...and now a word from your anti-sponsor...

I agree with Bryoncunningham's interpretation of the statement. If all reproduced sound is synthetic, then it really doesn't matter what instrument is used in the recording process as far as one instrument being more "real" than another. That's the freedom he is referring to.

I have avoided revisiting my original post in expectation of many ungracious comments. In reality, those have been fewer than expected. I am relieved to see that someone "gets it". Mechans has provided a very eloquent articulation of my position. The first and second sentences of his reply are EXACTLY why I posted the quote from J. Greenwood and the "contrarian" view it represents. The idea of the hi fi chain at whatever price somehow capturing reality in absolute terms seems delusional to me. If you got enough bucks - just hire the band or orchestra as the case may be. To the literalists, probably helpful to recognize the hyperbole in JG's statement. For those that still disagree, have at it. I'll be very happy with a system that sounds great even if the whole recording process is, "in reality", one of artifice.

For those interested, check out Glenn Gould videos on "YouTube". Very illuminating.

My read is pretty much the same as Bryon's.

Unfortunately, the quotation needs more context to be fully understood. However, it feels like he's addressing the notion of acoustic music being somehow more legitimate than electronic music - particularly, when it comes to evaluating the quality of a recording. That bit about being "freed", however, suggests that there might be more to his statement.

Looks like he was just saying that a reproduction of music is always a reproduction and that reproducing acoustic music offers no "truer" test of fidelity than does reproducing electronic music.

As a matter of logic, I kinda agree. As a practical matter, I kinda disagree. Because listeners are more familiar with the range of possible sounds from a piano or voice than from a synthesizer, many (including me) feel that acoustic music is more revealing than electronic for judging the fidelity of playback.

He's probably right on this one. By the time the recording chain is done, who knows what that recorded piano or voice "should" sound like on "accurate" playback? Sorta sinks the idea of "The Absolute Sound".

Marty

No recorded music is actually real anymore than listening to a tape of yourself talking is as real as you actually talking in person. It's what is closer to being real. A recording of the sound of a synthesizer is as real as the recording of a acoustic guitar. They both reproduce the sound of the instrument being played but aren't the real instrument in your room being played. Listening to an electric guitar in concert is as real as listening to an acoustic guitar. They both are the sound that the instrument makes. yes, the electric guitar also includes an amp while the acoustic guitar usually includes a microphone.

05-14-11: Martykl
...many (including me) feel that acoustic music is more revealing than electronic for judging the fidelity of playback.

I agree with this, Marty.

I listen to a nearly equal amount of acoustical and electronic music. It is often difficult to judge how close an acoustical recording is to the live event, but it is nearly *impossible* to judge how close an electronic recording is to the live "event."

Bryon