"It's worth noting that the purpose of audio recording is to capture good performances, not to showcase a room. "
And this is where we disagree. The purpose of audio recording is to capture ANY sound source that one desires to capture. It is not to capture a performance. There are many many sounds that can and are captured in audio recordings that are not performances. Audio recordings are exactly that, audio recordings, and they are either captured with no room problems or they are not. If there are room problems, then it's not a good recording and that has nothing to do with the performance. You either have an accurate recording or you don't.
"Good recordings are also fairly relative to the subject."
disagree. A sound is a sound is a sound. You either record it with no room problems or you don't. It's either recorded accurately or it isn't and you won't hear it accurately if it wasn't.
"The room is important. There are recordings in sub optimal rooms that sound great. Ergo, the room is not the single most important element in a good recording. "
Not to me. Any recording that has room problems was not recorded well enough to let the listener hear the performance as good as it should be heard. So to me the room is the most important thing because you aren't getting a good recording that has low end smear and frequencies canceling each other out or room resonance that ruins certain notes. So no, bad rooms give bad recordings, and your statement is incorrect to me.
"nd even possibly more accurate (it will be). Easier + efficiency + accurate does not equal good in every instance if the performance is deemphasized"
Possibly more accurate? It's either accurate or it isn't. How would a performance be deemphasized? As i said, to me, bad rooms give bad recordings, and I have never heard a bad room prove me wrong. A bad room ruins the low end, causes smearing and simply screams BAD RECORDING ROOM from the high heavens. To me it's always been such a shame to hear so many hundreds of great songs brought down by a mass of conflicting frequencies and bad echoes and such. I heard it countless times since these forums have been in existence.
It's worth noting that the purpose of audio recording is to capture good performances, not to showcase a room. Good recordings are also fairly relative to the subject. To beat your Foley example into the dirt....A good room may be important to a Foley session. It may be the single most important thing to a good/accurate recording. For those of us that are actually recording musicians, the room is important. But it is not as important as good musicianship. If all you want to do is be accurate, then the moment the electrons start flowing, accuracy moves a few seats down in the bus. A good studio monitor is accurate. It's not, however, pleasing to listen to in a non critical environment. It's flat. Our ears are not.
The room is important. There are recordings in sub optimal rooms that sound great. Ergo, the room is not the single most important element in a good recording. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. A good room may make the recording session easier (it does), possibly more efficient (it can) and even possibly more accurate (it will be). Easier + efficiency + accurate does not equal good in every instance if the performance is deemphasized.
