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