Thanks for your post...
You post make perfect sense to me...
But all is not so simple than we think...
I had the same goal than you...
But in designing my room acoustic, with my own devices homemade passive treatment and my own designed mechanical room tuner, i encountered the problem of TUNING the speakers/room relation with my ears and for them...
Then this mythical and idealized " transparency" was a goal yes, but a relatively attainable one ...It cannot be an absolute succeess in absolute term...
Some think that their audio system patiently assembled give that to them free of further work , but the room acoustic also play a part, a very important one...
Then i am in absolute approval of each of the words i extracted from your post...
However transparency in playback system cannot be absolute experience, it is always relative.... And any gear "colored" the sound always, and anyway we always listen the recording room of the live event TRANSLATED, never perfectly reproduced, in our own specific room and with our own specific system, for our own specific ears ONLY...
Then transparency is the goal you are right...But when this is said....
And when this is explained clearly like you just did, this concept and what is musicality dont transform your own taste, and experience, and system and room is the EXEMPLARY ONE...
Perhaps there exist perfectly transparent system in perfectly controlled room, but it is exceptions around the world ....
This is the reason audiophiles speak about the prefered "color" of their system...Some call their taste 2clarity" some others called it "warm"... No ears has the same design and history or skills...
Teh even if you are right about their entertained confusion between the original living sound of music and their experience with their gear in their room ...in spite of that they are right also, not only because they are conditioned to do so by the engineering marketing of the gear, but because no gear is perfect , and no room is perfect most of the times... Almost no ears are percfect too..
Then you are right and i think the same like you just wrote, but others who claim differently are right in their own perspective...
Audio life is not a one way road for one person....No one own the meter of musicality or transparency...Not even Karajan or Gould...The truth is we dont even know what sound is or what music is...
For sure "sound" must serve music, by sound i mean the gear and the acoustic, but the "sound/noise" cannot dispear from any playback system and from the room acoustic specificities magically and give us only absolute transparency just because we say so... We must work the gear and the acoustic with our imperfect ears....Even Karajan would do for his playback personal system for a result at the end debatable by an other maestro for his own reason...
Am i wrong ? feel free to correct me....
This gets into the different meanings of "musical." Ultimately, it is related to whether one thinks of the audio system as the music, or whether the audio system should be an accurate conduit of the real music in the recording. My goal is the latter, so I think it is absurd to talk about the "musicality" of the system. Most people here design their system to color the music the way they like, which they call "musical." In effect, this is making the (real) music more "musical" for the audio system, kind of absurd to me. I want the system to do as little as possible, and just transparently transmit the music on the recording. I strive for no audio "musicality," just transparency. Let the real music define what "musical" means.