|
Classical Court From Perotin to Prokofiev (and beyond), performed by Caruso to Khatia, it's all here. |
|
|
|
Classical Court From Perotin to Prokofiev (and beyond), performed by Caruso to Khatia, it's all here. |
|
In Reply to: How? I didn't represent what *you* said in my post posted by Analog Scott on September 5, 2019 at 11:12:29:
Given the fact that I was very quick to point out a fundamental flaw in the idea of "the absolute sound" was that there is no single "absolute sound" I am not sure how anyone would think I am hung up on that idea.
And yet, several of your posts have made reference to "the three-dimensional acoustic sound wave [singular]" as a kind of absolute manifestation of the original musical event. Actually, I'm the one who has continued to argue in favor of multiple manifestations of accuracy at the same musical event, which depend on such things as where one is sitting (or, where the microphones are placed), etc.
You are conflating the recognition of certain aural cues that would suggest a more life like sound with accuracy. They are not the same. I can show you examples of recordings that sound more life like with added distortions.
Hmm. . . I guess you'd better define your terms here. Frankly, if you think I used the term "life like", you're putting words into my mouth. Remember, my priorities include the the following: if the recording was of a beaten-up bar-room piano recorded in somebody's bedroom, I want it to sound like a beaten-up bar-room piano recorded in somebody's bedroom. Is that what you had in mind when you used the term "life like"?
Regarding accuracy, I agree that absolute audible accuracy does not exist in audio. But that doesn't change the fact that some equipment is more accurate than other equipment - that's where my use of the word, "relative", comes in. And, no, it doesn't have anything to do with digital vs. analog. Finally, regarding "hi-fi", that's a lame distinction you're trying to make: some analog equipment is more accurate than other analog equipment, and some digital equipment is more accurate than other digital equipment. Perhaps you're carrying some remarks you've heard on other sites into this discussion?
The "sense" of accuracy is not a measure of actual accuracy. [This is true, as we've discussed on another part of this thread.] Do we not have an example on this thread of someone claiming vinyl is more accurate because it gives him in effect a greater "sense of accuracy?"
No, that someone never said that vinyl gave him a greater sense of accuracy. What he DID say was that a vinyl playback system will always sound better than a digital one - better in this case being a value judgment and not a perception of accuracy. It's an absurd statement anyway (sorry, learsfool, but we all get into the absurd from time to time!) - so the lowliest vinyl system will ALWAYS sound "better" than any possible digital system? QED - I rest my case! ;-)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Now you're misrepresenting what YOU said! - Chris from Lafayette 09/7/1920:25:15 09/7/19 (1)
- I hate to play this card but you are misunderstanding what I said - Analog Scott 13:50:54 09/8/19 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
