-
I'd agree with all of that IF the original recording, the original master tape that the artist and label signed off on was effectively a totally transparent recreation of "the artist playing in the room". But it wasn't, it was a recording of the artist playing in the room, recorded to tape and played back through a desk, an amp and speakers.
The theoretical totally transparent reproduction doesn't get you back into the room with the artist, it can only ever get you back to the original master. My point is that the original master recording wasn't signed off using the theoretical totally transparent mastering reproduction method either so aiming for total transparency isn't necessarily any more "true" than another, possibly slightly coloured reproduction.
And all of this totally avoids the point that most music isn't mastered to sound its best on high end mastering studio gear (or the theoretical totally transparent reproduction machine) it's mastered to sound its best on the gear that most people will be listening to it on.
You are reading a single comment by @Dooks-Fatberg and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Dooks-Fatberg
You're really describing the difference between audio production, where the original sound is deliberately distorted to produce a pleasing result, and audio reproduction where the aim is that if you close your eyes you can't tell whether the band is in the room with you.
If you think your highly distorting playback equipment exactly matches what the artist had in mind when he created the recording, you are hearing his creation as he intended it to be heard. On the other hand, if the artist's preferred medium is live performance, then you will get closest to enjoying his work as he would have wanted by the most faithful possible replication of the sound you would have heard if you had actually been in the room with him.