Merry go round

OP you are simply bending your words and staying on the merry go round, instead of discovering that hilde45 is offering a most graceful exit.  Hence, you ARE the merry go round, in that you are continuing to demonstrate that you are a prisoner of your own way of thinking.  Suggestion: set your own viewpoints aside, and seek a sincere understanding, as you reread his last post (a few times).

@hilde45 

Do you agree with sgordon1 on his assessment of my post?

@hilde45 - thanks for your reply - alls good, enjoy your journey! 
In friendship - kevin.

@kevn Thanks, you too!

rvpiano:

Honestly, I didn't quite understand your point. Your view of "portrays the music accurately”  is that it "delivers the musical message in a realistic way without distortion of original signal."

My point was that there is all audio systems add their own character -- "coloration" or "distortion," that is, "character" -- and so the word "realistic" is useless.

Think of an audio system like a painting rather than a window. 

When we are in a museum, we do not ask, "Which painter portrays Jesus (say) accurately?"
We say, "I like Dali's portrait of Jesus" or "I like Raphael's portrait of Jesus," etc.

We like the painters who somehow speak to our emotions, our sensibilities, our sense of taste, our understanding of what the subject matter means to them.

Some people who are not religious might prefer a certain religious portrait because it conveys their "take" on religion -- there's a dark hint of criticism to it, which jibes for them.

Others who are deeply pietistic might prefer portraits which amplify the transcendental greatness of the subject matter.

Audio is really no different. It's all an interpretation of the original event. The question is, do you know yourself well enough to know which interpretation fits?

If you're ambivalent about sound, you're likely ambivalent about yourself.