Is live reproduction the goal of audio?


Is the ultimate direction of electronics to reproduce the original performance as though it were live?
lakefrontroad
It is relative...but electronics has as much to do with it as any thing else. It is a "whole" . If you want to duplicate the sound you must also capture the air as well as the notes. Your whole space ESPECIALLY the room has to have a say in the full ,and as close as possible reproduction of the whole musical experience. So enough with which brands can do what. And enough with the electrical engineer who knows nothing more about hi-fi than a doctor knows about life., Get it.
The goal of audio electronics and transducers is to sound as life-like as possible but this is not at all the same as "live".

Since real instruments have complex surfaces and venues have reflective surfaces that all radiate/reflect sound ....then the real thing is close to an impossibility for playback without a multitude of transducers and computer processing of signals.

An analogy would be a theatre play versus a movie.....the theatre is restricted to the stage where live actors can respond to eachother and the audience; it has major qualities in these dynamic interactions. A movie is flat 2D but an almost unrestricted visual palette for the director. Movies are edited and reviewed thousands of times to select the highest quality takes.

Both can be impressive but for very different reasons.

A movie will never fool you that it is real (even if it is impressive & engaging) and a live performance, so obviously real, will always be limited by the venue and the perfomers live abilities on that day.
To ACTUALLY perfectly reproduce a live orchestra is TOTALLY 100% impossible. Just as a television cannot create a living person. I my opinion the "GOAL" of home audio is to recreate as closely as possible the sound that the recording engineer hears during a LIVE session via the booth amplifiers and speakers. This is called "LIVE FEED". The live microphone passes thru playback amplifiers and speakers only; NO mixing boards or recording devices, or miles of cables, thousands of electrical components and connectors. This live studio playback type of sound is the same quality as you can hear when there is a live radio or TV program that has an in studio musician playing. The sound is clear, direct, with PACE, rythym, great dynamic range, without wow and flutter and a certain live "something" that is found in only the finest audio gear like Shroeder tonearms, SET amps, Supratek preamp, and high efficiency single frame full range speakers (Lowther). LIVE FEED is the goal and highest standard of comparison. Only the simplest (fewest components) and highest quality playback equipment can achievt this goal.
Yes and no.

I always believed it was, and still lean towards that view. I am now more aware of limitations though. I feel quite strange when some audiophiles focus on one aspect of sound reproduction to the detriment of the others.

Your question brings up the whole issue of rock and popular music, (let alone the computer generated or aided type)not having any kind of actual live performance to be captured.

The "it's all relative" answers simply serve to duck issues and are usually served to advance a totally subjective approach where ecverything and its polar opposite is justifiable or worst, seen as the truth.

The odd time I can be sucked into reproduced sound and either I think it is real or forget that it's not: no matter which, that's what the goal is it not? Too bad this magic doesn't work each and every time.

When the recording is bad, focus on the music. When the music is bad, focus on the recording. When the music and the recording are bad, don't blame your system.

Ultimately reproducing what is on the recording is the best you can do. Electronics have no intentions, the recording artists do, so even with perfect electronic technology the artist may decide to go retro with their sound and so should your system.

Like giving a painting proper lighting and place on the wall each CD/LP is a work of art and whether its good art or bad art the system at best should expose the true characteristics of the peice and give the listener enough information to discriminate the strengths and weaknesses of the many facets by which we judge art.

Modern Audiophiles engage in selective distortion in a sense they play Godhead or Creator, as they bend the work of others to satisfy themselves ( I am guilty) and this is the primary function of their system. This is why there is so much diversity in equipment as we do not build systems to accomodate intentions of the artist we instead build systems to suit our own aesthetic sensibilities, thus many of us are committing one of the mortal sins in our pursuit. On hobby level of course, no one is going to hell for this. :) But audiophiles put themselves first before the artist, and this is why a question like this can be raised with sincerity.

Creating "Live" feel is a distortion that some strive to attain....and at times do, but at a cost that another may not wish to pay. Distortion feeds into subjectivity, making subjectivity more important than objectivity. This of course is disasterous as in many areas equipment has improved little because the goal of what an "improvement" is remains unclear.

It is why high end is slowly dying, unlike Home Theater who's protaganists put the art first. Today, even the weakest lo-tech "High End Audio" company can survive on a good review and the attitude that whatever you like is right. When we all should have the fortitude to recognize that we may like the "wrong" thing and accept it. Smoking is unhealthy and if the goal is to be healthy then smoking is wrong. In a hobby which claims to deal in refinement and high performance, the reality is chaos and poor performance in the meaty part of the bell curve.

It is why outsiders don't "get it" and why sometimes our highly personalized systems give a negative impression to the un-enlightened and the enlightened alike.

At the time of my post there are four posts and all of them contain part of the chaos created by the lack of common ground on the matter. Let me finish make note of their thoughs so to highlite the incredible lack of consensus on such an easy topic.

"I benchmark electronics against original performances because I have heard unamplified live music and I "know" what it should sound like" (missing key detail) when recorder through X microphone and X processors, mastered on X speakers.... Over-simplification but the way it should be done.

"We are so stuck on the equipment that we believe it is the electronic engineer that "gets it".

The subtle rhetoric of exclusion and elitism

"High End is to produce the most intriguing experience with reproduced music."

The artist excluded, almost juxtaposed to the post above

There is no "getting it" to be gotten. It's all relative.

As permissive as it gets, no standards are good standards.

There will be more like this but why are these attitudes so prevalent and almost negative, when the answer to the original question is simply no.

Best Regards to you all.