I’m not sure why that should be an issue. The intent of Picasso’s Guernica for example was to depict the horrors of war and not be “
charming”, I’m not sure how that wouldn’t be obvious or why anyone would want to use goggles that made it more charming, as you stated.
For decades, most record labels for a unfortunately large portion of their catalog outright ignore the artists & sophisticated listeners and mix their albums to be atrocious, brick walled, compressed monstrosities intended to sound louder on EarPods or car radios and not fit for quality home stereos.
Where do you get that from? Typically most record labels do not “
outright ignore the artists” or listeners and “
mix their albums to be atrocious”. It’s typically the artists themselves (musicians, producers and to an extent the engineers) who decide that, not the labels, and why on earth would anyone, artists or labels, mix anything to be “
atrocious”, because who would buy “
atrocious” recordings in preference to recordings that were not atrocious?
The best evidence for why I believe none of this matters as a cultural issue though is if you go to the homes of any top musicians or producers in the world from Paul McCartney to Rick Rubin, I have no doubts you’ll find at least one tube amplifier somewhere.
Yep, most commonly you’ll find it stored away in their loft, garage or a storage unit! Some old time musicians with old systems might still actually be using a tube amplifier but not that many.
If the musicians themselves are listening to music through a distorted lens are they really that anal about you as a customer doing the same? This is why they’re artists not engineers, a lot of them can’t even read sheet music!
They are not listening through a tube amplifier or other deliberate distortion though. Initially, musicians are listening to their recordings in the studio and commercial studios do not use tube amps or anything else that deliberately adds distortion to the monitoring chain. And, I’m not sure what reading sheet music has to do with any of this?
As for artists who managed to get creative control in the mixer room, I’m still skeptical they have ideas in their head about what a “perfect” system is. If they did they’d issue audio albums like computer specs for games and list what equipment sounds best with their album. And which mix is the intended mix?
Firstly, artists do largely have creative control, sometimes the musicians themselves but often their producer. Secondly, there’s really no such thing as a perfect system, speaker efficiency/accuracy and room acoustics pretty much guarantee that. However, assuming they’re recording in a quality commercial studio then they probably have a much better “
idea in their head” about a “perfect system” than almost any consumer. Lastly, you don’t seem to realise that the equipment responsible for how the reproduction ideally sounds, is not the speakers and amps but the combination of speakers and amps with the room acoustics. Obviously there would be no point whatsoever in listing all that, it would be a huge list that no consumer could ever match! Your analogy with computers and computer games is invalid, because the frame rates and performance of the computer game is not affected by rooms and room acoustics. Isn’t that obvious?
Why and how is the audio product deciding?
I was responding to the analogy of goggles making stuff look more charming. Potentially analogous to say a tube amp producing audible distortion, in such a case, what do you think is deciding/defining those distortion characteristics if not the tube amp? As to why, as far as I can tell it’s mainly because audiophiles have been suckered by marketing BS, are therefore willing to spend a considerable premium on such poor fidelity equipment and with such profit margins, manufacturers will obviously continue to create such inferior, outdated products.
You'll note that it was stated earlier that "Most people want to hear music and recordings as the composers, musicians and engineers intended,"
Obviously that statement is garbage on every level. First, the arrogance to claim with zero evidence what "most people" want.
What do you mean “
zero evidence”? Not only is there evidence but a huge amount of evidence of recording sales and therefore preferences, going back more than a century and furthermore, that evidence absolutely has and does influence the production of recordings! What is actually GARBAGE is apparently being completely ignorant of this obvious fact, not to mention the arrogance of making such a nonsense claim here, although in your case unfortunately, not at all surprising!!
The objectivists are irrelevant because no human listens objectively.
What truly is irrelevant, is ignorant audiophiles making up false, straw-man arguments and then arguing against their own made up BS!
G
