Re: OT - Disturbing Reading and So True

Peter Wieck wrote

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

Far from being true, it is a petty misrepresentation.

Who really believes that the objective of a domestic audio
system is to produce sound "how you like it"? Where is the
real, simple evidence that such a belief exists? Find an
exponent and show me.

Reproductionism is deeply flawed. The real problem is to
reappraise the objective of domestic audio systems without
falling into the obviously equally misconceived "how you
like it" trap.

Anyone who thinks Descartes was a solipsist has missed his
point completely, BTW. There are no solipsists, never has
been, never will be. Find one and show me.

I asked "Will stereo get better?" on rec.audio.tec. Only one
person stooped to ask what I meant by "better". The thread
is interesting in that all respondents so far have assumed
that reproduction is the objective and, as with the article
you quote, it becomes apparent that "spaciality" remains
problematic. Seems to me that, once you consider what is
necessary to reproduce a soundfield precisely, the argument
for reproduction reduces itself to absurdity. It won't ever
happen.

Room music was always a dog and it has had its day. The real
revolution, meanwhile, is the dawn of the epoch of head
music. In a virtual world, reproduction becomes possible.

Ian


.