Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

RE: Pretty much everything you said here is wrong.

"For what it's worth both Gordon and Harry were trying to get as close to the live experience as possible in reproduction."


Two things here.
1.Stereo playback does not involve "reproduction." It does not "reproduce" anything. Stereo playback produces a unique and new acoustic waveform.
2."The live experience?" There is no such thing as "THE live experience."


"That's why Harry called his magazine The Absolute Sound which he stated in issue 1 and many times after. And that was Gordon's attitude also which he also stated in the magazine and I often discussed with him."

If they were alive today I would have enjoyed discussing this issue with them. But as they are not here to engage in the discussion I don't see the relevance of two former audio journal editors' opinions on this subject. BUT...if you can show me any quotes in which they actually say the goal of stereo recording and playback is an accurate "RECONSTRUCTION" of the original waveform from the original acoustic event then I will concede that they actually believed that.



"Neither would say we were there or even expected to get there knowing the limitations of our gear."

It has nothing to do with the limitations of audio gear. It has to do with how stereo recording and playback actually works and what it was designed to actually do.


"But that was the goal even if they never got there."


They may or may not have thought it was *their* goal. It certainly was not the goal of the people who invented and developed stereo recording and playback. Again, we are talking about an accurate *RECONSTRUCTION* of the original waveform of the original acoustic event.

"Some of your comments are probably why Gordon was interested in surround sound."


I would bet he was interested in surround sound because as a subset of stereo recording and playback it may offer a more pleasing aural illusion of spaciousness and imaging.


"I suspect they'd agree that audio is an illusion. But the goal is to make it so the illusion can almost fool you so you can make believe once in a while."

OK that is what i have been saying all along.

"But they would call that an attempt at reproduction and so would I."


But it isn't. And this is a critical issue in understanding audio. In audio we do have attempts to accurately "reproduce" an audio signal. That was one of the ideas behind digital media, that it could more accurately record and reproduce the signal it was fed than any analog technology. So, IMO, it's pretty important talk about "reproduction" when we actually mean reproduction. A convincing aural illusion of realism is a different thing. calling that "reproduction" only creates confusion and gross misunderstandings about the role of accuracy in audio.


"Other wise what is the goal of high end audio with its costly, intricate gear. What are your targets?"



My targets are aesthetic excellence. Here is a question for you. Let's say you have a really crappy recording of music you love. Let's say the imaging is ping pongy and mostly located at the speakers and the balance is ear bleed bright. Do you want to hear that accurately or would you like it fixed with imaging that is more spacious and away from the speakers and a balance that actually sounds good? do you as a listener serve this ideal of accuracy or does audio serve you and your aesthetic values?


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Sonic Craft  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.