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

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.

Agreed. Best not chasing what can't be caught. Best to enjoy what is on hand.

Home entertainment should be about entertainment, not trying to replicate the impossible.

I think Greenwood is right on comment.

....but the audiance can't really tell if half the sound is coming from a tape recording- so it must sound real.?