The Absolute Sound vs Pleasing Sound

I am afraid that with no live performances of any kind due to current situation we become more painters than photographers. At least we have the memories of live and people voices talking to us. Of course we induce our colour and shading in the pallet but can follow some rules that would make something having sense. Continue hunting the absolute for having the best enjoyment and be able to paint.

G

**** Indeed I do but that is about .01% of the type of music I listen to, so why use that as a standard? ****

No one is saying that you have to use anyone else’s standard. Everyone is free to enjoy his favorite music in their own way. However, I can tell you that well recorded unamplified acoustic music contains more information of the kind that allows one to more fully appreciate and understand what is possible in music reproduction and from one’s sound system. There is far more variety and detail in the areas of timbre and dynamic nuance in a well recorded orchestral performance or acoustic Jazz quintet, for example, than the vast variety of amplified/processed music. Don’t get me wrong, I still like and listen to a fair amount of amplified/electronic music, but I find that with amplified music “the standard” is too much of a moving target.

I don’t buy the notion that a system that can do justice to a good orchestral recording cannot do the same for R&R. Those who think that it cannot have never heard the power and dynamics of a good orchestra going full tilt in the last section of “Rite Of Spring”, for instance; or Elvin Jones’ drumming in Coltrane’s last quartet. Additionally, I like being able to hear what the producer and engineer did to the music post mic feed; warts and all. I don’t want to make every recording sound the way I THINK music SHOULD sound based on my tastes. Call me weird, but I find the total experience to be more interesting this way; part of understanding the recording art.

Different strokes for different folks.

The end result of Every recording ever produced was based on someone’s subjective view on how it "should" sound. Therefore, there are no recordings that will ever sound like the real thing. So why fight it? Go after the sound that "sounds" good to your ears. Otherwise, you are chasing unicorns.
You may think you have achieved the "pinnacle" in sound reproduction with your system within your own environment. However, I may hear it and think otherwise, vice versa....ultimately, it must please your ears and no one else's. 

Like I said, different strokes for different folks. If you have spent any significant amount of time listening to the recordings of Kenneth Wilkinson, for instance, it is obvious that the man had a very good sense of what “live” sounds like. Problem is many can’t or have no desire to experience a significant amount of time attending live performances; perhaps because of genre preferences. What we are talking about is voicing a system that, ON BALANCE, sounds closer to live unamplified music. No chasing of unicorns here at all; and no “fighting” of anything. Quite the opposite.

**** You may think you have achieved the "pinnacle" in sound reproduction with your system within your own environment. However, I may hear it and think otherwise, vice versa....****

I can pretty much assure you that if you are someone who has extensive experience attending live acoustic music performances and you were to hear my system, that you would think otherwise.  

+1 OP