[[email protected]]

On May 3, 7:00*pm, wrote:
On May 3, 5:11*pm, wrote:

But "realism" isn't definable, whereas "accuracy" is easy to define
and gives us something concrete to work towards.

I don't see why ease of definability should in any way affect our
aesthetic goals.

Because you can't hit the target if you don't know where it is.

That simply isn't a problem. I know what sounds good to me.


What exactly are "accurate" speakers? It seems you are building an
argument on a mythological creature that is probably not something
everyone would agree on.

Actually there is lots of research on what constitutes "accuracy", but
very little on what "realism" is. *If you aren't up on the research
there's plenty available on the web.

That is not an answer. It is a simple question. You refered to
"accurate" loud speakers. I say they are mythical creatures. If I am
wrong it should be no trouble proving that by simply citing
"accuracte" loudspeakers. You say there is very little on realism? You
can find it at any live acoustic performance.


*If
the engineer creates a signal that will sound "real" on an accurate
system then all we need to know is how and where to find an accurate
system.

That is one giant IF.

But at least it's an "if". *For "realism" there isn't even an "if".

You are in a way correct. Realism is actually a reality found anywhere
you can find live acoustic music. So there is no "if."


*If not then we are at sea because your "realistic" sounding
system may well sound realistic on on recording and completely unreal
on another recording or type of music.

That is the reality of the situation to a large degree.

So you admit that you are on the wrong track with this "realism"
thing.

No.


What do you mean "we"? *Speak for yourself! *I want to hear what the
recording engineer recorded, to the extend I can afford to do so.

Good luck with that. *If* that is your goal you will need a seperate
system and room for each recording that is an exact duplicate of the

Nonsense. *If my system is accurate I will hear what the engineer
intended.

Nonsense. 1. you have no idea if the engineer achieved what he or she
wanted to achieve 2. Whatever it was they did achieve was achieved
with a particular control room and the equipment that came with it. If
you think you are hearing the same thing the recording engineer heard
you are simply mistaken unless you duplicate that control room and
equipment. But.... as I pointed out, even that doesn't get you there
because of the mastering process. So unless you have that master tape
as well as the original control room and equipment you just aren't
getting the same sound that the recording engineer heard much less the
recording engineer's intention. It matters not tha you believe in
accurate speakers, whatever that may be.

*It's the "realism" approach that will demand a separate
system and room for every recording.

Not at all. I suspect you simply don't understand the "realism"
approach. That approach is based on the intrinsic superior aesthetic
value that can be found in live music.(that is with all the caveats
about excellence in musicianship, quality of instruments and qaulity
of venue.) That sets the bar for excellence in sound qaulity by which
we can measure recording and playback. The approach does not promise
results, it just offers a guage that points in a superior aesthetic
direction.


The composer's intention? In the case of classical you will simply
have to go to the live show and hope the conductor is channeling the
composer.

To the extend that he is, an accurate system will pass that on to me.

Please site such a system that does this.


* Do tell us what exactly goes into a recording that was "done
right."

and give us an example of an "accurate" speaker.

Accuracy is at least an ideal which may be defined and aimed at, and
there are many loudspeaker systems at various price levels that
approach it to varying degrees. * Some lower cost speakers are pretty
accurate within their limits. *Some so called "high end" ones aren't.

Once again you fail to answer the question. I stand by my assertion
that this alleged "accurate" loudspeaker is a mythical beast. I assert
the same for the recording that was "done right."


Instead, it seems to me, you want to give up the game and go for
something else entirely. *Which is, of course, your perfect right.

Give up the game? Not at all. I'm just not willing to lose sight of my
aesthetic values because some folks find them more difficult to
"define." Accuracy has no meaning without a reference. If one is using
something other than live acoustic music as a reference then one is
looking for accuracy to something that seems to me to be an arbitrary
reference for reasons that have no connection my goals as an
audiophile. Since audio is an aesthetic experience I personally see no
point to any approach that seeks accuracy to something other than the
sound of live acoustic music. (this is all in reference to recordings
of live acoustic music by the way.)