I agree with Newbee's premise that 1.) most listening spaces could not accomodate live performers, and 2.) that at best, even a direct to disk recording is still an electronic step or two away from the original.
The conclusion he draws (Tune your room, etc. . . . ) though not wrong, is a bit general and could be misleading to those just starting out who perhaps are not yet sure what they "like."
The Audiophile book of "COMMON SENSE" should state that anyone who goes out of their way to make even a modest extra effort (in time, money, and self-education) to have an "audio system" (another highly subjective term!) is expecting a little something more in return (I think that's just common sense) The real question is more what?
And though personal taste is always a factor, I think the answer that most trancends all issues of personal taste, is "excitement", or to use the vernacular, "what gets you off." And the one common denominator (excitement-wise) that I've found throughout the audiophile community, stated or implied, is that folks are most stimulated by the perception (illusion if you like) of actual performance.
And accepting Newbee's caveats 1 and 2, still, the one remark we've all heard again and again when a non-audiophile hears even a modest, but well set up system is, "it sounds like you're right there!"
So I would say that the goal of home audio is not the accurate duplication of live performance -- how would one even go about making such an assessment? -- but rather reproducing a recorded performance that has enough ingredients, and with enough accuracy, to generate the "perception of performance." Beyond that point (I reached it around 1985) one crosses into the realm of the connoisseur or madman, depending on your point of view.
The conclusion he draws (Tune your room, etc. . . . ) though not wrong, is a bit general and could be misleading to those just starting out who perhaps are not yet sure what they "like."
The Audiophile book of "COMMON SENSE" should state that anyone who goes out of their way to make even a modest extra effort (in time, money, and self-education) to have an "audio system" (another highly subjective term!) is expecting a little something more in return (I think that's just common sense) The real question is more what?
And though personal taste is always a factor, I think the answer that most trancends all issues of personal taste, is "excitement", or to use the vernacular, "what gets you off." And the one common denominator (excitement-wise) that I've found throughout the audiophile community, stated or implied, is that folks are most stimulated by the perception (illusion if you like) of actual performance.
And accepting Newbee's caveats 1 and 2, still, the one remark we've all heard again and again when a non-audiophile hears even a modest, but well set up system is, "it sounds like you're right there!"
So I would say that the goal of home audio is not the accurate duplication of live performance -- how would one even go about making such an assessment? -- but rather reproducing a recorded performance that has enough ingredients, and with enough accuracy, to generate the "perception of performance." Beyond that point (I reached it around 1985) one crosses into the realm of the connoisseur or madman, depending on your point of view.