Khrys: I'm reasonably confident that semantic differences are often responsible for misunderstandings in these and most other exchanges. But we continue because it stimulates and informs. Be assured that my priority is the emotional and intellectual enjoyment of music. In fact, I do have many "historic" recordings which I thoroughly enjoy since one of my interests is the western orchestral tradition and its development. And I would certainly agree that the most important component in a playback system is the source material. It definately is for me. If I were to place myself on either side of the obj./subj. discussion, it would be on the objective. Essentially because of consistency. Of course, the final decisions for most of us tend to be subjective. Personal predilections are absolutely valid for each of us. But may have little real meaning to others because of differeces in experience and physiological make-up. As to the search for the "absolute sound". I,m not preoccupied with that seach and I don't read that periodical since someone elses subjective descriptions are completely meaningless to me. I have excellent hardware, but some of it is not state of the art and will probably not be replaced. I don't use micro-dots, CD demagnetizers, green magic-markers, magic blocks, expensive wire, etc..Audio nirvana for me does not lie in some particular circuit topology or early 20th. century technology. The reference standard for me remains the remembered live sound and I subjectively measure audio playback against that standard. Basically, the characteristics I want in a preferred playback system can be simply stated; i.e., it should be quiet, clean, dynamic and most importantly, natural. Objective measurements (specs) do correlate well (but far from perfectly) with those desired characteristics. I'm not optimistic about personal absolution.
