Take a really dry recording of a piano and play it back on a "vintage tube"
based system, say Scott or Marantz stuff driving, oh maybe a pair of
Vandersteen 2C speakers. What you'll hear is a far more lush and
reverberant sounding piano than what was put down on the tape by the
engineer. Will it be pleasant sounding? Absolutely. Will it be accurate?
Absolutely not.

You're certainly entitled to prefer the euphonic system, but stating such a
preference would by definition, be contrary to the definition of accurate
music reproduction, which is one of the cornerstones of "high-end" audio by
all definitions.

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
...
John La Grou of Millennia Media, Inc. wrote
(p.s., I also found it amusing that an engineer looking for a
"natural" sound selected a "warm" micamp. Not that the end result
wasn't musically rich and beautiful, but "euphonic" and "accurate" are
usually mutually exclusive audio ideas.)

I have heard essentially that statement so many times from so many
sources.
What is the conflict with euphonic (sounding good) and accurate, anyway?
What is our definition of "accurate" that makes it conflict with
"enjoyable"??

Wylie Williams