Guy tried to reason with Friend that 'live' was the standard; all hi-fi system's one purpose is to re-create the 'live' experience as closely as possible.
I think it all depends on the music. But I'm definitely more the "music lover" than audiophile type. (With thanks to JH for that brilliant earlier clarification about what separates the two.)
In my world, if it's a recording of a live performance, then as close to "live" as possible should be the goal.
But a studio album is a fixed work of art. Like a painting. For those recordings, whatever was closest to the artist's intent should be the goal. Especially when you consider some very valid musical works can't be effectively done live - or in the case of Zappa's Black Page - can't reliably be done at all.
Agreed. But I think the guy's point was that how can you complain about sibilance and tone when the genuine, unadulterated item is right there. It's like practically admitting that audiophiles don't want the "purest, cleanest tone imaginable", but the one most shaped and colored to their own pleasing.
I'll be the first to admit that I color my music according to how I feel that day; sometimes I want flat and clean, other times I want full bass, flat treble to about ~8-12 KHz then let it drop (shelving FTW), then a slight bump around 3,000 Hz so I can hear the guitar strings 'twang' just a touch harder. My hearing loss is going backwards in my old age; I can't stand a lot of treble (can still hear a CRT 'whine' when it fires up), and I like a full bass (but not 'boomy' or overwhelming; I'm not a fan of *ahem* 'urban' music).