When is digital going to get the soul of music?

Thank your MRT for your valuable lecture in Poetics. I consider myself duly chastized. next time I Listen to the aforementioned recording, I shall remind myself that my emotional reaction is woefully incorrect, or at least that my recollection of emotive change is essentially flawed.

The medium is relevant.

I used to think there was something special in a live performance that couldn't be captured in any recording. I thought it was something almost magical going on between the performers and the audience that made the difference—that wavelength can't be recorded. Then I finally heard CDs through a system that can recreate what is IN the recording. It's not magic. It's the full range of audible frequencies, the dynamics, the impact, the transients, the musicians breathing, the fine details. It's the space between the notes. Distortion of any and every kind takes away those 'special,' 'magical,' 'mystical' qualities and the detail that make live acoustic music ALIVE. Limit the bandwidth, something is lost. Add noise, something is lost. Of course, we can enjoy music through a boom-box or a clock radio, but it's no comparison to the impact of live, is it? Analog or digital is not the real issue, but LPs can't begin to hold all that's on a quality analog tape recording. Recording quality and reproduction quality can and does convey the 'soul' of music.

when you use the word "quality" to judge books, wine, food and art, the word much be defined so that one can recognize what quality is. quality is subjective. if i like it, it is good quality, if i don't quality is not good. thus, it is possible that an arbitrary definition of quality will not produce a relationship between it and enjoyment.

back to music... if you listen to a favorite "tune" on a table radio or other "inferior" medium, do you say "i can't get into the song because the sound is bad " ?

i would hope not. if you like the music, you like it, in spite of the sound. you can give reasons for liking it, regardless of the sound. note, sound "quality" is not absolute. it is subjective.

let's consider movies . a highly reviewed movie may not be enjoyable . a so called "quality" movie may or may not be enjoyed by many people.

there is no existing demonstration of a high correlation between enjoyment and any definition of quality.

You are correct MRT--to know is to judge; to judge is to process; to process is to filter; that which is filtered is degraded; that which is degraded is flawed; to know objective Truth is but a pipedream; attempting to share knowledge is illusory and further corrupts the episteme; dribble dribble dribble; add more trite sophistry. you have vast audiophilic and musical experience, graduate studies, thousand of systems auditioned, have reviewed for years on end, have a clear command of the English language and an outstanding facility to communicate; we just can't measure up. . . who cares!

In the meantime. . . a few of us are enjoying each other's company, while talking about the beauty of Music and Sound from both sides of the ePond.

hi mr g:
a wise man know that he knows not. he who says he knows when he knows not is a fool.

how did knowledge get into this ?

you make an excellent point about talking about music and sound.

you can enjoy the music without enjoying the sound, and you can enjoy the sound withjout enjoying the music. thank you for your profundity.

my point is that "soul" resides in the music, as a form of communication not in the "sound".