Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site linus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!rjd
From: rjd@linus.UUCP (Robert DeBenedictis)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Live vs. Home Audio Sound
Message-ID: <239@linus.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Mar-85 09:09:33 EST
Article-I.D.: linus.239
Posted: Tue Mar  5 09:09:33 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Mar-85 13:39:36 EST
References: <813@oliven.UUCP>
Reply-To: rjd@linus.UUCP (Robert DeBenedictis)
Organization: The MITRE Coporation, Bedford, MA
Lines: 14
Summary: 


I agree with Greg.  The high-end "tweaks" with $10K of sound in their
homes seem to be going after something more elusive than the mere (:-))
reproduction of sound alone.  The idea that recording engineers (et. al.)
hype-up the sound to compensate for the missing visual element seems
reasonable, maybe even desirable.  However, it would make more sense to
just record the basic sound and let the "you-are-there" die-hards purchase
add-ons for that extra measure of (un)realism (like carver's holography).

What's a "tweak"?   (my definition)
Someone who has spent more on what they hear than on where they hear it.
(i.e., if you mortgage (rent) is less than record/CD/audio expenditures)

Robert DeBenedictis