What's wrong with tailoring the sound?

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

Dear SAY811,

Thanks for the great post! I started out in the mid 70's with top Marantz seperates with tone controls. I enjoyed the adjustment qualities, yet played much of my music "flat". In the early 90's the Audiophile gear bug, bit. I bought very expensive YBA gear without tone controls. Although this was a fine system with great sound there were times I did not get full enjoyment of the music due to lack of adjustments.

Last year I bought Mcintosh gear with tone controls and a loudness contour, all of which can be defeated and removed from the signal path if desired. I must admit I love the controls and find them most useful and pleasing. My sound has never been better on some of my older records. I may now be banned from the audiophile scene but I don't care, my music is sounding fabulous!