Oedipus,

I was hoping we'd gone beyond the strict accuracy dogma by opening up the recorded software to scrutiny.

I can criticise the recordings because I have been lucky enough to have had exposure to both mastertape and live music. It is the latter that I am trying to recreate in my living room. With the acknowledged failings of current compressed software, what I am suggesting is that some equipment does a subjectively better job of representing the live experience than the simple zero distortion chain.

FWIW, I am not advocating heavily distorted loudspeakers. The subject was amplification and source components. Your response is only to be expected. Focussing on money spent, on spangly boxes, esoteric names etc. We aren't talking about that. We are talking about some equipment whose aestetics leave a great deal to be desired even compared with the Rotels and Yamahas of this world. We can include Michael's home made Dac in a perspex box (c.£100). We can include numerous Chinese made valve amplifiers below £1,000.

The simple question is this. Are those who build a system around measured accuracy any cleverer than those who use live music as a reference? To suggest those in the latter camp are deaf is somewhat insulting, particularly given that they are generally highly experienced music listeners.

In closing, have you ever heard a commercial CD played back through a studio setup? I presume you have - I know I have. can you honestly say that the results get anywhere near experiencing the live session or even the original mastertape? No of course you can't. Once you have heard this demonstration, the idea of subjectively improving on that state of affairs becomes not just attractive, but critical to true musical appreciation IMO.