On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 07:03:52 -0800, Dave C wrote
(in article ):
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
snip
Well, of course they do, but my point is that this concern about the
sound quality of their instruments doesn't seem to require the kind of
reproduction quality that most of us would think would be required.
IOW, the things that tell them the "qualities " of the instrument
sound that they are interested in doesn't require much Fi. Case in
point: I used to record a symphony orchestra with a fairly well known
conductor. Since I was the "symphony archivist" it was part of my job
to provide 'study tapes' to the conductor. I figured that he would
have some megabuck system and that the study tapes I made for him
would be one-off 15 ips, half-track copies of the master. WRONG! He
only wanted cassettes. When I visited his home for a party one time, I
saw his "system". It was a boom box- and a fairly cheap and hideous
sounding one at that! "How can you hear what the orchestra is doing on
that?" I asked. His answer was that it was more than adequate for his
purposes. I guess my expectations had been formed by seeing "Once More
With Feeling" with Yul Brenner as egomaniacal conductor Victor Fabian
too many times. Now HE had a proper stereo system!
My view is that the difference between live performance in a great
environment, with genuinely talented musicians, is so far ahead of any
reproduction with all the compromises, engineering decisions and playback
room colourations, that a half decent boom box might well deliver the
"essence" of the performance. The actual performance delivers everything
else. If I were in the position of being able to experience live
performances of this calibre more than several times a year it is likely I
would be less obsessive with the exact positioning of the speakers and more
tolerant of all the "other" uses my listening room gets put to 
- oh
alright maybe not!
Dave
Well, that's certainly more than probable, but I feel that were I a conductor
who had created such great sound, that I would want to be reminded of it by
being able to re-experience at least some of that "magic" via a good
recording and great playback equipment.
The bottom line is of course, and what I came to realize (though not perhaps,
fully understand), is that he doesn't listen to the performance to hear sound
- at least not as we understand it. He listened to hear the ORCHESTRA. Were
the violins loud enough? Did the piccolo part come through? Did the principle
french horn botch that solo in the third movement? The violin soloist, for
instance listens not to the tone of his/her instrument - he/she needs but to
pick it up and bow it to hear that, He's/she's listening for their own bowing
technique, their own intonation and fingering as well as how they sound
playing in ensemble with the other violinists. They can hear those things on
a table radio. So anything better than that just doesn't impress or interest
them because it actually gives them no more USABLE information. It gives us
more information because a good system allows us to hear more SOUND. more of
the violin bow's resin, more bass from the contrabassoon, etc. Two different
things.