Agreed. I started out giving examples of rock music live, which is mostly
amplified and not performed in ideal acoustical settings, as the _worst_
case, yet still these examples suffice (within my experience) to put
recorded music to shame. I went on the mention performances of classical
and jazz music as hardly needing further explanation . . . in other words,
for so-called critical listening one needs to find a venue where one can
"hear himself think" as it were. However, audiophiles who review gear aimed
at people who primarily play rock at home and not piano concertos would be
fools to try to re-tune their ears with latter music. For their
intended purpose they'd be much better off going to live rock 'n roll
concerts. That ought to make sense and hopefully brings us full circle on that.
It should go without saying less transduction of musical energy demands of
the listener less accommodation (interpretation) with his ears--that is,
with less distortion present (added) to the sound we hear then it must be
we are that much closer to that sound as it comes (came, in the case of
recorded music) out of the source. Purer in the sense we speak to here may
or not be "better" depending on taste but there can be no denial that it is
by definition closer to (or rather not as far from) the musical truth this
argument is after. Hence the desire (need) for reviewers of audio gear to
quench (re-tune) their thirst (ears) at a trough of live performances.
Recorded music is not the same as live music for the simple reason it could
not be. Given very high-end audio gear (with the most important component
in the audio chain being the speakers--I believe that's how all this got
going, or at least for some reason I have my old Advents in mind as I write
this) it's more or less possible to come close to a live listening
experience, depending always on one's willingness and ability to suspend
disbelief. Yet still no cigar. And as I mentioned, since most people have
never heard music played through high-end gear and in many cases couldn't
care less, while they _do_ seemingly have great willingness and ability to
suspend disbelief, I'm not sure what the use might be of arguing this to
begin with. <g>
Tris
There's live and then there's LIVE. Typically, the audiophile's LIVE
reference is not a rock concert with the sound going through board and a
"house" pa. It's about an orchestra in a great hall, or an unamplified jazz
combo in a great room. The Cowboy Junkies' recorded 2 albums that were
(almost) just a single mic listening to everyone plugged into their own amp.
Not a house pa and two hundred yards of cable. Compare "The Trinity Session"
with the recent Springsteen "live in NYC" album. While I generally like
Springsteen's performance, the mushy, house pa sound is *really
disappointing compared to his own boxed set of live recordings.
Lama
> > >Not exactly. If live music sounds bad or unauthentic compared to one's
> > >home system then my impression would be the home system in debate
> > >isn't so hot and/or he is tone deaf.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|