Recording as Artifact

Jules Coleman, a noted professor of jurisprudence (a philosopher, not a lawyer) wrote an article on the subject some years ago which disappeared from the Net but is now back up. Here it is: https://www.inner-magazines.com/audiophilia/musical-value-and-its-reproduction/

Coleman's thesis is similar to yours: why elevate the recording (or more accurately, an LP or other "finished" mixed down product taken from the recording) to a reference when it does not represent the actual performance? This assumes that an actual performance of the instruments in the same room occurred (as opposed to a multitrack conglomeration of overdubs). 

The "recording" doesn't necessarily reflect the actual performance (assuming one took place). Yes, it may be the best we have but is "accuracy" to the medium the measure?  

Very seldom do we hear recordings of live performances we attended. Where you are positioned in the room makes a difference. 

Coleman rejects the notion that an audio reproduction system should be a forensic tool. He doesn't offer a clear alternative other than to state that a "good" system should be emotionally engaging. 

Yes, that's a vague measure. 

I know as I have evolved my serious listening, I listen differently than I once did. I'm no longer looking for "spectacularity" (think: audiophile warhorse) but instead something that makes it seem like a more convincing illusion of real instruments in the room. I can do this successfully with small scale jazz combos in a fairly large room. Trying to recreate a full symphony or the impact of King Crimson live is much harder and has much to do with the size of the room, as well as the capability of the equipment, to achieve scale. 

With classical music, I find the interpretation plays a huge role. Hearing a 1930’s recording of Toscanini conducting Beethoven’s 7th, or a 1960’s recording of Von Karajan conducting of the same or a 1980’s recording of Meta, the sonics are very different but so are the interpretations. I prefer the pace of Von Karajan but the DG recordings are a little flat compared to later recordings with better dynamics. I still pick the Von Karajan because I like his interpretation.

@gkelly 

https://youtu.be/Us6hQLwG1S8?si=2UcSnfuA0PnGXQWz

Thank you so much for posting that expose of British HiFi from 1959!

I would have been about 14, but we did not have TV so missed it.  I would note that the MONITOR program went on to spawn one of Britain's best and most controversial filmmakers, Ken Russell.  His MONITOR documentary on Elgar was the most popular TV program of the decade and is still available on DVD.  I watch it at least once a year.

My dad certainly fitted the mold, and I remember the thrill he got from pointing out the various valve factories around Cambridge, and getting exotic timbers to hand make cabinets.  Hand-make because he had no power tools, not even an electric drill.  The amount of physical exertion required to dress hardwood with hand planes is easily forgotten, but he made a corner reflex cabinet for 12" Tannoy dual concentric drivers just like the ones in the program. He even got me to design a console to house his Garrard 301 deck (as seen in the program). I now own and use the deck.

So thanks for the memories

Contrary to popular opinion regarding the ambiguity of accuracy in music reproduction, I have found a compelling way forward; one which underlines the fundamental importance of reproduction that is accurate to the live performance, the only cornerstone and datum one has in building an audio system.

There will be many live performances we each will have attended, and more than a few of which would have found recorded production. These form the beginning of any kind of calibration regarding one’s system build; the more recordings of live performances one has attended that is discovered, the better. Large scale orchestral/symphonic pieces are the best, as massed strings, piano and the cacophony of grouped instruments in on a true live stage present the most nuanced and simultaneously powerful delivery of dynamics, timbre and subtlety of soundfield, and subsequently, the completeness of musical performance. This obviously does not preclude any other kind of live performance, as the greater the variety and number of attended live performances we are able to find recordings of, the better our ability to gauge those which correspond best to how we experienced them.

Not many recorded tracks will sound accurate to those performances one has attended and remembered. A precious few will be outstanding and so very realistic, they will be remarkably close to our memory of what we had experienced in scale, timbre and dynamics, due to a number of factors; being one’s seated location; venue acoustics, spread of recording microphones; and skill of sound engineering; all in relation to each other.

These few recordings form the basis of what one turns to whenever evaluating a fresh addition to one’s system, after which the invitation to other audiophiles is extended for their appraisal of the recorded tracks they have had privilege of having attended the live performance of, for further evaluation of our closest approximation to accuracy. This is not and has never been about a comparison to tracks we are familiar with, how banal and misleading that would be? It is about a critical test to those few live performances we have attended that have been recorded as closely as possible to what we remember. It may not be absolutely definitive, but it’s the closest to truth we have. 

Of course accuracy in audio reproduction exists. 

Finding the most accurate datum for that fundamental comparison is a vital part of what being an audiophile is all about, regardless of cost or what one is able to spend.

Preference is the term given by those who are either too lazy to make the effort, too superficial to care for deeper understanding, cannot or do not want to afford more while claiming what they have is all they need, or are unable or too unfussed to want to hear a difference. 

In friendship - kevin