Is live reproduction the goal of audio?

From what one poster points out, I must be one of the few audiophiles that almost exclusively listens to live recordings..hopefully this is not true.

Overly compressed music makes me tense. So I don't bother buying it or listening to it on my system. Although, I will listen to it on a boombox or a car stereo as it was intended.

IMHO It should be the goal of the recording studios to bring us as close to live as possible. This means less compression and the use of real instruments and musicians while the recording is being made. Once you hear a recording with zero compression and the real Mccoys standing in doing their thing. You understand the most important part of an audio system is the recording itself. Without it no matter how many electronic components and speakers you throw in front of it. It will never turn the recording into something it wasn't to begin with.

Maybe it's just me? I'm frugal about recordings more than anything else. I think I may have been ruined as a child playing the violin in a school orchestra.

Cheers

Marco, well said.
Let's ask the question 'Is the goal of home cinema the goal of presenting the authentic or real version of visual events'? The answer to that can serve as the answer to the audio version of that question.
Bob P.

Let's ask the question 'Is the goal of home cinema the goal of presenting the authentic or real version of visual events'? The answer to that can serve as the answer to the audio version of that question.

.

I think it was Godard who said: "Cinema is truth at 24 frames per second". Even in the realms of the documentary film we can take a look at a film like "David Holtzman's Diary" or even any of Michael Moore's "documentary" films, and realize that that particular question is far more complex and multilayered than the one asked here. I might draw the paralell to looking at the more simple single frame of photography. Again, you can go to a chat group on this subject and find the "scientist-types" telling us that large format film cameras cannot be matched for their rendition of "reality" because of their fine grain, sharp lenses, superior resolution and their ability to record tremendously subtle tonal gradation. Yet the film they used is limited to that which is not capable of taking in nearly as much as the human eye. And do any of these qualities a great photograph make? To answer that question just give an average hobbyist shooter an 8X10 camera with thorough instructions as to precisely how to use it and get the most from it. In turn compare the work he/she might produce with that tool, to the work Cartier Bresson or Eugene Smith did with a 35mm camera and tell me which is the more engaging photograph. It is not the tools that necessarily determine the success or failure of the translation of "reality", but the people behind them. Add to that the advent of digital manipulation and give a master at that a crack at "reality" and then where to you draw your boundries? Is that manipulaiton any different from the audio engineer at the sound board who determines how to shape and define that sound that is recorded? Also, just look at the poor quality of many of the older recordings, such as those of bluesman Robert Johnson, yet the magic of his musicianship continues to be an inspiration to so many of his contemporaries, and comes through in spite of the lack of technologies wonders. Many musicians I've known just don't give a rat's ass about the quality of their system, even when presented with a system that is astoundingly good at reproducing a musical event. They care more about the music itself, and many are just as happy listening to music through a boom box as they would be a more advanced system. Who's right, who's wrong? The question I pose is why do you need to ascribe that of any of us, and why is there some need to determine some universal, ultimate goal of audio gear? It's all pretty amazing to me...I tend to go with the stuff I enjoy listening to the most myself. I find that it is not always appreciated as much by others, but I sure do like it.

Marco

To equate a virtual infinite reality with a know finite medium is interesting. It's not parallel. Good thoughts, but cinema relies on it's stengh of visual impact, not recreating reality. The sound is mediocre at best.

I've never heard anyone suggest that film is a live performance.

But, I've heard "live" music reproduced as live.

I do agree that the trappings of live music per se can't be done. We're not there, we don't see the performers sweat. We aren't privy to the outtakes...

But, as to reproducing music to the point that it's believable that the performers are in that room right now, I have heard it and so have others.

No, it's not live and I do accept that there are parts to life that surpass sound, but when you close your eyes, is Louis in the room in front of you?

Yup! at least in a very few rooms I've been in.

To depend on the opinion of professional musicians as to their interest in listening to music at home doesn't even seem related. I don't think I needed Einstein's view of nuclear weapons to have a personal view of their value.

I don't agree with your analogies, but I am interested in your ideas.

Clearly there are many different what's right? Budget, availability of live performance and taste probably are as important in those decisions.

If I lived in Manhattan, I wouldn't have much of a system. I'd spend the evenings listening to live music. I'm too old to travel to the city at night and get home at midnight. So, I'm sticking to reproducing live music. It doesn't do it everytime, but it does it part of the time.

I'm interested in what motivates others here, not just me.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Bill

The reason I brought up musicians, Bill, was solely to illustrate the point that
the "goal of audio" can have different meanings to different
people. Obtaining a "life-like" presentation may be one that is
quite exciting to many of us, but not necessarily to everyone. Folks get
enjoyment from this stuff at all different levels, and to elevate one above all
the rest seems a bit silly to me. I do like a life-like presentation as well. I've
heard it done on different levels, but have not had the experience you've
described where the whole thing comes together in all ways to yield a "
live" music experience. The conflicting factions I've experienced seem
to be that either the music has tremendous impact, dynamics, and detail, yet
lacks the delicacy, dimension and airiness that I somehow associate with
'presence'...or, it has the latter in spades, as in the case of the SET/horn
systems I've enjoyed the most, yet lacks the chest-pounding impact of more
powerful systems. That's perhaps a simplistic observation on my part, but it
may help to understand where I'm coming from. Yes, in both cases, I can
close my eyes and Louis would seem to be there in front of me, but in neither
case is the illusion complete. Ultimately, the more powerful solutions have
always occured to me as an amplified version (I am more conscious of the
intervening technology), while the solutions I prefer are more convincing to
me, yet still do not convey the 'impact' of live music somehow, yet render the
parts of the equation I am most fond of.

Marco