Real or Surreal. Do you throw accuracy out the window for "better" sound?

Yes, studio recordings are frequently surreal either by intent (art) or bad engineering. What I mean by accuracy is the ability to reproduce live instruments, usually acoustic but not necessarily, in timbre, size and location.  Concerts via PA systems are not a modality you can judge a system by other than the ability to produce accurate bass and dynamics, which very few systems are capable of doing. I usually use live trio or quartet jazz recordings and string quartets. I have heard both genres many times at live concerts. Again, there are a range of recording qualities. The first thing I always listen for is the size of the piano. We do not listen to pianos with our head inside them. Unfortunately, this is frequently were they place the microphones, so you get things like the bottom keys in the left channel and the top keys in the right channel with the bass and drums in the middle. You are usually listening to pianos from the side so all the notes should be in the same place, but give you the sense of a larger instrument by not being as sharply defined like a trumpet or sax. Dave Holland Quartet recordings are a great example of how it should be done. 

"To me, surgically dissecting each track and obsessing about instrument placement isn’t enjoyment, it’s an OCD vampire sucking all the enjoyment out of music and probably life in general. I listen to music for pure enjoyment."

This person is not an audiophile. He enjoys music like the rest of us, but that is a different subject. Being an audiophile is all about building a high performance audio system. The question is what do we mean by high performance. Is it the accurate reproduction of timbre and space or just a system that sounds good to the owner. 

My Tekton Pendragons are really Musical, but not very detailed....My Borresen X-3's are very musical and very detailed  ..$2,500 vs $11,000.......I love them both...I switch them out weekly.....There is no right or wrong when it comes to enjoyment.

Recordings are terrible.

Speakers are terrible.

Rooms are terrible. 

Electronics are fantastic relative to recording and speakers. Different, but relatively fantastic. 

Everyone has different sensitivities, preferences, and goals. 

Such is life on this planet. Laws of physics, being human etc. 

So, do we want the cleanest most accurate? Do we want various, unfortunately not quantified, added distortions to mask the above imperfections?  Do we want to impress our friends with what it costs?  You decide. 

Most of my music is older. Lots analog mastered, some early horrible digitally mastered, some very good, some new that is the worst I have heard.  Source is source, we have to deal wit it. 

My room is only as well tuned as "domestic distortion" allows.  It is our living room, not some dedicated uber-ego perfect listening room. A little too bright but my Lokius deals with that very well.  Even if I had the bucks, I would not want to shut myself up in a hole to listen to music. Personal choice. Others will disagree.  But in any case, a limit. 

My speakers are very articulate; very good IMHO.  I have hauled them around and really surprised shop owners as a lot of DIY they have heard is pretty bad. It did take me about 30 years to get here. A significant step up costs more than I am willing to pay. I have heard some in the 5 to 8K range I would like, but won't pay for them.   I have heard ones for a lot more that I would pull my Elac's out of the workshop first! Again, choice.

So, clean or euphonic?   Choice.  I think the biggest mistake is thinking things like cables or feet will make that last huge difference when the differences are tiny relative to everything else. In order:  Source ( fixed, stuck with it). Room (we can do within limits) Speakers ( pay to play), Electronics, small differences, even ss to tube is small in relation. Tweaks, tiny tiny tiny.  Fine when you get the above as far as you can but a big pit of squeaky snakes awaits. 

I go first to make sure nothing bothers me, or my wife with really sensitive hearing.  Do no harm first.  That has actually been very hard.  After that, it is easy to ignore most things and just enjoy music. Your brain will adjust really quickly if there is nothing "bad" going on.  Only when I am looking to do a change to I switch hats and pick apart details that may make a tiny difference.  

Of all the DAC's I have heard, of the ones that "do no wrong" from $100 to $15K, heard in quick A/B yes there are differences. Some good, some bad and they don't track price!   But if heard in isolation, those differences are so small, I could be happy with any of them.  Still looking for that one I can afford that is clearly better.  The last audition /comparison was through Hegel on Watts of 24 bit streaming so don't give me any "not good enough" system excuse.  Example, which makes a bigger difference?  Listening to the original D-G VonKarjan Beethoven through a Holo DAC, or the later Ozawa with my JDS?   I'll take the latter any day.  If anyone wants to give me a Holo, well I'll take it. Or a Hugo. 

I am leaving out all the lies your brain tells you. Sound is real, hearing is mental.  If you believe, consciously or not does not matter. If it is better to YOU for the price, then well, it is better.  Maybe not for me, but for you. Go ahead and buy a $400 power cord to bring out those micro details.  I'll go buy another box of CD's. For us, more music matters most.  

This seems to be a continuation of a recent thread on a "French" sound.  Isn't hyper-detail another equipment design aesthetic?  It's not my cup of tea, but it certainly seems to be a design goal valued by some manufacturers and their customers.  They appear to have gotten quite successful in achieving the design goals, too.

If one accepts hyper-detail as a design aesthetic, then it can't be "wrong."  For example, I don't think much of Cubism, but it's a valid artistic aesthetic.  In the audio world, however, some hold natural reproduction as a non-relative gold standard.  I suppose that it is at least feasible to set up a blind a/b test for someone with good ears in Orchestra Hall in Chicago.  With a suitable high-end system, could they distinguish which was the real thing and which the reproduction?  With a really good system, maybe not.  However, as @mahgister points out, even if the audio system passes this acid test once you take it out of Orchestra Hall all bets are off.

My search is for equipment designers who have a certain approach or goals that I share.  Along the way I hope to discover the alternatives - most of which I will reject but not disparage.  Finding the right ones for me will be very rewarding.

Is it real or is it Memorex?

This is an interesting thread so I will jump in.

The subjectivity and variables in recorded music is inherent in the entire creation process from the capture to the audio engineer’s bias to the equipment used to listen to it to the ears and brain of the listener. Take most recording of the 50’s and into the 60’s were mono then stereo was simulated by the audio engineer. Miles Davis “Kind of Blue” is an example, What was the audio engineer’s bias, do you like the mono or the stereo version or both? Now time travel ahead to Steely Dan’s Aja album, one of my favorites for the music and the audio engineering. To say that a live recording is more “Real” that “Surreal” may somehow start out at the capture point but then the number of fingers in the pie is extremely large from the capture to a person’s listening session. In the end it is all a degree of “surreal”

So, what is real? What is surreal? I like them both….. if I like them!