Is live reproduction the goal of audio?


Is the ultimate direction of electronics to reproduce the original performance as though it were live?
lakefrontroad

Showing 3 responses by cdc

Lakefrontroad wrote "I am interested in how our community views what we do." Except for Jax2 who tries to inject a laxative into this constipated thread.
Sociallite has many good insights, I wish I was so good at writing.
The common goal here seems to be finding your own idea of perfection. Rock groups used to say they needed to have a "sound". Likewise the system needs to have a certain pervasive "sound" which it imparts to the music. Maybe that sound is "no sound".
The difference between consumer goods and industrial purchases is that consumers tend to change out stuff more often for the latest and greatest, emotional reasons, boredom etc. while businesses buy for more pragmatic reasons; ie: to serve a specific purpose. Look at those desks from the 50's the State still uses. Functional but that's about it.
I would vote for sound which is not annoying or detracts from my enjoyment of the music. A system which pleases on its own terms. Then adding more detail and volume at the frequency extremes as long as this does not cause problems.

I don't want some "technically perfect / musically dead", hyped up, nervous, twitchy, race-horse of a system that I can't relax with. When listening to my p.o.s. system, I enjoy the *music*, don't worry much about the *sound*. That, to me is a major success.
Besides you don't have to own stuff to enjoy reading, talking, and learning about it. I think the term is Armchair Ace.
Thanks Jax2, there is some magic to this little system. Great sound, just not much of it.
I should quit now before I get myself into trouble. Not that I will, mind you :-).