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

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

I have been around live gigs all my life and have never ever thought that a home stereo could replicate the notion of an artist being "live" in your living or listening room.
I get annoyed when I see "audiophiles" claim that they can get this intimacy from speakers that sell for a cheap condo.

Having done 3,000 gigs in my life, very few actually sound good. I can count a handful of great sounding gigs where everything was the best it could be sonically.

I have heard many speakers though that are balanced at low volumes. I am a big fan of Harbeth, ATC, Neat, DeVore and Pioneer TAD speakers which I think support long listening sessions with recorded material that is "musical" versus "lively." I just don't think that any consumer is fair to say that the best Wilsons or Magicos are equal to the soundsystems we use at a venue. I have never seen a consumer grade speaker remotely capture the bass and "air" that comes from a PA.

Ironically, the PA equipment likely wouldn't sound very good in a small space. They are two entirely different ways of experiencing music.