[Sonnova]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:15:32 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 19, 2:04 pm, Sonnova wrote:

My point is that if euphonic distortion makes a recording sound more real,
then I'm all for it!

Obviously the CD is
more accurate - in every way- than is the LP, but the LP sounds more
alive,
more palpably THERE than the CD.Not that this is always the case, but it
is
the case often enough to raise in my mind the question of the importance
of
"accuracy" in the recording an playback of music. If we assume that the CD
is
more accurate, but the LP -with all of it's flaws- SOUNDS better, then
which
approach is better?

and:

I'm not. The whole point of my participation in this discussion is that if
we
can't make an audio system convey the sense of realism associated with live
music by making each link in the chain as perfectly squeeky-clean as is
technologically possible, then perhaps that kind of accuracy is not all that
important to the reproduction of music.

Amen to that! The point of listening to music at home through an
audio system is to enjoy what you are listening to, isn't it? I don't
care what makes recording/media/system/room A sound more like actual
acoustic music than does recording/media/system/room B. It could be
any reason at all. Simply give me what sounds more real and I'm
happy. I WISH that it was always CD that wins this race (as it
usually does), as CD is so much easier and readily available. But
sometimes it's not, to my ears (the only ears that matter).

Exactly. It would be nice to figure out just what constitutes a system or a
recoding medium sounding like actual acoustical music, but people are so
afraid to think outside the box, that I doubt if we'll ever figure it out. I
didn't expect that when I started posting (although I was warned about Arny
Krueger).