Because only acoustical performances reliably create and deliver true benchmark fidelity beyond what we can readily create at home.
Why is that.?
I do not believe i have ever heard anybody express this attitude before.
Hmm. I'm a musician. A guitarist, specifically. I play both acoustic and electric guitars. I can understand where you're coming from, but I believe your rationale is flawed. Why? Because many guitars, such as your typical solid-body electric, are meant to be used amplified only. So because I must use an amplifier when I perform with an electric, does that somehow invalidate my musical performance? How about the keyboardist who uses a synthesizer, and not an acoustic piano, for his or her work? Because they must use an amplifier in order for their instrument to be heard, does this somehow invalidate their performance? No, I don't think so. There is a lot of nuance that can still be extracted from amplified instruments -- nuance that's every bit as real as that which can be extracted from acoustic instruments. And in some cases, even more. For instance, it's pretty difficult getting nuanced sounds from an acoustic piano -- not impossible, but difficult. Much easier to get nuanced sounds from a synth, however.
If you're going to restrict your definition to "benchmark fidelity" then what's the point in even listening to recordings of your favorite symphony orchestra? Yes, they're all acoustic instruments, but once you're listening to recordings, you've lost some of this "benchmark fidelity." Besides, I would argue that your "benchmark fidelity" exists for performances in which amplification is used. I don't know about others, but I can always tell the difference between the sound of live music and recorded music, whether acoustic or amplified, no matter how good the recording is, and I suspect the reason why I can is because of this benchmark fidelity that you mention. So even live amplified music benefits from being heard by real ears without any intervening additional technology.
It is a very strange definition of "Live Music"
I think all the Millionaires from The Beatles, Stones, Airplane, Doors, Van Halen, and all the people at Woodstock would disagree.
Furlongs per fortnight.
The issue is too complicated to be discussed here. There are many factors you are not taking into account, and would one fail to know about them, or even begin to understand it without the proper knowledge and experience.
And yes, some instrument amps are capable of a reasonable amount of fidelity.
Amplified music is reproduced. Only the musicians are "live"
As a musician, I've never quite understood the audiophile's perspective. It just seems to be the splitting of way too many hairs to me. I'm concerned primarily about sound production. I'll let others argue about how best to listen to it. Regarding these "some" amps that you claim are capable of a reasonable amount of fidelity, I'm curious. Can you name a few? I can't help but wonder if I've played through any, and if I have, whether I've even liked them.
So a synth playing keyboardist or a guitarist who plays an electric guitar -- these people are not musicians?
I'm afraid I must absolutely disagree with your notion that amplified music is reproduced, especially since it is the primary source of the sound production for musicians who use electric or electronic instruments..
expired film......
I wonder why the furlong–firkin–fortnight (FFF) system hasn't caught on yet.Furlongs per fortnight.
I wonder why the furlong–firkin–fortnight (FFF) system hasn't caught on yet.
Its seems that someone mentioned such a thing in this thread awhile back.
and right here on photrio >>> https://www.photrio.com/forum/groupphotos/expired-film-group.142/
I agree.Hmm. I'm a musician. A guitarist, specifically. I play both acoustic and electric guitars. I can understand where you're coming from, but I believe your rationale is flawed. Why? Because many guitars, such as your typical solid-body electric, are meant to be used amplified only. So because I must use an amplifier when I perform with an electric, does that somehow invalidate my musical performance? How about the keyboardist who uses a synthesizer, and not an acoustic piano, for his or her work? Because they must use an amplifier in order for their instrument to be heard, does this somehow invalidate their performance? No, I don't think so. There is a lot of nuance that can still be extracted from amplified instruments -- nuance that's every bit as real as that which can be extracted from acoustic instruments. And in some cases, even more. For instance, it's pretty difficult getting nuanced sounds from an acoustic piano -- not impossible, but difficult. Much easier to get nuanced sounds from a synth, however.
If you're going to restrict your definition to "benchmark fidelity" then what's the point in even listening to recordings of your favorite symphony orchestra? Yes, they're all acoustic instruments, but once you're listening to recordings, you've lost some of this "benchmark fidelity." Besides, I would argue that your "benchmark fidelity" exists for performances in which amplification is used. I don't know about others, but I can always tell the difference between the sound of live music and recorded music, whether acoustic or amplified, no matter how good the recording is, and I suspect the reason why I can is because of this benchmark fidelity that you mention. So even live amplified music benefits from being heard by real ears without any intervening additional technology.
I agree.
Don't forget the venue affects fidelity of live acoustic performances.
as well as photography = organized tones and coloursmusic = organized noise
photography = organized greys
Which varies from exceptional to terrible! The good halls were preferred venues for recording.
Don't do colouras well as photography = organized tones and colours
Don't do colour
You're confusing taste with accuracy. Tape is far from accurate. It suffers from wow and flutter, heavy compression, and poorer high frequency response. It also tops out at around 90 dB of dynamic range, which is the same as a CD. CD's suffer from other things like dither and jitter, and while their measured range is about the same as 15 ips tape (90 dB), they don't naturally compress like tape does, so they give the impression of a smaller dynamic range. Vinyl, for the record, tops out at around 70 dB of dynamic range. 24 bit digital has a dynamic range of around 144 dB's. That's a whole lot more than any of the other mediums out there. Of course, get a DAC to reproduce that is another story. So let's say you're getting close to 120 dB's out of a decent DAC with a 24 bit wave file. I could go on with other specs as well, but you can look those up yourself.In which alternate universe?
A 15ips tube studio recorder is the most faithful recording device yet to be conceived! Digital doesn't even come close!
If you really believe this, you are in for a shock!
And a digital remaster sounds nothing like the original.
Also, pay no attention to audiophiles. Those guys are nuts. They'll spend hundreds of dollars on a bag of crystals that you tape to cables to make things sound better. http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?