Real or Surreal. Do you throw accuracy out the window for "better" sound?

@hilde45 wrote:

There is no corresponding "objective reality." That’s right. Everything that "is" must be somehow taken by us. No raw given, no way to check. Even the "real, objective" cello on the stage, playing live, is heard by me -- my sitting position, my ears, my distracted mind -- and, most important -- my interpretative taking of that acoustical experience.

Do the variations coming from your specific experience and seated position fundamentally change the sound from a cello or other, even compared to that perceived by another individual sharing the same event, and the variations at play here? I know, no way to check on the latter part of the question posed, but it doesn’t matter - to me that applies more to intersubjectivity than subjectivity per se; while you wouldn’t have the very same sonic experience as the other person sitting at a distance from you (or yourself in another position), you’d nonetheless - both of you - take part in the same event and share its overall characteristics.

If, in my home, I want to experience what I did in the concert hall -- ok, then I try to figure out how to do that. (And, as @mahgister points out: there are a hundred interpretive acts which are between me and that moment: engineers, mastering, etc.) But in this enterprise, let me not fall into the trap that I’m "really" getting back to something "more real." That’s folly and, worse, obfuscation. But it makes for some great chest-beating online.

From my chair, in the context of audio reproduction, it’s a fallacy thinking something not achieved as an exact replica of an original event can’t represent, in variations or approximations of realness in a progressive manner, said event as an objective "something." Too many seem to believe that what can’t be emulated in every aspect in audio reproduction is in essence a venture suffused in subjectivity. I disagree. Let’s not confuse the philosophical distinction of "das ding an sich/für uns" (thing-in-itself/to-us) as anything applicable to audio; both the original event and final reproduction is an experience "für uns" anyway, so I’d leave whatever is "an sich" to mere speculation about the world’s supposed murky-mysterious, inherent true state.

@mahgister --

Thanks for the elaborations. Your posts are interesting and informative, but in the context of my previous reply I don't see a significant take-away from your writings to alter my basic position. 

Now no one listening music in a live event will hear the same exact TIMBRE experience , by the acoustic difference in time and timing of the waves and the specific location ... Even the violonist will hear his tonal playing timbre in a specific location no more truthfull or erroneous, no more objective nor subjective than any other position ...

My point is: the exact same timbre experience isn't necessitated for one to still go by a reference that can be construed as objective. The differences in perception in different positions to an instrument (or orchestra as a whole) has us as a variable revolving around and at the same constituting a fixed it, but the variables in experience here isn't about perceiving different, isolated natures of experience, but rather subtle variations of the same. And of course, the violinist him- or herself will be treated to quite a different sonic experience, but that's not the intended point of reference in a recording (or live performance) that seeks to capture (or have us experience live) the presentation and totality of an entire orchestra. 

Then if you understand what i said above , we must distinguish the acoustic objective SPECIFIC perspective in location of any listener in the original live event and his subjective interpretation and the OBJECTIVE trade off choices of the recording engineer which will be transformed in an OBJECT ( music album ) and our own specific location and acoustic situation in our listening room ... Then there is no absolutely objective truthfulness in audio reproduction as you claimed , there is only a correlated set of links in a CHAIN of trade-off choices INTERPRETATION ...

Placing that much importance in the subjective experience and final interpretation as something that hinders a certain degree of "objective truthfulness," to me, is both misplaced and exaggerated. Remember, I'm not claiming we can have access to a perfect facsimile of a live event in its reproduced form at home, across the board among all of us, but it's still meaningful to pursue aspects of "realness" in reproduction that can actually be talked about as objective parameters. Sure, whether we sit closer to or further away to the back of the orchestra, left or right will have an impact, I'm not debating that. Indeed, everything you say about the interpretative nature and variations in coming about an experience as different individuals has merit as "observables," I just don't agree on the implications.