Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
Ok. I have spent enough time getting feedback from objectivists
regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's
high time to state my case.

1. Live music in a goo acoustic space is my genereal reference. james
Boyk says it better than I can.
"What interest me in audio is perception, not technology. One
perception often lost in all the getting and spending is that live
sound is beautiful, while reproduced sound rarely is."
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/ear.htm
It is the *intrinsic* beauty of live music that I seek when I listen to
recordings of acoustic music. I know what it is. It is easily
recognizable when I hear live music and it is recognizably missing in
most playback. When it is there it is amazing. It is a matter of degree
not a black and white issue though.

Live music is not 'intrinsically' beautiful. It beggars belief to
imply that live sound can't be downright *ugly*, either due to acoustics,
playing, or the music itself.

Well gosh Steve, I didn't know I had to explain the obvious to such a
smart group of people. Of course, live music played badly or played in
a poor acoustic space is ugly. It's inaudible if the listener is deaf
too. It's all for nothing if the listener is struck by lightning and
dies on the spot as well. Are there any other obvious things that need
explaining?



This sort of vague 'standard' is no sort of standard at all.

wrong. You have to tke my position out of context to challenge it. Sad.




It's just a subjective call, again.





It's always a subjective call when aesthetics are involved.



Scott