as many have already pointed out; really there is no clear standard for recording which is precise and universal. at best we have a 'fuzzy' kinda target to aim at. open to interpretation as to the prioroties. i don't think listening to live music is the end-all for judgeing system performance. it's one data point, important but not really representative with the original recording vision of the mastering/mixing engineer.....who's product we are attempting to replicate.
so then how can we 'be in a bad place' as Frantz proposes when we pursue high fidelity?
the answer is that we must rely on our own sensibilities to determine where 'good enough' is in terms of high fidelity. the best balance of sonics, budget, space, comfort.
if we believe it's high fidelity then it is....based on our experience.
when our reproduction reference changes, our ability to achieve that might too.
that is certainly been how it's worked for me. when i hear something (in a reproduction system) that takes me further, i then have the vision to go there.
It may be relevant here to include a piece I added to the thread entitled "Invisible Speakers" ...I am certain every single soul on this forum would accept that a picture from the best Photographer with the best camera is only a portrayal of reality .. Not reality itself.. It can be quite satisfying in itself but rarely will fool us into thinking that we are witnessing reality .. I must say however that video can be very, very convincing in a way I am not too sure
My conclusion so far is that our sensory systems are willing to be deluded, if we supply them with sufficient high quality information. Interestingly enough, sometime earlier I had read about an exactly equivalent phenomenon with the visual system, which may make it easier to get a handle on things ...
What they were doing was to develop a very high quality movie projection system, in the belief that it would attract more patrons -- similar concept to IMax but more advanced. They did research, and found that removing flicker between frames was crucial, the frame rate was upped dramatically and the resolution and screen size increased.
One big problem. They got the technology working, early 70's I think, made a exciting test film of a car racing down a mountain road and tried it on a test audience. And disaster! The people watching could not stop their system and bodies reacting to what was happening on the screen as if it were real, I can't recall the exact details, but something along the lines of heart attacks, vomiting, fainting, you name it. And that was the end of the technology, shelved indefinitely, I guess ...
The assessment by the doctors was that no matter how certain people were in their heads that what they were watching was not real, the quality of the presentation was enough for the eye/brain to cross a threshhold and say to the physical self, This Is The Real Thing!
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |