I have different, less acidic, reasons for not supporting the notion of "artist intent" (normally meaning the musicians) as a goal of the playback system.
I think it's the wrong objective for assessing the success of a reproduction medium.
I think musicians are too rarely concerned with the sonic nuance of the recording, for their intent (in the sense of art) to be considered present in the final recording. (This link also refutes your argument in #707 that artist signoff on vinyl test pressings in bygone days means those recordings best document the artistic intent of the musicians.)
I think there is a different work of art, involving different artists than just the musicians, that IS present in the final recorded artwork, and that CAN be preserved and brought to the home. And that minimising the circle of confusion will maximise the chances of this happening. And that is an appropriate goal for
sound reproduction at home. Not just for me, but as a generalisation. And if people reject it, I don't criticise them as humans, that would be silly, but I can make a statement with respect to their standards for sound
reproduction: they aren't as high as the standards of some others.
I appreciate your point of view here, as well as I admire the way you have thought through the ideas.
It's my view that "The Goal" for audiophiles or sound reproduction sits in enough conceptual quicksand that any goal is ultimately a compromise, and so different approaches can be reasonable. It's possible to define a Goal fairly tightly, but it's the REASONS for the goal, which is ultimately what we care about, that make for the quicksand and no approach I'm aware of ties things up in a neat bow, all settled.
So for instance, in support of what you are saying: we shouldn't let The Perfect be the enemy of The Good. We don't need to have perfect reproduction of the goal, in order to be able to progress towards it, or stray in the opposite direction. And Toole offers a path towards your stated goal: tightening the circle of confusion. So: mixing rooms adopt more consistent standards, home playback devices adopt standards of playback that will more closely mimic what they heard in the mixing room.
Perfectly understandable if someone wants to take that approach.
On the other hand, while a reasonable guiding light, it can't solve the circle of confusion, due to the history of recorded music. So when you say, from your link:
Accuracy to the original production is achievable, not unobtainable.
Agreed...in principle, and certain situations. Where you are indeed at home reproducing the sound, closely enough, to the sound in a particular mixing theater when making the music.
But that is clearly not achievable for much of the history of recorded music. The situations, rooms, playback gear is so varied in the countless available recordings there is no way you could replicate them (currently) in your home, and often simply no way to even know what you are trying to replicate! So, no, in the bigger picture, closing the circle of confusion isn't possible. UNLESS perhaps you want to limit yourself to only more modern recordings where you know the mixing room set up, or have good reasons to think the set up would produce the sound you mirror in your home. But that surely is a truly teeny fraction of recorded music, and so it's also reasonable for someone to say they are not going to pursue that as their goal, and find some other goal more compelling.
So, again, not dismissing the goal as you describe it or saying it's unreasonable for you or anyone to go that route. Only pointing out it doesn't truly solve some of the fundamental elements in terms of justifying THE Goal for sound reproduction, and so various approaches may be reasonable.
