In article , RJH
wrote:
People keep arguing as if an inability to get perfection means that
nothing can be done. I know the Civil Service love this ploy, and
debaters use it. But the reality is that if you want to hear a sound
as similar as possible to what you'd get in a live venue, then you do
need to have some idea what that actually sounds like. :-)


I think you're deploying shifting sands here. I don't think anybody is
asking for perfection.

Actually, I think 'perfection' *is* implicitly what Bob is taking for
granted in his arguments to the effect that it is irrelevant to become
familiar with the sound in a venue and trying to use that as a reference
when assessing how convincingly your home hifi plays material from there.
Note his total failure (thus far) to accept that doing such a comparison
could ever have any usefulness.

The process isn't perfect. But it can be very useful *if* what you want to
hear at home is a result convincingly similar to 'being there'. *And* if
the recording/broadcast was made with this aim in mind - which will be
the case for examples like R3 concerts, etc.

OTOH if you just want a 'music box' that plays studio creations that were
laid down track by track, say, then I'd agree the above would be
irrelevant. But that means you want a music box not a high *fidelity*
system. *And* this can be relevant for 'studio creations' which aim at
an effect other than replicating being in the venue.

Note: I do NOT use the term "music box" here in a derogatory sense. I'm
just trying to signal that different people want different things. This
kind of distinction isn't new. You can see it discussed, for example, in
Milner's "Perfecting Sound Forever" book. Nothing wrong in this in itself.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html