In Reply to: RE: Question for John Atkinson posted by John Atkinson on April 27, 2015 at 04:17:55:
John, what is your definition of "musically perfect"? Can you elaborate on that? Or should the reader just take that on its face?
By "musically perfect", are you not implying that the room, the associated gear, the recordings, the studio engineering, etc. would all have to be musically perfect as well?
Are you also implying that all distortions and shortcomings that supposedly plague every last playback system were absent in this system? Can you explain how this might be possible?
Are you implying that the sound you heard was indistinguishable from the live performance?
If what you heard was indeed musically perfect wouldn't it have been more appropriate to state that you were in the recording hall rather than the singer being in your room?
Also, if what you heard was musically perfect, then do we really need a new higher rez format like MQA?
If musical perfection was achieved in that room, then is there any point in others continuing their R&D efforts?
Is there such a thing as more musically perfect than what you heard in the Vandersteen room?
How does this musical perfection that you heard compare or contrast with your statement in the September, 2009 issue, page 3 where you speculated "I'm starting to feel that it is something that is never captured by recordings at all that ultimately defines the difference between live and recorded sound."
Have you ever recanted or rescinded that statement?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Question for John Atkinson - stehno 20:38:09 04/27/15 (4)
- The thought comes to mind ... - DAP 01:27:18 04/29/15 (0)
- RE: Question for John Atkinson - John Atkinson 09:49:43 04/28/15 (2)
- Don't be silly, John. - stehno 18:36:10 04/28/15 (1)
- I'm just guessing, of course, but he probably meant that he liked them nt - DAP 00:59:49 04/29/15 (0)