Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!procter
From: procter@ucbvax.UUCP (Steve Procter)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Live and Digital Recording
Message-ID: <46@ucbvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Apr-84 03:23:02 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.46
Posted: Sun Apr  1 03:23:02 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Apr-84 00:49:35 EST
References: <176@whuxj.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Lines: 17


	 I disagree with Mr. Mitchell's analysis of the purpose
of audio.  I listen to many things which cannot be performed live,
such as much of the work of Brian Eno.  I think that this is an
important question to consider. That is, what is the objective
high fidelity.  Is it really to try to accurately reproduce
a live performance, or is it to be as good sounding as possible.
I think that having recordings conform to the live 'sound' as
much as possible is very limiting on what can be done.  I think that 
a record should not have strange resonances and accoustics because
it was recorded in a hall with such accoustics.  I see no problem
with cutting or boosting , etc., if it makes the record sound better
in my house on my stereo.

				Steve Procter
				procter@ucbvax.ARPA
				ucbvax!procter