The only ''definitive'' answer in this Subjective world is...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's be charitable and assume Mark meant more in terms of ability to manipulate the data before it falls apart. That or we'll get right back to arguments about hearing things in -80 to -100 dB range from the primary output.
 
Pano said:
Firstly; most film, and now digital, isn't accurate and isn't meant to be. It's meant to be pleasing to look at and sell photos. There are ways around that, but I won't go into those here. No photography or printer is fully accurate, you have to choose what you can live with and what you can't. <snip>
Click to expand...

You could replace a few words and this would accurately describe a music mix. Accuracy is not the goal.
 
Before, i never taken care of the music technicity.
But... one day i was watching a U2 biopic (i'm not a huge fan but it was on a cultural chain that i like) and i know their sound since i've heard all their CDs during my young years.
Throughout the reportage the group have performed a song in differents studios recorded directly without mastering, WOW (my TV is linked at two SL Orions) their song was so much better than the CD one... i've compared after (1080P recording) with the CD and the reportage sound much, much better.
 
I have noticed that tv programs have a distinct midrange boost. Songs played on tv programs often have more easily heard lyrics than the CD versions (even when you close your eyes to avoid the lip reading help). This holds even when you bypass the awful tv speakers.
 
silverprout said:
i've compared after (1080P recording) with the CD and the reportage sound much, much better.
Click to expand...

Unlike a painting with music you don't have access to the original, and for that matter what is the original? Every major change in seat is different.

With fine art prints the artist is involved in proofing the reproductions, this in essence creates an "original" and the exact match to the original work (accuracy?) is no longer relevant. I got in a lot of trouble at a museum when I took on the director about hanging inkjet prints in the main galleries. He said the prints were made at Kodak on a special printer that is not commercially available. Traditional protocol would involve destruction of the original after a numbered edition was produced, I don't see this happening all the time now. More artists driving Bentleys?
 
Last edited:
gedlee said:
Accuracy has no meaning in the production of art. It only has meaning in the reproduction.
Click to expand...
Yes, quite. Just like with music. Although "realism" does have meaning in art it's not used much for reproductions. Fine art reproduction is more difficult than musical reproduction simply because.....
scott wurcer said:
Unlike a painting with music you don't have access to the original..
Click to expand...

With music you just need the illusion that it's like the real thing. Except for specialized tests, we don't directly compare the original to the reproduction. Even photographs are easy compared to art. Photos just have to look "good" according to the client because they don't get compared directly to the real thing. Art prints do get compared to the real thing all thru the proofing process. It not a walk in the park, to be sure.
 
Pano said:
Art prints do get compared to the real thing all thru the proofing process. It not a walk in the park, to be sure.
Click to expand...

I'm sure some artists are incredibly fussy, but when you get there and they approve the proofs to do an edition it becomes the original. Modern technology has changed everything in a way, lithographs, etchings, and even wood block prints never existed as a finished original work. The ateliers doing the actual printing have their own disciplines which is a craft with its own learning curve.

I was sad to see that the Kyoto traditional art center has closed. As strange as it might seem craftsmen with microscopes slavishly copied the 19th century woodblock prints and continued to make new editions, they were actually quite nice and not expensive.
 
scott wurcer said:
I'm sure some artists are incredibly fussy, but when you get there and they approve the proofs to do an edition it becomes the original.
Click to expand...
I suppose it does, in a way. The artist's final proof becomes the master of the series. Sometimes they have to be remastered, like audio, when the technology changes. That can be a minor task if the substrate changes, or an involved task if the printer changes. Unlike audio, the goal isn't to make it better, but to match the master proof.
 
billshurv said:
I have noticed that tv programs have a distinct midrange boost. Songs played on tv programs often have more easily heard lyrics than the CD versions (even when you close your eyes to avoid the lip reading help). This holds even when you bypass the awful tv speakers.
Click to expand...

scott wurcer said:
Unlike a painting with music you don't have access to the original, and for that matter what is the original? Every major change in seat is different.

With fine art prints the artist is involved in proofing the reproductions, this in essence creates an "original" and the exact match to the original work (accuracy?) is no longer relevant. I got in a lot of trouble at a museum when I took on the director about hanging inkjet prints in the main galleries. He said the prints were made at Kodak on a special printer that is not commercially available. Traditional protocol would involve destruction of the original after a numbered edition was produced, I don't see this happening all the time now. More artists driving Bentleys?
Click to expand...

U2 "from the sky down"

"they are pure autodidacts, everyone knows they are playing wrong but it is why they are so unique"

It was better in the biopic because they play much better now... 😀 it is not always a bad thing to growing old.
 
I am afraid my appreciation of U2 ended with 'under a blood red sky'. They were good when young and angry. After that they (IMO) vanished up their own rears.
 
You beat me to it - I was about to say, I'm old enough to remember when they were good...
But surely, since Bono was deified, we can't discuss U2 here....?
 
The only ''definitive'' answer in this Subjective world is... the audio world is an art, and the art is feeded by the technological evolutions since the beginning of humanity.
 
Maybe not typical home hi-fi, but plenty of sound reproduction equipment gets used as part of the art.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top