neutrality vs. realism

Onh, I agree with your rendition of "comfort food". But, yes, a poorly recorded violin still sounds like a violin -- because it's acoustic & you know, in conjunction with the other instruments, what it is: you have the live experience of the violin vs the cello, etc... But when I get to eletronic instruments, & heavy mastering, I can't really tell what the engineers have done. I don't have a live, sonic "benchmark" to refer to. There, the production qualities (or mastering "tricks"?) are part of the end product: heighten the 3-kHz region, give some boost to bass... how can I tell if my system is reproducing "correctly" what the producer(s) intenteded? Cheers

I totally agree that there is no live reference point for nearly all pop/rock recordings. However, I would take it even further for the case with even audiophile/purist recordings is not so clear cut. An experienced recording engineer can effectively control the sound of a recording by his/her choice of microphones and mic placement. Without using any EQ or other outboard processors the sound can be made upfront and forward, louder/softer, bright, warm or spacious. Regardless of the resolving power or musicality of their system, how can an audiophile know what particular sonic flavor the engineer was trying to acheive?

The lack of a live reference is a problem, sort of. I just picked up and played the new Alison Krauss and Union Station Live cd - really enjoyed it (I'm a fan not a critic). Here's the thing: it's a live recording that you listen to through your speakers in your home. The music goes into the mics, into the mixers and electronic equipment, onto the cd, back through your cdp and amp and then through your speakers. Sounds better to me than listening to the singer and band in a typical large venue through those big p-a speakers, whatever they are.

I do have a live reference for Alison and band, though it's from quite a few years back and I am losing brain cells day by day. I heard her at a small venue in LA, real close up (like less than 10 ft). She did an acapella unamplified second encore of "I Will" that was one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard. We talked afterwards too. I've heard other bluegrass and folk groups unamplified, some other types of performers too. So there can be a live reference for some kinds of pop music.

But you're right that, in general, nearly all pop/rock recordings are sort of arbitrary constructs. Yet, within each recording there are components, voices and instruments that do have live referents. If we've ever heard them, and if we can only remember them.

Lots of problems, but our minds just seem to fill in a lot of blanks.

Just to add to Onhw & Paulwp points -- there are a few cases when some engineering trickstering just MAY trickle out through the speakers; on Barbirolli's Mahler 5 (EMI), the sound level goes down perceptibly just before a crescendo in the first part -- to accommodate the dynamics & intensity of the full orch. entering, of course. But, I agree these cases are very few, and we usually can'r tell what even the classical engineer has been up to.

Paulup, I think you've said something quite important - that our minds seem able to fill in the blanks.

How can we get deeply into the music in a stereo if, admittedly, it doesn't as yet sound much like "real" sound sounds, or how "real" music sounds for that matter (my stereo certainly doesn't, yet still produces in me a musical experience)?

That must mean that a stereo need not convey a complete simulcrum of how sound is, and how music was when we heard it live, for the mind to go into the music. Which means that we are not trying to merely create a soundfield "out there" that is just like "reality" (read: the absolute sound), but rather, trying to create a stereo that creates a SUFFICIENT catalyst to our minds for them to sink deeper.

We have trouble seeping into the music when it doesn't sound sufficiently "real". When we first sit down, our analyzing mind wants accuracy and detail, but then as we go deeper, our deeper listening mind wants more existential nuance that has to do with continuity. At each level, if that stimulus is not sufficient, then we don't go deeper. And, contra, if there is too much accuracy we don't go deeper (a system that is overly detailed can be seen as being "hyper-real", or rather, the person who constructs it only wants sound at that level, or only knows that level exists until he hears a component that has SUFFICIENT detail yet also something deeper).

In this view, musicality is not simply found in a component, but in the component's relation to the mind that is listening; "musical" components are ones that SUFFICIENTLY catalyze the mind to go to the next deeper level.

And this means that "the absolute sound" is not some-thing out there that we need to find, as if it is an object we can get ahold of if we can make our components "real" absolutely, but rather, the "absolute sound" is found in a component/mind dynamic - one that does not, in a stereo context, necessarily need the rendition to be infinitely accurate in order to catalyze a musical experience.

Which, in turn, explains why we can have components that are not overwhelming detailed (what the accuracy school defines as how you get more "real")yet are very musical - just like live music is.

With that said, live music is better. Definetly an important reltionship - comparing live sound traits to stereo sound traits (and this of course makes sense because we evolved hearing "live" sounds, not recreated ones) - but perhaps not wholly determinant towards catalyzing a "musical" experience, the dynamic, in the listening mind.

Just some thoughts. Would be interested in you thoughts too.