The real truth about recordings

A close friend of mine who was a dedicated Dead Head and followed them around the country has numerous stories about how much their performances sounded different according to the venue, mic-ing, and what drugs were floating around.

I read the Stereophile article mentioned above.  It has some good points, but I think there are some problems with the viewpoints expressed.

Obviously, there are pop studio recordings that in no way represent a single performance in an acoustically accurate manner, whether due to recording engineering, overdubbing, etc.

But some recordings in various genres are essentially live recordings of everyone playing together at the same time, and these can be recorded in an "audiophile" manner which attempts to preserve (as much as possible) the timbral accuracy and ambience of the original performance.  Or they can be recorded in a more doctored manner, e.g., by separately miking each instrument, adding artificial reverb, unrealistically panning instruments that distorts their spatial properties, etc.

Artists have the right to introduce deliberate deviations from accuracy for artistic purposes, and I can accept some of these (and engage in them myself in many of my own recordings).  But it seems to me that many recording engineers doctor recordings to please the majority of consumers, not audiophiles.  So they presume such things as having a reproduction system with limited frequency response and a narrow space between speakers (for which they exaggerate the panning of drum kits or a solo acoustic piano or guitar.)  These are obvious deviations from accuracy (when the recording is played on a typical high-end system with wide-apart speakers) about which we audiophiles can justifiably complain.  Perhaps some of these reflect the use of nearfield studio monitors that are spaced just a few feet apart. 

Sometimes we can choose alternative recordings (especially of classical music) that contain fewer such deviations.  I don't really care if performance mistakes are edited out or if microphones and their placement inevitably alter the perception of the performance.  I care more about the other aesthetic compromises I mentioned. 

To summarize, it's throwing out the baby with the bath water to conclude that accurate reproduction is somehow a false or unattainable goal with all recordings, just because it doesn't apply to some.

To summarize, it’s throwing out the baby with the bath water to conclude that accurate reproduction is somehow a false or unattainable goal with all recordings, just because it doesn’t apply to some.

The point in the article is not about or against the fact that some recording are less or more natural sounding...

It is about the fact that in live event for acoustic evident reason , the difference in location of the mics ,their chosen type is one event and the ears of the listener located somewhere at a live event is another event , they cannot ever be the same acoustic event...

More than that there is no alleged perfect reproduction by recording being equal to all possible location of the listeners at a live event but add to that the alleged reproduction through a system playback in your room acoustic is in fact an acoustic translation ( an act of creation then in the best case or an act of destruction ) for your specific unique ears/brain... there is no exact reproduction in this chain of events...

High fidelity is a term used in the marketting of gear...

Then you throw the clear acoustics science  baby and keep the illusion of reproduction with  the electronic dirty waters... 😊

More than that there is no alleged perfect reproduction by recording being equal to all possible location of the listeners at a live event but add to that the alleged reproduction through a system playback in your room acoustic is in fact an acoustic translation ( an act of creation then in the best case or an act of destruction ) for your specific unique ears/brain... there is no exact reproduction in this chain of events...

I would say that the listener's choice of speaker and other components may be comparable to the choice of where in a concert hall the listener sits/where the microphones are placed.  Some listeners prefer sitting closer to the performers, some prefer more distance/reflected sound, and their high-end systems may be able to render whichever perspective they prefer.  I've often seen gear reviews that say as much, and maybe some people consciously or unconsciously choose gear based on such preferences.

Of course, the more neutral the listening room/speaker interface, the closer the system will be to reproducing the recording accurately, and maybe perfection is too elusive a goal.

I would say that the listener's choice of speaker and other components may be comparable to the choice of where in a concert hall the listener sits/where the microphones are placed. 

Not at all ...

You forgot that  all components and the speakers sound such and such in SPECIFIC  room acoustic conditions... ( acoustic material content, geometry, size, treatments and acoustic devices  etc no room sound the same at all  and serve speskers in the same way )

And you forgot how the electronic design gear choices will modify the sound...

Of course, the more neutral the listening room/speaker interface, the closer the system will be to reproducing

 No room is neutral... And no speakers sound the same if we change room parameters... Neutral is a relative convenient word we use for specific ears/brain experience of ONE owner... It will not be neutral on the same level for another users  even in the same room ...