Is live reproduction the goal of audio?

filling the room with sound....now we are talking.

Ok , now if you fill your room with 100% sound . Imagine an empty room. Lots of alive sound ,don't need to raise the volume of your voice to get it to fill the room. Imagine amplified. Now we do need some control , but what is the right amount , and how do we keep it 360 degrees. Everytime we add furniture ,carpet ,people ,etc we are chopping up the #'s.When we place the system into a visual spot we have chopped down the 360 part and now have 2 dimension sound.

We are not talking about components yet. That's the equivalent of a guy with a really deep voice or a guy with a regular voice or a girl with a high voice. The source does NOT matter. How do I let all 3 voices come out right.I need to understand the room.

Yes!

At least that is what I think and strive/listen for. And I think reviewers also look for similar quality. That is why in reviews they use words like 'life like', "as if He/She is right there infront of me", " I can walk around the musicians", " Presence". etc...

Now I know that is the listener's or reviewer's perception we are talking about. If it actually sounds like that in real life is highly questionable. Although the current SOTA reproduction could sound like live event in ear of the beholder, it is quite different then the real live event. It is the subtle ques of real instruments- tone, nuance, pace and rhythm when reproduced gives and impression that listener is listening a live event. Nothing wrong with that if it brings tears and joy to an audiophile.

Yep Live reproduction is the goal of high end audio. The goal so close and yet so far...

Lakefrontroad wrote "I am interested in how our community views what we do." Except for Jax2 who tries to inject a laxative into this constipated thread.
Sociallite has many good insights, I wish I was so good at writing.
The common goal here seems to be finding your own idea of perfection. Rock groups used to say they needed to have a "sound". Likewise the system needs to have a certain pervasive "sound" which it imparts to the music. Maybe that sound is "no sound".
The difference between consumer goods and industrial purchases is that consumers tend to change out stuff more often for the latest and greatest, emotional reasons, boredom etc. while businesses buy for more pragmatic reasons; ie: to serve a specific purpose. Look at those desks from the 50's the State still uses. Functional but that's about it.
I would vote for sound which is not annoying or detracts from my enjoyment of the music. A system which pleases on its own terms. Then adding more detail and volume at the frequency extremes as long as this does not cause problems.

I don't want some "technically perfect / musically dead", hyped up, nervous, twitchy, race-horse of a system that I can't relax with. When listening to my p.o.s. system, I enjoy the *music*, don't worry much about the *sound*. That, to me is a major success.
Besides you don't have to own stuff to enjoy reading, talking, and learning about it. I think the term is Armchair Ace.

Jax2 thinks he's clever; one of the wisest moves he made was his cessation of posting a month or so ago. Unfortunately, he's not so wise anymore.

LOL Cdc...touche! Charlie 101 - I've no doubt produced greater wisdom out
of the crack of my derriere than your witty retort has demonstrated you to be
in posession of.

Seriously...I do regret my acerbic post went a bit overboard, nonetheless the
core sentiments are heart felt (or is that fart felt?), though personal insults
were not intended in that post, believe it or not.

I think it's a natural expectation to want to try to attain the experience of live
reproduction. After all, it is truly miraculous that these groups of boxes and
circuits and wires can do what they do and bring so many aspects of
reproducting space and time through sound to an entirely different space and
time. Whether it's possible or not to reproduce, verbatim, given the current
state of technology should not even be an issue to anyone who's been around
the hobby very long. Like many such debates, this one seems to draw out
two distinct camps: The scientists who, come from the head/mind, and
demand white papers, bars and graphs and numbers, statistics...something
tangible to justify their existence, and in this case, their investment. Then
there are the artists, who come from the heart and tend to trust in their
feelings, experience, perceptions, sun, moon, stars and tofu ice cream. For
me...well, I guess I can see both sides as being full of it, though I'd count
myself among the artists. Both are trying to justify their existence here (aren't
we all), whether it be through audio gear, music, or some earth shattering
invention or profound artistic statement. It's all quite wonderful, it's all a load
of crap, and in the end, none of it matters, and it's all entirely relative to our
own personal experience here. We all leave as we came, with nothing. The
question brought to bear makes as much sense to me, and the answers as
meaningless as if asking, "What's the ultimate goal of vanilla ice
cream" or "What's the pinnacle of beauty in a human being"
or "What's the best car (beer, wine, bicycle, watch...or fill in the blank
with any such thing we like to banter about, obsess over, and get passionate
about). It's all relative, there is no "right" answer, and none of it
means anything, except what we each make it mean. I make no apologies
that this does not seem to be a popular view to those who wish to put their
"passions" on a pedastal. There is no Santa Claus kids, and there
is no "Absolute Sound" (unless you are talking about a bi-monthly
magazine). It's just my crotchity, existentialist point of view these days. I'd
heap it in among those I addressed in my previous post, and laugh at how
ridiculous I am (I'm sure many of you have got the jump on me there). BTW,
though you wouldn't know it from what I'm saying here perhaps, I am quite
passionate about music and the audio gear I use to enjoy it...I think it's all
pretty wonderous and amazing. It just strikes me as so wrong (ain't this
ironic) when folks start talking in absolute terms...right/wrong...bad/
good...black/white...the ultimate. So when I see it, I feel compelled to say
something. Perhaps it's a knee-jerk reaction. But there it is.

Even if the question were met with a rousing and unanimous "
YES", and even if actual verbatim live reproduction were indeed possible
via the technology available, I can guarantee you that there would be many
among us who would still prefer some form of "colored" version,
or some control over how "reality" sounded in their own space.
But then you folks in agreement could take great comfort in the company of
one and other's assurances that yours is the "right" way, and there
is only just one "right" way. Sound familiar? Hitler used it to his
advantage. It is the 'glue' of fundmentalist religious propoganda (Muslim,
Christian, ....etc.), Jim Jones sold his grape Kool Aide solution to a good
number of unfortunate people that way.

Marco