Amplified Vs Unamplified


I've been reding old posts on this forum...And someone's phrase came to my attention......that the ultimate goal of hi-fi audio electronic is to reproduce the real unamplified music as accurate to original as possible...by other words - closer to live performance - the better.
But what about the music that has never existed as "unamplified"? Electronic music such as Kraftwerk is first what comes to my mind.
I am just curious.... on another note... Don't you think that those electronic instruments such as syntesitors or electronic pianos used by musicians during recording have simiral by quality electronics inside as we have inside ours amplifiers and speakers...Don't you think that the most (if not all) recordings simply were never recorded at the quality our home system are able to reproduce?
sputniks
As Tom sez
We all know that no stereo really can totally accurately reproduce the live sound, but there was a need for a benchmark, and that's what some people settled on as one
With the added limitation that the system can only reproduce what's on the recorded medium. Which begs the question of how accurate that info is...:)
The benchmark of using live unamplified music for determining audio system accuracy was based on being able to make a direct comparison with a known live sound.

The idea being that if the system can reasonably accurately reproduce these known live acoustical sounds and voice, that it should also be reasonably accurate at reproducing the electronic sounds also.

We all know that no stereo really can totally accurately reproduce the live sound, but there was a need for a benchmark, and that's what some people settled on as one.
depends on who you listen to...steve kimock is a fanatic about quality tube gear and his dumble and two rock amps are all highly modified....Steve has the best electric guitar tone I've ever heard....in fact, better than Garcia as Garcia was using solid state McAmps for his stuff for stage amplification (until they went to headsets)