What's wrong with tailoring the sound?

Great question Say811, and great callsign SwampWalker.

Most high-end audio enthusiasts prefer no tone controls, which I buy into up to a point. I think that that argument works exept when you talk about the very deepest bass. From 20Hz-200Hz the room and speaker placement affect the freq response +/- 25%. I have a unit that has a sound pressure mic and meter. It has an EQ that allows me to adjust the bass with 6 sliders from 22.5Hz to 125Hz. This allows me to carefully correct deficiencies in the speaker output and its interaction with the room.

Having said all that, I prefer no tonal adjustment. My tone controls are set to flat (can't be defeated unfort.). Also, I adjusted the speaker placement without using any tonal adjustment. In the end, all I have done is boost the freq at 22.5Hz and 32Hz.

As you have noted, this adjustment would offend some, but to me that small adjustment adds the extra foundation my system needs.

Now to the second question that was raised. How do we evaluate systems, by their specs or with our ears? And do cables make any difference at all?

Don't we end up using our ears in the final analysis? Our ears are very capable discerners.

I would rather have a "musical" experience rather than a technically accurate one. I have made three changes to my system in the last two months. Each one has occurred with a two week separation, so I can pick out the changes.

1) I replaced my old copper (read oxidized copper) speaker cables with inexpensive twisted pair copper cables until I figure out what speaker cable I want. The sound is much brighter. I'm not saying I'm satisfied, but the change was big enough for my wife to say, "What's wrong with the system."

2) I replaced my Adcom with a B&K. The biggest change is that percussion like tom toms sound exquisite. I would love for someone to tell me what changed electronically.

3) I replaced my MonsterCable interconnects with homemade sliver. At first, I replaced just one cable. Wow! the soundstage opened up.

Before I made these changes my stereo never had a soundstage. The question is, if it is so much better, do I stop here? I think we all know the answer to that one. :-)

Back to your original question, to adjust or not to adjust.
What happens if your sense of hearing changes? It's possible that mine has. I feel very sensitive to upper midrange. Certain speakers just sound too grainy now.

My prime directive is to recreate the experience that the musicians had in my living room. So, I adjust my gadgets and gain knowledge that allows me to set up my stereo the "way my ears perceive it best." to quote Fbi.

Merry Christmas.

I have always thought that the "accuracy" I had heard mentioned in the audio context, refered to the accuracy of not just a musical reproduction, but of a re-enactment of the performance. I honestly thought that that is what high end audio was all about and nothing else. The better the system, the more "you are there" you get. Kind of like;
Good system= nice clear acoustic guitar playing
Better system= nice clear OO size acoustic guitar playing
Best system= nice clear OO size acoustic gutar playing
right there in your room
It's only recently, as I've become involved with this hobby, that I realize that different folks want different things out of their systems. I whole heartedly agree with the sentiments you guys have posted; it's a hobby and should be enjoyed by the individual's standards and preferences, though it looks as if these may change over time as one gains more knowledge and experience.
For now though, I could care less about strickly adherring to every frequency amplitude the engineer thought sounded best. I am however, concerned about not only losing as little detail as possible but more importantly not adding any AUDIBLE noise to the recording.
Kind of looks like I'll have to add another component to my system, some type of equalizer. Also kind of looks like it will be expensive due to the quality of circuitry required to degrade the signal as little as possible.
And to think this all started about six months and thousands of dollars ago with the innocent little purchase of a $500.00 AV receiver

My approach is work with speaker placement, then fix the room, and then listen. I found my high efficiency single driver floorstanders seemed too bright (I use a sub for the bottom). At first I used some cables to calm them down some but fianally pulled out my RTA (real time analyzer) and did a third octave analysis. The speaker started rolling off at 1.6 kHz at nearly 6dB per octave. Then at 10 kHz there was an 8-9dB peak. This explained why a single 7" driver seemed to have high frequency content but also why it was hard to listen to. Out came the third octave EQ. Flattened a sag in the midrange (about 3dB) and gave the high end a nice room curve of -3dB per octave from 2kHz up (without any peaks). Bottome line: Great improvement! Suddenly my choice of cables needed to be revisited. Once that was done, I could listen to the music. Rather than scrap my inexpensive high efficiency speakers that work so nicely with tubes for much more expensive speakers, I was able to make use of equipment that was in the closet (RTA and EQ). Not everyone has this kind of equipment, but this approach is an alternative to the piece by piece looking for synergy approach. Personally, I like both and will probably take the EQ out when I can afford better speakers.

As far as I am concerned the admirable Sean has put it magnificently into a nutshell: Personally I am more of a music lover than an audiophile, besides I hate all forms of dogmatisms. So I'll play around with the timbres of my system, according to what I'm listening to, not through tone controls, not through equalisers, the drawbacks of which Sean has so admirably explained, but by twiddling the volume controls of my various preamps, which I use to control the highs-, mids-, bass- and deep basschannels of my system.
Crazy, agreed, but to them here ears the only satisfactory way I've found to change the timbres and colourings of various recordings to my liking. I tried all the other ways, but found the aural results of the unavoidable changes in phase unbearable! It took me a lot of years to end up with this solution, but I was tired to be completely at the mercy of recording engineers and wanted to come as close as possible to the sound of voices or the various instruments in the way I remembered them to sound on live occasions. Of course there are limits inherent in this method, a lousy recording will remain a stinker, but it does give you a bit more of freedom, without the usual drawbacks. Of course it was a heavy burden on the pocketbook, less felt, perhaps, because it evolved slowly through the years. But then for a true "melomane"........

Hey Say,I couldn't agree with Tireguy anymore. For me, I enjoy reading the reviewers and enjoy passing time reading what philes say on sites like Audiogon, but the bottom line is my enjoyment of my system and my music. Regardless of what anyone says! Be well, Sal