Real or Surreal. Do you throw accuracy out the window for "better" sound?

I’ve listened to a lot of concerts in a way where I paid audiophile-style attention. Concerts often have a lot of flaws -- imbalances, echo, etc. Live music doesn’t always set the standard. In those cases I don’t prefer "real."

Even in concerts with very good, balanced sound, they are typically not "hyperdetailed" the way some systems are. I like that.

So, to answer your question -- I prefer "good real" over "weird hyper-detailed."

I prefer "good not-real" over "bad real" and over "hyper-detailed."

In good fiction writing courses, they teach writers, "Show, don't tell."

Good systems "show" but they don't "tell."

@mahgister 
The original recording is an acoustic perspective or take resulting from trade-off choices  conveyed by the gear system to another acoustic perspective ,where they will be translated  in our room  for specific ears/head...

@mteetank 
The subjectivity and variables in recorded music is inherent in the entire creation process from the capture to the audio engineer’s bias to the equipment used to listen to it to the ears and brain of the listener. 

I'm with these folks.

The word "real" should be abolished from everyone's lexicon. 

It does no work, sheds no light, though it does permit a lot of flatus vocis*

* [A mere name, word, or sound without a corresponding objective reality —used by the nominalists of universals. -- Merriam-Webster's]

@snilf There is no corresponding "objective reality." That’s right. Everything that "is" must be somehow taken by us. No raw given, no way to check. Even the "real, objective" cello on the stage, playing live, is heard by me -- my sitting position, my ears, my distracted mind -- and, most important -- my interpretative taking of that acoustical experience.

If, in my home, I want to experience what I did in the concert hall -- ok, then I try to figure out how to do that. (And, as @mahgister points out: there are a hundred interpretive acts which are between me and that moment: engineers, mastering, etc.) But in this enterprise, let me not fall into the trap that I’m "really" getting back to something "more real." That’s folly and, worse, obfuscation. But it makes for some great chest-beating online.

I’m not a "nominalist," either, nor was I trying to suggest that either of you might be. ("Not that there’s anything wrong with that.") My philosophical intuitions are mostly Kantian these days, after half a century contributing to the discipline. But this is not a philosophy forum.

@snilf  Didn’t think you were! I’m a Deweyan pragmatist, so, Kant plus more practice and no ding an sich. I’ll go as far as Peircean Secondness but that’s where I get off.

Your post was not problematic or unclear at all. In fact, a real pleasure to read and I'm 100% in agreement. We see and seek the same thing in audio, no doubt.

Cheers!