I'd rather hear what the artist(s) intended.

Please don't even start with that naive and over-debated point of view.
You
going to buy a different stereo for each album? Or carry a variety of
studio monitors? Renovate your house to have a variety of sound rooms?

That's pretty much what *you* are suggesting, isn't it? You want to
lay the *same* coloured wash over *all* your music. It might suit
some, but it won't suit all of them. Seems like a no-brainer to keep
the reproduction system as neutral as possible, if high fidelity is
your aim.

Actually, what I consider a no-brainer is the way many people look at sound
reproduction, meaning that they're not using their brains. I'm not going to
waste my time going into detail about psychoacoutics, but considering that
I'll always be using the same set of ears, I have no difficulty with the
idea of the same "coloured wash" on all my music. Taking terms like
accuracy and neutrality and applying them in a literal fashion to sound
reproduction design requires the belief that everyone's auditory system
behaves exactly the same. Typically proponents of that type of design
require scientific data to be convinced of anything, yet there's no evidence
to suggest that people hear the same sounds beyond the very basic. If one
were to assume that people do hear highly complex sounds differently, just
like every different mic design renders a different response, there is only
one type of device that is capable of manipulating highly complex and subtle
psychoacoustic properties effectively and beneficially, and that is the
vacuum tube.

I do not imply that the same tube amp equiped with the same tubes should be
used by everyone, instead that only tube amps offer the type of
customization for sound reproduction to achieve fidelity to BOTH the
recorded material AND the listener. A recording engineer's responsibility
ends at the audio media. It is the audiophile's job to present the recorded
material in such a way that the sounds perceived are most desireable to
themselves. The assumption of neutrality being ideal in this matter is
naive. It's an entertainment system, not a laboratory.

Furthermore, if you're a proponent of "absolute accuracy", what the hell
are
you here for? There is no tube circuit that doesn't put some flavor on
the
sound. Go join your misguided friends on the class A solid-state forums.

Hey dip****, take a look at the header. 'Here' for me is
rec.audio.tech, not RAT. ON rec.audio.tech, maximum accuracy is pretty
much the name of the game. BTW, what happened to the generally
pleasant atmosphere of RAT? WTF are *you* doing here? :-)

Only people who might be called dip****s are the original poster for
cross-posting between apparently incompatible groups, and yourself for
having the arrogance to bring profanity to a meaningful although heated
debate. And I'm here because usenet is public domain. Note that I wasn't
posting to rec.audio.pleasant.

Tube saturation coloration? I love it when people don't have a clue
what
they are talking about... :-(

Guess that makes you a narcisist. Ask any mastering engineer how tube
saturation affects sound.

Well now, that's the point, isn't it? It *affects* the sound. A good
reproduction system does *not* affect the sound.

Perhaps, but a SUPERB sound reproduction system will affect the sound in a
way to help overcome the variances in the auditory system of the unique
listener, such that the end result is perhaps LESS affected by the human
nature of sound reproduction, but definitely more appreciable by the
listener.