Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou5d.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5g!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!mat From: mat@hou5d.UUCP (M Terribile) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: Phil Karn and other CD nuts, please read! Message-ID: <815@hou5d.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-Feb-84 21:16:49 EST Article-I.D.: hou5d.815 Posted: Wed Feb 8 21:16:49 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 03:26:10 EST References: <1043@drux3.UUCP>, <1670@randvax.ARPA> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 30 I disagree with the following: -------------------------------- If realistic reproduction is the goal of audio, then we each have the epitome of that goal presented to our ears 24 hours a day. You don't need a sound system to be a careful listener. In fact, I have a certain distrust for the opinion of someone whose greatest exposure to music is through electronic reproduction, no matter how refined the equipment. So if you want to become a better judge of *reproduced* sound, develop a good familiarity with the real thing. Spend your money on concerts, not on the latest high-cost fads in synthetic sound. If you are trying to judge the quality of reproduction, then it behooves you well to know what things SOUND like when recorded through microphones and reproduced on speakers. When you can't SEE the performers, it is important to know what the original SOUNDED like -- and how much of the sound effect was due to the hall, etc. You need live performance if the music you listen to EXISTS on the other side of the mixing console. If you listen to Pink Floyd, you will have a hard time finding a live performance of ``The Dark Side of The Moon'', Ideally, you will get BOTH experiences. But how many of us can listen to live performance more than to recordings? Mark Terribile hou5d!mat