Quote:
Originally Posted by
sdurani 
How would one find out what the
"original acoustical event and venue" sounded like? Without knowing that, there's no way to know whether you're
"experiencing a believable facsimile" or not.
At some point we have to allow scientific bench racing and actual listening room experience to diverge. Given the lack of having an "objective" yardstick calibrated to the nth degree and directly tied to the sound of real (in real world componentry), I suggest going with the ears God gave us and refining and refining until we're convinced the illusion is as real as we can possibly make it.
Or to put it another way, the finest systems I've ever heard didn't subscribe the accepted wisdom of the day. In fact, they almost couldn't be more unalike, yet the net result were various degrees of stupefyingly natural sound, which they had in common. How to qualify that phenomenon escapes me...and apparently the industry too, not withstanding advances made to legitimize a standardized theory by way of empirical testing in popular markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sdurani
The concept of "accuracy" requires a reference: what are you being accurate to? Some feel it is what was heard at the studio. You mention the original acoustical event. Yet others point to the signal on the disc. Good arguments can be made for each of those three.
It's because the concept of "accuracy" requires something it cannot directly have that many say the ear must be the ultimate arbitor. This does not negate objective tools, but objective tools have yet to close the book on either "accuracy" or that conviction that what's being replayed largely resembles the best subjective analysis we can make of what's happening. After all we listen for pleasure, not an academic viewpoint of what's proper, namely, "accurate".
Put another way, plenty of accurate systems sound musical but not all musical systems are accurate. We seek accuracy but we must find authentic musicality. Anybody can make "accurate".
Quote:
And that's the problem. When a claim of accurate reproduction is made, it isn't unreasonable to ask what is being accurately reproduced. Getting three different answers in reply makes it clear that there is no one definition of accuracy. Which makes the concept more arbitrary than agreed upon.
It's not unreasonable to ask the question but it is unreasonable to eliminate important descriptors of important phenomenon that grant certain listeners that next step in the sound of, if you will, accuracy.
).
