@rauliruegas I may not be following your line of reasoning correctly. If I am missing your point, I apologize. Consider the music of Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page. These two individuals, by almost unanimous consent, are two of the greatest guitarists of all time. It is my understanding that they both deliberately introduced distortion into their guitar work. It was a part of their creative expression. Distortion was/is an integral part of their art, and without it, the music cannot convey the intended message. Or consider Nelson Pass, who developed a 2nd harmonic distortion generator for those who wanted to introduce a bit of SET flavor into their solid state system. My point is that not all distortion is subjectively objectionable. My previous mention of the great violinist Isaac Stern delivering a live performance that emulated the death cry of a tortured cat, which I hope never to hear the like of again, provides an example where a perfectly undistorted absolute reference recording would not be subjectively desirable.
Recently, someone mentioned that it is generally not good for a listening room to be ruler flat. Rooms that don't have a bit of high frequency roll off can be perceived as too bright. Consider another scenario. Typically, one's ability to hear the highest frequencies is diminished as one ages. For such an individual, might it not be advantageous for such a person to have a system or room that provides an offset for that hearing loss?
I'm not saying there is no value in measuring a room's frequency response and decay times. Those measurements can most certainly be a guide as one attempts to optimize a room. But the final arbiter must be one's ears. I'm not saying there is no value in taking objective measurements of hardware. Those measurements can be invaluable in assembling a system that works well together. But the measurements cannot tell you how a particular piece will sound. Again, the ear must be the final arbiter.
Most of the folks around here are well informed listeners. They frequent live venues and have a pretty good idea what a recording of acoustic music should sound like. They also know when a system, a system component, and yes, a particular capacitor delivers that special level of engagement, which may well not measure as well as another choice that may objectively measure better.
Enjoy the music indeed. Don't worry about the distortions until your ears or your emotions tell you that you need to worry.
Recently, someone mentioned that it is generally not good for a listening room to be ruler flat. Rooms that don't have a bit of high frequency roll off can be perceived as too bright. Consider another scenario. Typically, one's ability to hear the highest frequencies is diminished as one ages. For such an individual, might it not be advantageous for such a person to have a system or room that provides an offset for that hearing loss?
I'm not saying there is no value in measuring a room's frequency response and decay times. Those measurements can most certainly be a guide as one attempts to optimize a room. But the final arbiter must be one's ears. I'm not saying there is no value in taking objective measurements of hardware. Those measurements can be invaluable in assembling a system that works well together. But the measurements cannot tell you how a particular piece will sound. Again, the ear must be the final arbiter.
Most of the folks around here are well informed listeners. They frequent live venues and have a pretty good idea what a recording of acoustic music should sound like. They also know when a system, a system component, and yes, a particular capacitor delivers that special level of engagement, which may well not measure as well as another choice that may objectively measure better.
Enjoy the music indeed. Don't worry about the distortions until your ears or your emotions tell you that you need to worry.
