If Warmth Is a Distortion, Why Do So Many Audiophiles Still Defend It?

 We cannot go further than acoustics science.

There is nothing in the recording save the trade-off set of choices of the recording engineer...

Then you want your system/room be able to translate (not reproduce which is impossible a mirage) acoustically through your system/room/ears these set of  trade-off choices of the recording engineer by the set of trade-off choices implicated by your system/room/ears...

I call "minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold" the state of balance between all acoustics factors implied you can reach by a relatively low cost system well optimized...(almost all systems are relatively low cost in non dedicated room mostly living room) 

is it not simple?

There is no reproduction only translation...

Translation between the acoustical set of trade-off by the recording engineers from the original event ( Acoustic language A) to the set of trade-off choices implicated by your system/room/ears ( Acoustic language B )

The language A and B  are constituted by all the words  or acoustics factors and parameters in some specific  balance ratio between each others, different for each person and situation.

I simplify but it is this...

For sure we can go chasing with big money  the "maximal acoustical satisfaction threshold" and we can go from an ok good translation to something which will always be a translation but more resembling a dreamed almost perfect elusive reproduction...But it will not be a question  about price or high-end design, but also about deep acoustics knowledge, which escape most audiophiles anyway...

@carlos269 

Many people are chasing what sounds good to them as opposed to what was recorded or what the real things sounds like. 

I was after that later. I don’t think the approach of comparing one recording is enough. But that exposure to lots of acoustic music to train your ear as to what the real thing sounds like, then listening to lots of recordings to evaluate your system is how to get to a system that sounds like the real thing. The empirical ruler is the real acoustical music and while there will be variation around different people mastering recordings you want to use the lots of recordings to converge on a system that produces music that sounds real.

@ghdprentice The fly in the ointment is that the way the music was recorded and/or mastered might not be to represent the sound of unamplified acoustic instruments in a live setting. I will not reiterate what I have already written here and other forums numerous times, but suffice to say the sound of acoustic instruments in live events may not be a good datum for judging commercially produced and released recordings.

the sound of acoustic instruments in live events may not be a good datum for judging commercially produced and released recordings.

Happily i mostly and almost exclusively listen to real acoustics instruments...

I dont give a damn about listening a recording of  artificial studio mixed sound of any commercial musical genre...

Then i only want to know how a piano sound or an acoustic guitar or a lute or a ud  or an organ or a choir etc ...

I guess i am into music not gear electronics...

«The ointment is on the fly wings real music»-- Groucho Marx 

@mahgister how a piano sounds on a recording depends on how it was recorded and mastered. It’s as simple as that. Just let this sink in…….not all pianos sound the same even when listening to them live in person. Again, aural memory is not a good datum. Your philosophy is based on all pianos sounding the same when no two pianos sound exactly alike. We are after precision after all. You yourself speak of the influence of room acoustics on the sound so you disarm your own argument and theory with your own words.