In Reply to: Your evolving perceptions are reality. posted by soulfood on November 26, 2006 at 10:41:28:
You and your experiences are a shifting baseline. As such, some day we might agree. It seems less contentious to debate faithful reproduction, than one's reality. More relative to audio.
Of course my point exactly - except it's doubtful we will ever fully agree. I believe faithful reproduction is not a "fluid perceptual reality". Though I do agree an individuals experiences are a shifting baseline and the debate should be about faithful reproduction which is a fixed reality.If your acknowledgement to "pure fantasy" doesn't affect you, try chaulking this up to bullshit. Don't flatter yourself. It's not a cute analogy, simply because you said it. It might be reflected that you find "pure fantasy" useful. Enough, with the progressions of fantasy. If it helps, I get your point.
Of course I've already admitted that ones perception of faithful reproduction is a shifting baseline and that the industry has in fact learned how to exploit by shifting these baselines (which prompted your objectionable "conspiracy" comment). The reality is that we have to guess and estimate the reality behind most audio recordings because we don't and can never know. This is the effect of having an ill-defined stereo format.Your comments fail to support your proposal that faithful reproduction is a fluid perceptual reality - and that's the point of contention. The reality behind each and every recording is fixed and unchanging and thus faithful reproduction is fixed and constant not fluid and never will be. The understanding about the reality that we can't/don't know is ever evolving but that reality is fixed and unchanging.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Yea so what's that got to do with faithful reproduction? - Don T 05:43:24 12/02/06 (1)
- Re: Yea so what's that got to do with faithful reproduction? - soulfood 19:30:14 12/04/06 (0)