[Sonnova]

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:48:37 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

That's a separate issue. Whatever the source, however ineptly or
wrong-headed
is the original recording, we, as listeners, are still, basically, trying
to
reproduce it. The goal is to accurately reproduce the soundfield captured
by
that recording and to present it, in our listening environment, as little
changed from the original as possible. That makes flat frequency response,
measured at your listening position very important. Luckily, the human ear
has a lot of latitude in this respect and will accept less than perfect
frequency response and still regard the result as high-fidelity.

But the reproduction problem is a lot more complex than just placing two
speakers at an angle in front of you and keeping frequency response flat and
distortion low. If it were that simple, there would be no need for an entire
society devoted to audio reproduction, project after project of research
trying to figure out how to do it better.

But there really isn't much more to it than that. The problem arises because
even today, with our advanced materials technology and good electronics, we
can't accomplish this simple task very well. That's why interpretive talent
has to be between the musicians and the final recording.

The first step is to realize that the reproduction is a completely new piece
of art, or event. The goal of that work of art may indeed be to try to
transport you to the location of the original recording, or it may be a work
in and of itself, like some synthesizer stuff and pop recordings. In either
case, frequency response and distortion are but a small part of the problem,
or aspects of a sound event. If you consider the total event as the "thing"
that we are trying to reproduce, then you must attempt to come as close to
all aspects of the sound as you can. To do that, you've got to know more
than frequency response and distortion.

While I agree, It's also largely irrelevant to the point.

Consider photography as an example from the visual arts. The engineer in you
thinks that the photograph will be "accurate" if you can reproduce perfect
color and sharpness, and keep noise and distortions low. But if you consider
all aspects of the original scene that you are trying to reproduce with the
photo, you can easily see that the photo, no matter how "accurate," will not
fool anyone into thinking they are at the original scene. It is a new piece
of art in and of itself. But it has no three-dimensionality, is not as big
as the original, and not as bright in the highlights - to name just a few
aspects that have not been reproduced.

That's my point. Since the process is imperfect, the process becomes the
limiting factor and therefore must be "manipulated" to produce a desired
result.

There's a lot more to it than that, but for now all I want to establish is
that the complex original sound field has been compressed into two or more
channels of electrical signal. How those signals are treated at the playback
end is the problem, and it is more complicated than just frequency response
and distortion, and a far more productive path to follow would be to create
a new sound event in your playback room - one that has more of the aspects
of the original and of good sound than your expressed engineering insticts
have suggested.

But it doesn't need to be if all we are trying to do is to capture a
performance for playback. Unfortunately, many different types of music don't
respond to those techniques.