Is live reproduction the goal of audio?


Is the ultimate direction of electronics to reproduce the original performance as though it were live?
lakefrontroad

Ultimately reproducing what is on the recording is the best you can do. Electronics have no intentions, the recording artists do, so even with perfect electronic technology the artist may decide to go retro with their sound and so should your system.

Like giving a painting proper lighting and place on the wall each CD/LP is a work of art and whether its good art or bad art the system at best should expose the true characteristics of the peice and give the listener enough information to discriminate the strengths and weaknesses of the many facets by which we judge art.

Modern Audiophiles engage in selective distortion in a sense they play Godhead or Creator, as they bend the work of others to satisfy themselves ( I am guilty) and this is the primary function of their system. This is why there is so much diversity in equipment as we do not build systems to accomodate intentions of the artist we instead build systems to suit our own aesthetic sensibilities, thus many of us are committing one of the mortal sins in our pursuit. On hobby level of course, no one is going to hell for this. :) But audiophiles put themselves first before the artist, and this is why a question like this can be raised with sincerity.

Creating "Live" feel is a distortion that some strive to attain....and at times do, but at a cost that another may not wish to pay. Distortion feeds into subjectivity, making subjectivity more important than objectivity. This of course is disasterous as in many areas equipment has improved little because the goal of what an "improvement" is remains unclear.

It is why high end is slowly dying, unlike Home Theater who's protaganists put the art first. Today, even the weakest lo-tech "High End Audio" company can survive on a good review and the attitude that whatever you like is right. When we all should have the fortitude to recognize that we may like the "wrong" thing and accept it. Smoking is unhealthy and if the goal is to be healthy then smoking is wrong. In a hobby which claims to deal in refinement and high performance, the reality is chaos and poor performance in the meaty part of the bell curve.

It is why outsiders don't "get it" and why sometimes our highly personalized systems give a negative impression to the un-enlightened and the enlightened alike.

At the time of my post there are four posts and all of them contain part of the chaos created by the lack of common ground on the matter. Let me finish make note of their thoughs so to highlite the incredible lack of consensus on such an easy topic.

"I benchmark electronics against original performances because I have heard unamplified live music and I "know" what it should sound like" (missing key detail) when recorder through X microphone and X processors, mastered on X speakers.... Over-simplification but the way it should be done.

"We are so stuck on the equipment that we believe it is the electronic engineer that "gets it".

The subtle rhetoric of exclusion and elitism

"High End is to produce the most intriguing experience with reproduced music."

The artist excluded, almost juxtaposed to the post above

There is no "getting it" to be gotten. It's all relative.

As permissive as it gets, no standards are good standards.

There will be more like this but why are these attitudes so prevalent and almost negative, when the answer to the original question is simply no.

Best Regards to you all.
No, the purpose of (specifically) electronics is to reproduce what's on the disk. What's on the disk may or may not reflect a recordist's attempt (successful or not) to capture something that sounds "live". But the recordist may have been after something else.

Now, in addition to reproducing what's on the disk as accurately as possible, the electronics should also give the listener the means to alter that in whatever way he wants, to produce a sound he enjoys.
The goal of the individual is to pay taxes and start wars etc...The goal of hi-fi is to grab your money.

The goal of the engineer is to take his knowlegde and apply it. How many bridge builders graduate and how many actaully build a bridge. Would you let a doctor straight out of school operate on your son ,or would you go with the guy who has actually duplicated the action.

Just because you went out and purchased 1K or 100K worth of equipment , placed it in a very VISUAL pattern, and are now plug and play does not make you an audiophile.

Symmetrical and visual set up systems are great for taking pictures and posting. Rack right in the middle and the speakers all placed nice and all....has nothing to do with sound I'm afraid. You are listening with your eyes and have taught yourself to hear in straight lines.
The goal of individuals is different than the goal of 'audio' because part of the goal of audio is to sell equipment and make a profit.
Lackefrontroad, what I think Boa2 is meaning to say is that we as people who enjoy audio find the route we like when it comes to its reproduction. We all like different sound qualities and natually gravitate towards those products which produce those sounds which we like.

Personally, I think that the goal of audio reproduction is to:

in the case of classical music, give a production that is as close to a live listening as possible. Not only this, but give this reproduction from the standpoint of the conductor's ears.

for other types of music, give an a real-life image of what the ensemble sounds like, be it a rock group, jazz or any other ensemble. I also believe that the audio engineer should do everything in his/her power to place the artist as if they were playing in ensemble accross a stereo soundstage.

Natually with these beliefs, I tend to gravitate twards products that produce what I think to be a completely un-biased un-colored reproduction of sound...So I guess my answer to your question would be, yes, live production is the goal.