kool Aide solution to a good
number of unfortunate people that way.

Marco

From what one poster points out, I must be one of the few audiophiles that almost exclusively listens to live recordings..hopefully this is not true.

Overly compressed music makes me tense. So I don't bother buying it or listening to it on my system. Although, I will listen to it on a boombox or a car stereo as it was intended.

IMHO It should be the goal of the recording studios to bring us as close to live as possible. This means less compression and the use of real instruments and musicians while the recording is being made. Once you hear a recording with zero compression and the real Mccoys standing in doing their thing. You understand the most important part of an audio system is the recording itself. Without it no matter how many electronic components and speakers you throw in front of it. It will never turn the recording into something it wasn't to begin with.

Maybe it's just me? I'm frugal about recordings more than anything else. I think I may have been ruined as a child playing the violin in a school orchestra.

Cheers

Marco, well said.
Let's ask the question 'Is the goal of home cinema the goal of presenting the authentic or real version of visual events'? The answer to that can serve as the answer to the audio version of that question.
Bob P.

Let's ask the question 'Is the goal of home cinema the goal of presenting the authentic or real version of visual events'? The answer to that can serve as the answer to the audio version of that question.

.

I think it was Godard who said: "Cinema is truth at 24 frames per second". Even in the realms of the documentary film we can take a look at a film like "David Holtzman's Diary" or even any of Michael Moore's "documentary" films, and realize that that particular question is far more complex and multilayered than the one asked here. I might draw the paralell to looking at the more simple single frame of photography. Again, you can go to a chat group on this subject and find the "scientist-types" telling us that large format film cameras cannot be matched for their rendition of "reality" because of their fine grain, sharp lenses, superior resolution and their ability to record tremendously subtle tonal gradation. Yet the film they used is limited to that which is not capable of taking in nearly as much as the human eye. And do any of these qualities a great photograph make? To answer that question just give an average hobbyist shooter an 8X10 camera with thorough instructions as to precisely how to use it and get the most from it. In turn compare the work he/she might produce with that tool, to the work Cartier Bresson or Eugene Smith did with a 35mm camera and tell me which is the more engaging photograph. It is not the tools that necessarily determine the success or failure of the translation of "reality", but the people behind them. Add to that the advent of digital manipulation and give a master at that a crack at "reality" and then where to you draw your boundries? Is that manipulaiton any different from the audio engineer at the sound board who determines how to shape and define that sound that is recorded? Also, just look at the poor quality of many of the older recordings, such as those of bluesman Robert Johnson, yet the magic of his musicianship continues to be an inspiration to so many of his contemporaries, and comes through in spite of the lack of technologies wonders. Many musicians I've known just don't give a rat's ass about the quality of their system, even when presented with a system that is astoundingly good at reproducing a musical event. They care more about the music itself, and many are just as happy listening to music through a boom box as they would be a more advanced system. Who's right, who's wrong? The question I pose is why do you need to ascribe that of any of us, and why is there some need to determine some universal, ultimate goal of audio gear? It's all pretty amazing to me...I tend to go with the stuff I enjoy listening to the most myself. I find that it is not always appreciated as much by others, but I sure do like it.

Marco