Audio Diversity - What is it?


I've noticed that there are always alot of threads put up about "this vs that", tubes vs transistors, analog vs digital, cone vs electrostat, high price vs high value, cables make no difference, etc, etc. It seems that there is a wide variety of opinions as to what actually sounds good or better than the rest. Sometimes this elicits very strong opinions.

My question is why is it, that there is so much difference of opinion on this subject? Doesn't everyone hear the same music? Is it something to do with some other factor like, whether they never really heard many other things, or this was all their dealer had so they think it's best, is it listening skills, or what? Or is it ego, pride of ownership, and protecting resale value of their equipment, that is coming into question here? If that is the case, then are people lying about it to support their self-esteem or bank account, by exaggerating the quality of their systems to others? Do people who can only afford low-fi state that there is no difference in gear, only to make themselves feel better that they have just as good gear as the guy who paid $50k? Or are we all just imagining differences? Or perhaps, some of us don't want to get "closer to the music", but would rather have certain "airbrushed" qualities to it that they like, but take it further away from truth? Personal preferences? I don't know.

It seems to me that if 2 people listen to the same system in the same room at the same time, there should be some consensus about whether it is better or worse than some other system they compare it to. But yet, we seem to not be able to agree on this. There is always this and that getting in the way. But I say it's either closer to the music or further away. It should be easily determined. When 2 people look at a red car, they both know it's red. Nobody has to measure the reflected wavelengths to know that. One may like red better than the other, but there is no doubt that the car is red. Can't do that with audio systems. When 2 people listen, one says better, another says worse. Why?

What I would like to know is, what you think is the reason for such large differences in opinion about what sounds right and what doesn't. I don't want to start an issue about one particular type of equipment vs another, but I want to focus on why we don't seem to hear things the same.

I think this is at the root of alot of our discussions here on this forum, and I'd like to hear some opinions on it, which will likely be just as diverse.
twl
Sonic priorities are important as well. For some, a well placed image is critical - and they'll gladly give up low frquency extension for it. Other are unwilling to give up the lows, but may be willing to compromise on image.

For some, dynamics are key (horn lovers, for instance). They make their own trade-offs.

Just like your car analogy, I believe that various listeners will hear and report similar sonic findings (they all see it's RED) but they may differ on which is BETTER (you want a sports car, I want luxury, etc.)
Post removed 
I disagree with the premise that two people hear the SAME thing. With anything. Put a musician playing live in a room and then ask people to listen to a recording of that session to name the system that accurately reproduces what they've heard live and no two people will agree IMO.

That's why I believe there are so many variants of amps, preamps, TT's, CDP's, speakers, cables, etc. Those who voice them will not necessarily hear what your ears hear. But I do agree that we can tell differences between components - but not to an equal degree.

Of course, the difference between components can be obvious or subtle to some, but as to whether which one is actually more "accurate" or "musical" is in the ear of the beholder. We all have different physiology, tastes, emotions, hang-ups, etc., which is probably why we can't agree. What's the best color for a car?
It's a fascinating subject. For starters let me give my opinion on reproduction: music reproduction is a representation of an original -- NEVER the original. In the same way that a portrait is NOT the original, likewise, blind (i.e. non video) music at home is an interpretation of the original material; in this case the LP or disc -- NOT the live event.

Trying to give a structured answer to Tom's question, I'd say that my present take on the subject is that the "differences" relate to FOUR factors... in no order:

* The kind of music we favour.
Classical is acoustic, rock is electric often with processing thrown in. So, harmonics captured by the classical recording *should* reappear in the reproduction -- or we don't like the result. Classical has a lower bass content of ~40% to rock's +50%. So, the system priorities in either case would be different, in a real world rig (I readily concede that a well balanced 100k 2channel system can probably do both well -- but that's exotic for mere mortals).

* The sonic preference or goal pursued: Linkwitz (of xover & Audio Artistry fame) once remarked that he wanted the reproduced sound to be as close as possible *to the original* i.e., the recorded signal. That's one view. Another is to make a system emminently enjoyable (usually giving a few db boost to the 100-5000Hz region). Again, the appraisal of a system, by people favouring one or the other approaches, will be different.

* What are the sonic details we can live without vs. those we cannot accept compromise for. Viridian was very clear on this.
I, for one, love to get transient attack, as if experiencing a 20db headroom (i.e. 1-100 difference) is the minimum threshold to preserving my psychological well-being. Of course I also need pitch otherwise I get a stomach ache. So, of course, when s/one asks about, say, Spectral or Symphonic Line, I will find both products exquisite. Of course they have the ultimate extension in the highs & the lower low's. Do they have the pronounced & extended midrange of a good tube? No, in both cases, and by comparison the midrange is a bit "recessed".

*FINAL: most of us have scant knowledge of electroacoustics & the maths related to speaker performance. Unfortunately, no one seems ready to give us a few intelligible hints -- appart from this & other communities exchanging info.
So, we readily concede that speaker X performs better than speaker Y with amp X (amp X,Y vs. speakers, etc) when all that's happening is that the loads are iffy, the speaker's crossover components are of the 0,5c variety (and we buy expensive cables to correct the uncorrectable), etc.
Worse, very often even speaker placement is terrible CHEZ the professionals -- hence, a somewhat iffy tonal balance speaker placed facing straight ahead (we're listening well off axis) with an iffy amp/pre combo sounds good, compared to a good speaker playing the same pre/amp combo. Dangerous conclusion: the "better" speaker is worse.
It isn't.

Anyway, pls excuse the rambling
Addendum:

When a MAJOR performance gap is created between one product and the status quo we have found that debate ceases to exist; i.e. how many people this year will be purchasing black and white televisions as compared to color?