Actually I am
. The moment we look at a recording as a step down version of the live presentation, we are back to thinking creating recorded music is about replicating a live experience. That simply is not so. The person creating a recording is creating new art. He and the talent sit together in a room with stereo speakers and see how they can create an enjoyable version of that music. At no time are they trying to mimic the live sound with minor exception of binaural recordings and such. Again, please allow me to quote Dr. Toole:"In a recording studio, the recording engineer becomes a major contributor
to the art by adjusting the contribution of each musician to the overall
production, adjusting the tonal balance and timbre of each of the contributors,
and adding reflected and reverberated sounds or other processed versions of
captured sounds to the mix. This too is judged subjectively, on the basis of
whether it reflects the artists’ intent and, of course, how it might appeal to
consumers."
Why the original event? You are not given the original event. Per above, you are given a new manifestation of art, to be appreciate as that. Not to be second guessed to be something else as that being the sign of greatness. We seem so determined to explain terms like this which at the end of the day, are just compliments. They are not to be taken as specific terms that have useful meaning. Here again is Dr. Toole:
"The evaluation of reproduced sound should be a matter of judging the
extent to which any and all of these elements are accurately replicated or
attractively reproduced. It is a matter of trying to describe the respects in
which audio devices add to or subtract from the desired objective. A different
vocabulary is needed. However, most music lovers and audiophiles lack this
special capability in critical listening, and as a consequence, art is routinely
mingled with technology. In subjective equipment reviews, technical audio
devices are often imbued with musical capabilities. Some are described as being
able to euphonically enhance recordings, and others to do the reverse. It is
true that characteristics of technical performance must be reflected in the
musical performance, but it happens in a highly unpredictable manner, and
such a commentary is of no direct assistance in our efforts to improve sound
reproduction."
When we are trying to convey what we hear for the others to appreciate, we need to have the terms have real meanings. Such meanings need to translate in specific ways to equipment's ability to reproduce sound in a high fidelity manner. We need precise terms just like the Legal profession does in its use of English language. Generic feel good terms do not fill this purpose.
What you just did David was strip all the art from the painting and represented it as whether it accurately reflected real life or not. This is at the core of our disagreement. The painting stands alone. It need not have any connection to a reality to be fantastic in its regard.
FYI, the painting that I showed was the work of Dutch painter, Johannes Vermeer. The name of the painting is "Girl With a Pearl Earing." The type of painting is called a "tronie" meaning that it is not a literal painting of anyone specific. It is art in itself and no attempt should be made to think backward as to who that person is.
The studio shot was an attempt to replicate that painting in real-life. As a photographer, I find the studio picture boring and other than attractiveness of the model, of little value emotionally. The painting on the other hand, grabs me as great work of art. I can study it for a long time and continue to enjoy it. Yet what is there is not natural as in what happened in real life. As I explained there was no such person.
The bottom line is that the art is what is handed to us as recorded music. That is the start of it. Any terms we use to imply what came before it in any manner, is not helpful to assess the fidelity of a system whose input is only that recorded art and no more.
