On 07/01/2010 19:03, Roderick Stewart wrote:
In a.com, Rob wrote:
There we are - agreed to a point, except we'll just have to differ on
the 'CD *will* sound better given the same source'. By what I understand
to be conventional measurement it may well measure better. It's just
that I'm not convinced it *will sound* better.

If you think a recording with some deliberate processing/distortion plus the
inevitable distortions of recording it on a gramophone disk sounds "better"
than exactly the same original recording without these things, then logically
that must mean you like the sound of the distortions, and that therefore your
personal preference is nothing to do with realism.

Rod.

Well, it means nothing of the sort, of course, in much the same way as
an abstract representation can be more 'real' than 'reality'. But I take
your point :-)

An abstract representaion of something made by an artist who understands how we
perceive things can deliberately include things in a work of art to make us
perceive it as more "real" that reality, but that's not what we're talking about
is it? The deliberate distortions of reality that an artist includes in a piece
of work will be carefully chosen to evoke particular responses, but audio or
video distortions are just products of whatever technology is used to present the
work, and generally completely irrelevant to its content.


Absolutely, well put - so what I'm talking about is a coincidental, and
not causal, artefact. No idea what it is, why it should be there or what
makes it 'real'. Just makes the music sound better.

Rob