Real or Surreal. Do you throw accuracy out the window for "better" sound?

@mijostyn 
Do I think the equipment that recording engineers use affects the recordings? That is a surprising subject and I think the answer is not really, I've listened to what great  actors sound like with my system so I instantly know how they should sound, but someone may say how do you actually know, well the answer to that is if you have lunch with that actor and really hear what their voice sounds like in real life you really know what they sound like. Also if you are used to the system that you use to record with then you hear it on movies, TV, or streaming you know if your system is preforming properly. The equipment mixers use is fairly standard in movies and varies a little more in music but generally the mixer uses the same equipment for years. 

If you record Anthony Hopkins or Tom Cruse or a famous singer that everyone is acquainted with you better believe that the producer who paid 20M$ for this talent better sound great and more importantly sound as they expected. This is another reason why accuracy is so much more important than surreal. 

Also engineers aren't robots they can mix in different sounding studios or stadiums to make an artist sound more like they are expected to, this happens if they are using equipment they are familiar with. 

@snilf 

I think it would be more correct to say everything factual extends from theory. Once you have a fact it is no longer a theory. 

@mahgister 

That's exactly what I have, a nanobrain. 

Humor enlarge all brain, save those too big to be enlarged...😊

It seems i need something you have.... 😉

@mahgister

That’s exactly what I have, a nanobrain.

@mahgister --

Thanks for the elaborations. Your posts are interesting and informative, but in the context of my previous reply I don't see a significant take-away from your writings to alter my basic position. 

Now no one listening music in a live event will hear the same exact TIMBRE experience , by the acoustic difference in time and timing of the waves and the specific location ... Even the violonist will hear his tonal playing timbre in a specific location no more truthfull or erroneous, no more objective nor subjective than any other position ...

My point is: the exact same timbre experience isn't necessitated for one to still go by a reference that can be construed as objective. The differences in perception in different positions to an instrument (or orchestra as a whole) has us as a variable revolving around and at the same constituting a fixed it, but the variables in experience here isn't about perceiving different, isolated natures of experience, but rather subtle variations of the same. And of course, the violinist him- or herself will be treated to quite a different sonic experience, but that's not the intended point of reference in a recording (or live performance) that seeks to capture (or have us experience live) the presentation and totality of an entire orchestra. 

Then if you understand what i said above , we must distinguish the acoustic objective SPECIFIC perspective in location of any listener in the original live event and his subjective interpretation and the OBJECTIVE trade off choices of the recording engineer which will be transformed in an OBJECT ( music album ) and our own specific location and acoustic situation in our listening room ... Then there is no absolutely objective truthfulness in audio reproduction as you claimed , there is only a correlated set of links in a CHAIN of trade-off choices INTERPRETATION ...

Placing that much importance in the subjective experience and final interpretation as something that hinders a certain degree of "objective truthfulness," to me, is both misplaced and exaggerated. Remember, I'm not claiming we can have access to a perfect facsimile of a live event in its reproduced form at home, across the board among all of us, but it's still meaningful to pursue aspects of "realness" in reproduction that can actually be talked about as objective parameters. Sure, whether we sit closer to or further away to the back of the orchestra, left or right will have an impact, I'm not debating that. Indeed, everything you say about the interpretative nature and variations in coming about an experience as different individuals has merit as "observables," I just don't agree on the implications. 

@mahgister --

Thanks for the elaborations. Your posts are interesting and informative, but in the context of my previous reply I don’t see a significant take-away from your writings to alter my basic position.

Thanks for your appreciation...

My post was not there to dismiss your point but to point toward his limit...

We all agree that physical acoustics , not only room acoustic, but psycho-acoustic RULE... Even if a system is designed to be the best OBJECTIVE design , it will be embedded acoustically, well or not, in a specific room for an objectively different Ears/brain...

My point is electronical design accuracy of components does not reduce to acoustical and psycho-acoustical accuracy...And what the BEST  gear design does is not the only guarentee for an audiophile experience...It can be necessary to some level but is NEVER sufficient... We need a dedicated room for specific ears/brain if it is a SMALL  room dedicated  for one listener owner  and not a great Hall...

It is not the same CONCEPT of measures accuracy in electronic design, acoustic design and psycho-acoustic measures ...

It is so true that Dr. Choueiri revolutionized acoustic experience of stereo system in a room with his BACCH filters which are based on psycho-acoustics research...The foundation ground of audiophile experience is psycho-acoustic science not electronic design of amplifier or speakers or even of dac and not even the powerful room acoustic ....

In this thread most people use the word accuracy in one way and one meaning , but there is three distinct ways or meanings which can be optimally convergent in an experience or be divergent or not optimal for an audiophile experience ... The electronic design accuracy and the physical acoustic accuracy in a room and the psycho-acoustical measured accuracy...

The OP thread speaking of real versus surreal confuse these three meanings and three accuracy concepts...But what is "accurate" for my ears inner filters and sound perception personal history and training can be inaccurate for other ears...

That was my point...

The only OBJECTIVE common basis for the word accuracy in these three conceptual case is mathematics not the necessary listening subjective experience...But listening music or speech is neither subjective nor objective experience...It is a symbolic form, an interpreted phenomenon...