If you were serious about sound you would...

@audioman58 Sorry I'm not getting my point across to you at all. I'm saying that since audio accuracy can't be more accurate than the original recording by definition, even if the recording is done on sub standard studio equipment it is what the musician and producers and mastering studio OKed. So why is it that professional gear is so rarely used in audiophile systems. Simply get the equipment from a top 10 studio in the world (maybe not Abby Road because of all the product placement) but then you have a very solid playback system. Room acoustics, looks and such are not part of the playback system. Why is it never considered? I'm not talking about the most accurate audiophile equipment or a debate between tubes and transistors, tubes are used in microphones in great studios but that is about all. Of course there are exceptions to every idea but hopefully this group is smart enough to understand that the exception is not the rule. 

@bikeboy52 Yes you nailed it I don't think the vast majority is serious about sound they are serious about feeling good about music and enjoying it satisfying their own preferences. You seem very confident in your assertion tell me why I'm wrong. Don't forget I'm talking about having the most accurate playback system.

@p05129 Just go to TAS and see what amps the editor uses in his reference system BHK 600, he could use and have used practically every amp there is but he chose that one, they don't suck. I do have to say the BHK Preamp is noisy I've had 3 of them and I can't get rid of it because it sounds nice (not accurate) but nice and it has 5 XLR input channels. The new DAC is a work in progress but has potential to fight way above its price, the SACD Transport is great. PS Audio is interesting because they are right on the edge of being great with most everything they make.
Thanks

@donavabdear 

To answer your question: The reasons why we don't use the same equipment are many, including size, cost and esthetic considerations, but more importantly, what the studio and producer consider perfect is often at odds with the hearing preferences of the end user who may choose to tailor the sound with digital frequency adjustments or simple tone controls as well as their choice of either solid state, vacuum tube or class D amplification.

Humans have very specific tastes in everything, so it's hard for me to believe that this wouldn't have occurred to you.

I don’t believe in the deification of studio engineers, producers, or mastering technicians. Many are very good but plenty of recordings for whatever reason aren’t. Also, often live music is mixed badly so there’s that issue for your reference needs (sat through a disturbingly bad sounding otherwise major players jazz show a couple of years ago, and thought..."Did the live sound tech pass out?"). I recently bought a Schiit Loki Max for this exact reason (recordings of course, although years as a pro live sound mixer has been a guilty pleasure), and although it’s usually out of the mix, I can put the Max in the mix if I think I need to. Also, most here likely don’t have any pro studio mixing or live mixing experience, and to say you need to listen to playback on what the studio used is silly...you going to buy a huge mixing board and hook it up to dozens of effects boxes and run it through a shipping container for reverb with Pro Tools on board and then send the mix to a mastering lab? Nope, you’re not gonna do any of that. I just read the previous post so consider this one el redundo...maybe roxy54 and I are the same person...