| Gregm wrote:|
| Why on earth would anyone want to attempt that? First of all, the only sensorial connection between reproduction & actual event is auditory. Not one of the other senses participate in the reproduction! Moreover, you do not have the presence of musicians, the hall is different, there are no other spectators, etc etc. How on earth does anyone expect to recreate anything.
I think that an honest comment somewhere in the '70s perhaps to the effect that one can use acoustic instruments -- live, real music, a musical event -- as a gauge to determine how (in)correctly a system/ component was reproducing a musical instrument, was turned into a gross generalisation.
Rather, I propose the following "vision" for reproduction: to create a completely "new" event, in your living room (or wherever the system is). This event uses music recorded during a musical session, and it uses sound reproduction hardware put together in your best way, etc. It also uses the venue (i.e. your living your) your taste in decorating and your taste in placing the speakers, the chairs, etc.
Although it will be way off the topic of the thread but I can’t resist commenting on it as what Gregm said is a very accurate description of my views about audio practice. We should not look for fidelity of truthfulness of reproduction of an actual event but rather we should care about the adequacy of perceptual reaction.
Live music and audio are different animals with different language and different expressive methods – they both have a common denominator - the human consciousness that harvest the result. So instead of imitating one over another why do not talk to the consciousness directly using the means of purely audio language? In fact there is something else in there …
..but I would avoid talking about it publicly for now.Rgs, Romy the caT
"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche