The Absolute Sound vs Pleasing Sound

That's too binary. Partly satisfied and partly not, that's closer to reality.
Microphones are primitive things compared to ear. They cannot hear everything there is to hear. So what do we do ? Do we try to manipulate the recording in an effort to compensate for what microphones missed or leave it alone ?

Acoustic is but one form of music. It’s not a given pinnacle and there is much variation from instrument to instrument such that calling it a general "reference" is questionable.

Maybe you don’t think as deeply as you feel you do?

Astonishing!

I know now that you dont have a clue...Or do you only want to never admit ignorance?

The word acoustic may be used to describe the sound of non amplified instrument , like in acoustic guitar....In some post of frogman where he give the example of non amplified instrumental timbre in a living event illustrating his own musician experience of timbre.... This is one thing....

But in all my posts i was spoken about the concept of acoustic, like in acoustic physic, room acoustic, or acoustic science in general which encompass physics and for example adress very deep problem not only about TIMBRE concept in music but about also  speech recognition etc....

Then your observation about the adjective "acoustic" associated to a non amplified instrument is one thing that hide to you or you hide it to yourself i dont know, the deep concept behind timbre perception and experience...Frogman was using it without your confusion tough....

All my posts spoke about that....They spoke about the impossibility to REPRODUCE the original timbre experience but only to RECREATE it partially, nevermind the source digital or analog, in specific rooms always, always differently but in a possible acceptable way; we will call this possible truthfull recreation, naturalness of the timbre instrument experience or perception, nerver mind if it is an acoustic guitar or an electrical one ...the 2 type haver also a timbre"envelope" relative to the structure of the instrument and dynamically linked to the room for his creation and also for his recreation...Amplified or not....

In acoustic concept ANY insruments amplified or not, own a timbre "envelope" that is recreated differently in different acoustical settings.... All my post to you for the last 4 weeks now were about that experience and concept of acoustic, not the adjective associated with a nbon amplified instrument like in the exemple of frogman...

Then saying that in your words "acoustic is one form of music" clearly refer to non amplified instrument for sure, but it is not the non amplified instrument that are at the pinnacle of the musical and acoustical experience, IT IS THE TIMBRE CONCEPT and PERCEPTION and EXPERIENCE in ACOUSTIC SCIENCE in a specific room, never mind if it is a violin or a theramin amplified instrument...

The variation between instruments amplified or not, did not change the necessary acoustical settings and necessary controls in a room for the recreation of the timbre experience by the human ears...READ THAT 2 TIMES... It is the main point....

Ouffff

"acoustic is one form of music" is a very bad sentence conceptually.... Amplified sounds instruments or not amplified sounds instruments play the same music not each one his own form of music...The musical perception of timbre exist in the 2 cases... In the 2 cases a lived musical event, with unamplified or amplified instruments could never be reproduced without trade off and some lost or transformation by the electronical process of mixing and recording and also all the electrical noise in the reproduction system.... I used my room controls to recreate the best i could some natural timbre perception for amplified or non amplified instrument, the 2 own their own natural "envelope" pertaining also to the room where the microphone recorded them in the first place...I want my room to help me to recreate this the best i could....nevermind if i own a dac or a turntable ....

😁

such that calling it a general "reference" is questionable.

What is the general reference is the timbre " envelope" dynamical texture of ANY instrument.... For sure all the musician experience is usually with acoustic instrument but this dont change the mathematical definition of timbre in physics and in musical or audio room acoustic....This is the timbre perception which me and frogman called the benchmark of audio and music experience...



I will mute myself if you dont add other incoherent observations....

With some people i dont feel to be a deep thinker at all but frankly with you i feel i am very deep....Sorry....

I apologize to all for my long post... in reality my answer is one line...

Reading electronical measuring dials cannot replace the human ears perception of timbre....

My post is useless for anyone who did not want to  understand this simple fact....




«The circle of measuring apparatus begins and ends with human perception»-Anonymus Smith

«If no one is there to read a dial what is its meaning?»-Groucho Marx meditating Zen

If I may add to this semantic debate. Acoustic means it is related to sound/hearing. Nothing more elaborate or precise than that.

Having said that, most of us take "acoustic" guitar as the piece of wood (or whatever that material is) with strings over it and a few more necessary parts and without any electricity involved. Of course, some concerts have even that "acoustic" guitar associated with a microphone.

If you check virtually any concert involving guitars, you will see multiple instruments swapped throughout the performance. They were picked for some reason and even two "acoustic" guitars will not sound quite the same. Now, it is on you to figure out which one is the more real one.

"Reading electronical measuring dials cannot replace the human ears perception of timbre...."

If true today, give it a few more years.

It is amazing how good some of the programs have become.