if the equipment is enhancing anything it's doing so wrongly, perhaps you meant enjoyment.
Of course I referred to enjoyment, although enhancement = exaggerate, elevate or appear greater (originally) and also =intensify, increase etc., , so I really didn't need to qualify my usage.
I'm also not persuaded by the term holographic which if anything relates to the visual sense rather than anything aural,
.
Don't know about you, but with good kit, some music takes on a visual interpretation, albeit within one's head.. Holographic is the adjective for holograms (sth forming a 3 dimensional image). I neither invented nor was responsible for assigning this word to the 3D aspects of stereo imagery but for me it is extremely apposite.
To veer away from semantics, I had just been listening to Johnnie Walker's 'Sounds of the 70s' (R2) when I read your reference to him. Not sure when R.C. operated, but unless it was before 1964/5, the s.q. was too poor to take seriously. By 1969/70/71, stereo FM was quite superb; sufficiently good to be transcribed to tape.
I have to say that my first, say, decade in owning decent hifi (1964/5 to '74/5) was, even then, bought at little expense and represented good v.f.m. I feel that it's only in the last three decades that subjective value of higher end kit has been over-hyped. I remember 401s and Thorens, SMEs, Shure V15s et al which I had at college were absolute snips, albeit at wholesale !
Hifi magazines have a lot to answer for in their bastardisation of the English language.
Their input has been but a tiny part of a general decline in English language speaking, syntax and grammar etc. Anyway, I gave up buying them when CD coverage outstripped analogue.