Yikes Paulwp: You must have been privileged enough to have lived your audiophile-life out having auditioned and owned only the best of CD players and amps?! I find it a difficult concept to swallow that a poor CD player or a poor amp "can't do much damage"!!?! Difficult?...why it is utterly ubsurd! Gads man! You must be joking!? I mean no offence here, and much of my response is purely for amusement, but it really surprises me that someone would believe that. The difference in detail, musicality, sound-stage (not to mention all kinds of other nuances and $1000 catch-words thrown around on this site in the name of justifying adding just one more zero to the price tag) between a mediocre CD player, and an excellent player seem to me to be readily apparent to anyone with two healthy ears! The differences an amp can make are also quite profound, especially a poor quality amp to an outstanding amp. More curious to me though is the use of the word "accuracy" when it comes to reproducing music. Paulwp speaks of "inaccurate" speakers and components. OK, granted, the whole idea is to do justice to reproducing the sound of music in a life-like, musical, holographic presentation. But why does "accuracy" have such importance? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the usage here, but I tend to have preferences that tend towards the 'coloration' (there's another one of tham'thar' big words) or warmth imparted by many tube components. Is that "inaccurate" because it is not true to the actual performance of the music, or sound of the instrument(s) being played (I'm pretty sure I'd prefer it regardless)? I'm a photographer by profession, and nothing is more boring to me than the most accurate, precise and literal translation of reality in a photograph (using the tools to their maximum potential to fulfill those goals to that end). It is appropriate, and even admirable in some instances. But far more interesting, in my estimation, is the use of those same tools to express something more personal and intimate (using the tools as a means to a more expressive end, taking advantages of nuances and "control" rather than "accuracy"). I know, I'm straying way off the audio path here, and my example is not entirely appropriate as not many of us really want to distort the music and shape it into something it is not. Here, perhaps, is a better example: I recently heard a violin recital at Benaroya Hall here in Seattle, which is a wonderful venue for acoustic music. It was Vengerov performing the Ysaye violin sonatas. We had pretty good orchestra seats. It was a fabulous performance, which I thoroughly enjoyed, but on the whole, the sound of Vengerov's violin seemed rather thin and a bit distant...not as engaging as it could. It was not his playing, but perhaps the acoustics of the room. I went right out and purchased the EMI recording of those same Ysaye Sonatas. Listening to it on my stereo is far more engaging and even hair-raising at times, if you know what I mean. I don't know that my system is "accurate", nor would I think of using that to judge it. I do find it VERY engaging (hard to walk away from), and very natural, warm and musical (OK, quit it with those words now!). I don't give a rat's rear-quarters whether or not the timber and pitch are "accurate" reproductions of Vengerov's Strad. But if I am compelled by what stirs inside me to remain locked in that sweet spot in front of those two speakers....if the music moves me (inside and or outside) I'm a very happy audiophile. I don't know "accuracy", but I do know what I like when I hear it, and I think I'm rather discriminating in that regard. So is this a case of ignorance is bliss? It certainly is a case of me avoiding my workload and spending far too much time tapping on this keyboard! Back to your regularly scheduled program!
