Is live reproduction the goal of audio?

>>Your gold star and wax clown lips are on the way in the mail to you now<<

The gold star is cool but skip the lips. I have no interest in looking like you.

To illustrate that you chould use the film analogy again and look at Andy Warhols documentary of, I think it was the Empire State Building. He put a camera on a tripod and filmed the building from the same vantage point for many hours without moving the camera or tripod. That's the entire film. That's the truth. That's Andy's truth. I doubt many of us would be interested to watch it for very long. What's your truth? What's wrong with a "wild discussion"...it actually makes you think a bit...stretch your imagination...step out of the box.

I'm not tooo fast . but will get there.

I'm so far out of the box that you should stay away.

You see you are absolutely right about my truth, Andy's truh and your truth. So much that when someone says that component A kills B then he is imposing their truth on you . You will never get to the bottom of anything that way.

Making this a wild discussion about the subject ....and not the subject. 100%

Making me and you wild and .....LOL

This has been discussed/argued so many times and there is no resolution. Perception is not reality, and reality cannot be subjective. People too often confuse opinion for fact. Just because 20 people in a room describe an event differently does not change the event. It simply points out the amount of error taking place in peoples minds, and their inability to explain their perceptions. Most of the people in that room will be wrong when they relate their experience. That does not take anything away from the event, it simply proves human fallability.

The big issue arises when people who were not in the room try to explain as authorities what took place there because they heard a recording of the event.

Charlie it might be a step in the right direction. BUT ANYWAY, do you have something to offer to the discussion?

Everyone

Jax2....let me give you some 100%. You really nice guy you. You, I wish I was there to share my passion . Take that buddy and watch your smile ...

Ok ...100% fact that we are just talking about the subject was my point.

Truth does exist 100% . I bet you can find me a 100% lie. It is relative only because out of the 100 people in a room only 1-2 will look through the lies to uncover the truth. The rest believe that what is .."is" They are happy to take someone elses truth and make thier own. It takes somebody really different to search and search to constantly keep uncovering more truth through the maze of lies.
Fear will keep you from moving on.

The reason one cannot handle the truth is a fairly simple one . He is just not aware of it. In order to confront anything you have to know something about it . A very few lead the rest follow. The followers make the most noise I'm afraid...

Nice to read posts like yours

Perception is not reality, and reality cannot be subjective. People too often confuse opinion for fact.

Perhaps not, but 'perception' is all any of us have. It is how we experience 'reality'. Absolutely agreed, people frequently confuse their own opinions, but I'm not sure about "fact"...I think they confuse their opinions with opinions that they think everyone should have, or would have given the same experience.

Just because 20 people in a room describe an event differently does not change the event.

No, as above, it shows how strongly we rely on our perception, and how each individuals percetion of an event is entirely subjective. The audio industry is producing this stuff because human beings buy it to reproduce music in their homes...not in order to recreate perfect sine waves. Human beings are the target market, not computers and machines.

As far as there being some objective "Truth" or "Reality", Rene Descartes makes a pretty formidable argument that the concept is not so cut and dry. Since I can only view the world through my own experience, I cannot fathom why I should try to force myself into accepting some other "truth" to be my own, or worse yet, become a machine (impossible anyway, of course - where would the wax clown lips go?) that had no such subjective perceptions as I do as a human.

It simply points out the amount of error taking place in peoples minds, and their inability to explain their perceptions. Most of the people in that room will be wrong when they relate their experience. That does not take anything away from the event, it simply proves human fallability.

And again, my entire point. NONE of those people are WRONG, they presumably relayed the event exactly (or as closely as possible) as they perceived it. It does not even have to be about "fallabilty" or mistakes. From one vantage point in a room even an objective recording machine will record the event differently (it may sound different and appear different) than another machine positioned somewhere else in the room. Mike the event at the source, mike it a few feet out, mike it at the back, or the side of the room, and you have many different sounding recordings. Same thing if a person stands in those places. Ditto they will see the event differently from a different angle.

C5150 - Thank you, I enjoyed your posts as well. My point is there is no 100% truth and 100% lie - it is all entirely relative to the one perceiving it. If there is some "objective truth", I'm not sure why it matters as each of us will have our own version of it anyway...we cannot help it, we are human. How can you say one or the other of us is "wrong" in conveying their experience of something...that's how they perceived it! Then in turn you are saying it is "wrong" to experience the world as a human being, and that we should be more like machines. I do not find that an admirable quality. Good to hear you're out - stay out of the box my friend!

Marco