People don't like scratches, the don't like pops and clicks, they don't like too much noise.
Beyond that, those paying customers will pick a less than accurate but pleasant reproduction 9 out of 10 times.
It is in fact those audio professionals who have shown that people like distortion, that they like noise, that a non-flat frequency response is preferable, etc. etc. whose research I am using, not to mention my own. I could take a studio recording, mix in a realistic, but fake crowd subtle in the background (synced to the music) and most will prefer it to the original even though there is a loss of dynamic range and low level detail. Why? They perceive it as more real.
In fact, just the opposite is often done. Various plug-ins to simulate tape artifacts like compression. Plug-ins to add distortion. Even plugs ins to add noise. All of these are used, and used regularly in recordings, not to mention fake reverb, etc.etc. You confuse audio with music. Audio is the science, but this is not about science this is about music, and that is an art. We just use aspects of science in the creation and reproduction. We even use aspects of that science that take the result away from perfect because science tells us that people will prefer the result.
Forgive the belated response, but this old argument for the supposed sterility of accurately rendered audio, man. Once and for all, it is the prerogative of the listener to apply whatever effects they please to suit their own listening preferences. It is the responsibility of the DAC to convert the digital facsimile of the original recording,
however it was reshaped during the mastering process, into the most accurate analog reproduction possible.
Some folks prefer how music sounds when it is distorted by tubes or vinyl. That doesn’t mean we should bake the distortion into the master. Since everyone’s subjective preferences are different, the goal should be to start with a clean palate, and to add condiments to taste—thus is the origin of the phrase “high fidelity” and the gold standard of the industry since its inception.
I’m not sure what you were up to in this thread, but once again it suggests the defensive, contrarian stance of someone who has dropped a wad of cash on a product, and is determined to use whatever tactics possible to gaslight the hard evidence borne out of rigorous and objective analysis. If you like how the thing sounds, no one can argue with that—wouldn’t it be easier and more intellectually honest just to own that, instead of attempting to rewrite the rules arbitrarily?
