“Faithful to the recording”

"Faithful to a recording"means nothing...or almost nothing at best.... 😁😊

i agree...

But there is a misconception in all audio...

Some claim that an ideal speaker set for example COULD be faithful to the recording...

This is also meaningless, not because there is no perfect speakers, but because these alleged perfect speakers must be located in a SPECIFIC IMPERFECT room with his acoustic content and acoustic geography...

The goal in audio is the creation/translation of this music/sound from one acoustical context, which is the RELATIVE perspective of the recording process on a lived event, to be translated in the psycho-acoustic geography of your room which is also a relative acoustic and esthetic perspective from and on the recording event ....

All this meaningless descriptions about absolute fidelity and "reproduction" instead of the more correct TRANSLATION word, come from the gear market publicity and sellers(reviewers)..,

And also from the forgetfulness that between the specific trade-off choices during recording process, there is TWO acoustic perspectives, the specific perspective of a listener seating at the original lived event, and the perspective of the listener with the play back gear in relation with his specific room and ears...

Then this misconception about being " faithful to the recording" it did not come from acoustic experience for sure , but from gear sellers...

And the desesperate pursuit toward some new piece of gear allegedly able to be more "faithful to the recording" erase the importance of room acoustic out of the equation at worst and at best put it in the secondary position completely, a minor necessity instead of the center of the experience itself, which it is...

Selling is not always educating....it is also unvolontarily deception of ourself to begin with....

Isn’t the recording the information contained on the media?

If so, then any gear that sucks it up and reproduces it without introducing audible "coloration" (however defined), distortion or any number of other unwanted artifacts?

I never read that part of reviews. It is all flowery nonsense to me not to mention I've hardly ever heard the recordings they use and have no point f reference. Just because they are reviewer does does not mean they know what to listen for. The fact that they ascribe characteristics to equipment that it can not possibly have makes me think they have no idea what they are talking about.

With most of the reviewers quality follows cost. When they all get excited about a less expensive piece of gear, like the JC 1 amplifiers and the Channel D Lino C you probably have real winners. 

From the first acoustic lived event where any seat give another perspective on the lived acoustic event, we have AFTER the independant recording process who "manipulate" by INEVITABLE choices trade-off process this acoustic event which is no more the original one now but a package of analog/digital information who gives another potential acoustic perspective of his own...

And we have the second acoustic event in YOUR ROOM, where you listen THROUGH your room acoustic settings and geography this TRANSFORMED and and TRANSLATED potential perspectival event into an actual one...

The mythology of the high fidelity "reproduction" instead of a "translated" acoustic analog/digital information INTO the acoustic language of your room comes from the Gear marketing for DECADES ....And come from the forgetfulness of the essental acoustic role in the listener perception and experience...

Nobody has ever listen to his system/speakers DIRECTLY , we listen to the system/speakers/room...

What is an acoustic translation ? The acoustic factor in the lived event, which vary with each seat in the theater, for example the timbre perception, will be TRANSLATED in another experience of timbre perception by virtue of the SPECIFIC acoustic properties of your room...

It will be the same for the listener envelopment factor/sound source width ratio or LV/ASW experienced in a specific seat in the theater and after that translated in your room specific acoustic content and perceived very differently by you than if you were seating in a specific location in the theater...

😁😊

To repeat the evidence: no system/ speakers can beat the room alone by itself... Minimal Acoustic treatment and mechanical control must be used to improve the listening experience and put the gear to his peak level working potential...

Generally a well treated and mechanically controlled room is a huge upgrade over a nude room, more than most upgrades which are available for the wallet of each of us...

Then instead of repeating the market gear publicity it is better to read about acoustic.... 😁😊

There is no "original" unique lived event, only many acoustic perspectives on it from the chosen seat of a listener in the theater to the seat in your room...Then there is no "reproduction" only an acoustic translation...

Isn’t the recording the information contained on the media?

If so, then any gear that sucks it up and reproduces it without introducing audible "coloration" (however defined), distortion or any number of other unwanted artifacts?

@immatthewj 

"maybe that's why I seldom read a review anymore, except to sometimes get specs and prices of something I find interesting".

When I'm contemplating an upgrade I read/watch as many reviews as I can find, in order to glean whatever info might be useful for the process of narrowing down which components appear to meet my parameters. Very rarely do I buy anything I cannot demo at home and return, if need be. In the end, I depend upon my own ears.