You must know that I am familiar with your approach. It is the more popular one: the aspiration that your system attain a 'sound' you personally prefer. There is consensus among you all that it is subjective, and it only matters if 'you' like it. The mfgrs of inferior equipment love that you all think that way. Even the preowned market flourishes because of it. You all agree to that too.
But by contrasting that with a 'true to the original' approach, is not necessarily a hostile gesture. My complaint with radical Islam, is their inability to entertain or consider more than one thought or idea.
There is a down side to both approaches: the 'connoisers of coloration' approach tends to result in all material played back sounding the same. I believe that is the goal, whether realized or not.
Whereas, the transparency, or true to the original, approch necessitates serious listening be done with 'remote in hand' to adjust playback levels of individual tracks on the same recording to 'live' because you can hear how they vary so much.
In fact often times different tracks on the same recording list different personal, and/or differnt recording dates. (I do not refer here to compilations.)
There is a threshold reached along this path: when even a semblance of transparency is achieved the terrible, intolerable, sonic character of too many of even your favorite recordings are discerned. It can be a disappointment, and discouraging.
But at the same time, the superior sonic characteristics of well produced (sparingly mixed --the first albums rejected from my collection were those with excesses of 'echo' generated from the expander knob on the mixing console) properly engineerd source material can be enjoyed since you can now hear it as well. Also qualities having passed through the colored to taste systems will never be heard.
I know. Its an effective argument, and apparetntly a threat to some. But it conveted me. I have gone through most of what gets discussed here, and frankly, most of it is useless, nay, harmful, to the possiblity of ever attaining 'true to the original' in the playback experience.
No offence, and nothing personal. It is just my opinion, but I am sticking to it :-)
But by contrasting that with a 'true to the original' approach, is not necessarily a hostile gesture. My complaint with radical Islam, is their inability to entertain or consider more than one thought or idea.
There is a down side to both approaches: the 'connoisers of coloration' approach tends to result in all material played back sounding the same. I believe that is the goal, whether realized or not.
Whereas, the transparency, or true to the original, approch necessitates serious listening be done with 'remote in hand' to adjust playback levels of individual tracks on the same recording to 'live' because you can hear how they vary so much.
In fact often times different tracks on the same recording list different personal, and/or differnt recording dates. (I do not refer here to compilations.)
There is a threshold reached along this path: when even a semblance of transparency is achieved the terrible, intolerable, sonic character of too many of even your favorite recordings are discerned. It can be a disappointment, and discouraging.
But at the same time, the superior sonic characteristics of well produced (sparingly mixed --the first albums rejected from my collection were those with excesses of 'echo' generated from the expander knob on the mixing console) properly engineerd source material can be enjoyed since you can now hear it as well. Also qualities having passed through the colored to taste systems will never be heard.
I know. Its an effective argument, and apparetntly a threat to some. But it conveted me. I have gone through most of what gets discussed here, and frankly, most of it is useless, nay, harmful, to the possiblity of ever attaining 'true to the original' in the playback experience.
No offence, and nothing personal. It is just my opinion, but I am sticking to it :-)

