On 15/11/2017 09:20, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Mike Fleming
wrote:
If you have no clue what a violin or any other instrument sounds like,
how would you decide if what you hear from a CD is 'fidelity'? Ditto
for the sound of a broadcast from a given hall?

I doubt very much that the Chinese violin sitting in one of my cupboards
upstairs sounds exactly like a Strad or Amati. So while hearing a violin
live will help in general terms, even with absolute auditory
recollection, unless you're listening to exactly the same instrument,
the tone will vary to a greater or lesser extent.

Yes, and changing the tuning of a piano or the strings of a violin alters
the sound. Just as changing venue will, or even playing further from the
bridge with more force.

But if you sit at home and can't tell the difference between a concert from
the RAH and one from the RFH and convincingly recognise the same sound as
being there, you aren't getting anything like 'fidelity'.


I'd pretty much agree that you should be able to appreciate a difference.

People keep arguing as if an inability to get perfection means that nothing
can be done. I know the Civil Service love this ploy, and debaters use it.
But the reality is that if you want to hear a sound as similar as possible
to what you'd get in a live venue, then you do need to have some idea what
that actually sounds like. :-)


I think you're deploying shifting sands here. I don't think anybody is
asking for perfection. Just a rendition of audio that gives a decent
approximation of what might be expected.

That expectation can be derived from a live performance, or sleeve
notes, or simply what you might imagine.


--
Cheers, Rob