"How can we ever truly know if we are hearing exactly what is on the recording?"
Perhaps unintentionally, I actually think this opening question on this thread is fiendishly complicated. (Or perhaps it simply asks the wrong question.)
It's complicated because it implicitly embodies the question of what is one's objective of high-end audio.
A group here developed in 2016 four alternative, but not mutually exclusive, objectives of high-end audio:
1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,
2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,
3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and
4) create a sound that seems live.
So, in the opening question, is the "recording" being referred to whatever sound is coming out of the grooves of the record as you spin the vinyl, or is the "recording" the sound of the performance which the recording engineer attempted to capture? Before one may even begin to address the question, one must understand exactly what is the question.
If the former, one is focusing on Objective 2); if the latter, one is focusing on Objective 1).
Fiendishly? Complicated? Chuckle. Dear Ron, it's only complicated here because it's not expressed in your terminology. I noted the topic is
associated to your/the list. But it was not taken from that list.
But, but mom I meant to be clear - I really did. (pavers and hell story goes here.) So I'm happy to try being clearer.
Re: this question
"How can we ever truly know if we are hearing exactly what is on the recording?"
We also see it associated to a list (Ron's ?) of 4 Types of Audiophiles, one being those who seek reproduction true to what is on the recording, or some such.
"The recording" is not something in an engineer's mind. The recording is a record or some other media. This was made pretty explicit in the OP:
Music is performance art. It exists in time and is transient. A recording must be performed to hear music. It moves from the potential (media) to the actual through time - when the recording is performed, when the record is played.
No mention or suggestion anywhere is made about replicating the actual event. So in your terms the question/topic relates to objective #2. It can only be a "wrong queston" if it doesn't lead to a pre-conceived answer. :-o
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. Honest! Where you and I and the list makers may get into a "real quarrel" is over the notion that Objective #2 makes any sense.
Bonzo - I understand what you're saying about "transparency to recordings" and systems that reveal the greatest difference. I think you like to put stuff in terms of systems - which is fine - but I don't think systems pertain here. In other words "If you listen to this record through this particular system (X) you will truly hear exactly what's on it." is (in my mind at least), not a possible answer. (Though I would like to listen via X.)
Each performance of the recording (each playing of the record) is unique. Each person's hearing a given performance of the recording is unique. Heck, even the record itself is unique from one day to the next, but I don't factor that too much. For those same reasons I don't think Objective #1 makes any sense either - at least in terms of possibly achieving it.
I also understand what you're saying that if it's all just preference, let's close the forum. I think we both agree that some equipment is better than others, that some recordings are better than others. I think we agree not to fall back on the notion that we all hear differently - that each of us is a little solipsist who only knows our own experience. There is lots to agree and disagree over even if we can't agree whether there are definitive answers or true truths. So let's not close the forum.