This was your response to justify why people may not enjoy listening to the actual recording in the mastering suite. I said that was weird and you say it’s normal. The thing is that unless the visitor had been to the actual recording session then they would not be able to comment as they would have no reference point and in any event relying on audio memory as the mastering would happen later
But nevertheless in your view people may not like the sound that they are hearing in the mastering suite, but you advocate strongly that these same people should spend money on HiFi equipment that is transparent and accurate to the original recording.
Why on earth should people buy neutral and transparent systems if they didn’t even like the sound in the mastering suite? If it’s so very subjective as you say why be so forceful in your comments about neutrality and transparency?
I don't force "transparency" or accuracy on people. I think that they should buy what they like.
I try to understand their preference in terms of "presentation" and make suggestions. And I attempt to correlate the description of what they are hearing an liking with the performance of the equipment in question.
You could say that I am forceful on the classification or labelling of something as (more or less) "transparent" or accurate, which as I said depends on the topology and implementation and is assessed (primarily) by its measured performance.
Listening at the mastering session is listening to the actual recorded performance. People may not enjoy listening to the actual recorded performance but that would be a bit weird wouldn’t it?
It is a bit weird, I agree, but people like what they like and what better proof of that pluralism that the wide array of choices evidenced by us Wammers and audiophiles all around the world?
With our equipment choices we are, in a way, remastering or remixing our recordings. The goal for many is not the accurate reproduction of the recording/signal but a sonic "presentation" which favours aspects we find the most relevant. I have to admit that it took me some time to realise that.
Perhaps trained listeners (e.g. mixing and mastering engineers) would choose the same type of equipment (Toole's research seems to point in that direction) but us audiophiles have tastes as varied as we have individuals. This is why I am critical of purely subjective reviews; they merely describe a tasting session from the perspective of one, hardly something that others can relate to.