And we strive for..... what ?

With all due respect Ikarus, I'd like to offer a contrary point of view.

As the article points out, the autotuner is not going to make a lousy band sound great. It will just make them sound in tune. I view it as a tool to help clean up the odd mistake. Much like a spell checker. Or calculator. Or equalizer. I'm in favor of anything that adds to the beauty of the performance.

Not saying that you didn't have a point. Just that there are 2 sides to this equation.

Since this is an audio sight, I will repeat something I said a while back. Are we really looking for accurate sound or sound that sounds good? So many people listen to proven inaccurate speakers and enjoy it. All the equipment on the market that sounds so different from piece to piece---but where does accuracy fit in. Guess it has hit the recording industry big time.
I believe in preservation of the sound wave phase relationships which means I use time aligned and phase correct speakers. However, it is very disconcerting that most Redbook cd's phase relationships are so bad that it makes speakers like Vandersteen, Theil, etc. a moot point. SACD solves some of the problems but not all concerning phase. I have wondered if sometimes we purchase certain equipment to compensate for such bad sources.

Autotune devices have been around for a few years and like any piece of
hardware it can be used wisely or misused. As such it's a completely
neutral device. On recordings it's used extensively in country, urban
R&B and pop music areas. Interestingly enough, although it's use is
supposed to be non-detectable, producers have resorted to using
autotune as an effect unto itself (Cher's "Do You Believe").
Non-professional singers who learn to sing by copying current
commercial releases have actually started to incorporate the pitch jump
at the start of an "autotuned" note into their natural singing
style.

I think we see proof that the recording industry is all about money and not quality. 95% of the mass market music sounds so over processed and electronic that I can not listen to it anyway. The small lables with "real" musicians are about high quality music and high quality reproduction. That's the stuff I enjoy anyway, so no big deal. If todays "artists" want to enhance themselves both physically and electronicly so be it. Their fans are using Mp3 and walkmans to listen through so no harm done.

Not trying to start anything as I have no idea of what as close to the original means in home systems or amplified music of any type. I can only assume that your tastes in music are of limited scope (In which case I guess I would have to agree pretty much)...or that you don't have much knowledge of the behind the scene action that takes place in recordings and even live events. I think that if you strip away the enhancements layer by layer and go acappella so to speak, we would find that a good many of the popular artist would not be so popular. I do get your point and understand were your at on this as I have wrestled with this in my mind many times. As of late I have be trying to come to some consensus in my mind on how multichannel music should sound...at home in my room. Should it sound like it does when I go out and listen to it up on the stage? OR, should it sound like I have them live in my room which puts me more in the middle of things type of perspective. There are recordings that give both views of the picture, I find that I like both somewhat, which is more "Original" would depend on my imaginary needs for that time and place in my mind I guess? Which brings me to my point

Dave