Tremendous question. I am not trying to reproduce the "absolute sound" in my living room. I like rock, pop, r&b, jazz, blues and a smattering of classical. For the most part it's amplified music and alot of it is artificially created in the recording studio. My audio system reflects my musical tastes. Faithfulness to the signal input is important, but not paramount. Ultimately I've put together a system that doesn't distract me from listening to the music I like. At times the system even makes the music I like sound good. I acknowledge that this can be considered a form of distortion and/or coloration. I'm very happy with the sonic direction I've taken and for me, it far preferable to a system that sounds fantastic on a limited number of audiophile spectaculars and makes other music (the remaining 99.9%) sound bad. Any system you put together will be an amalgam of sonic compromises.
What is your reference?
What is the reference by which you judge the sound of a component or a system? I see a lot of confused posts here, and listen to a lot of equipment at all price levels that sound phony, which leads me to believe that a lot of manufacturers and consumers don't really know what music sounds like. I am starting to wonder if many buyers of expensive equipment might actually prefer an artificial, hi-fi sound as opposed to something that approaches real music. I know that we are seeking a mere reproduction of the real event, so don't give me that babble about "nothing can duplicate..." That's a cop-out by those who can't hear or have given up trying. What is the aural image you have in mind when auditioning audio equipment? And what recording best represents that image?