The focus and air lie

I say it depends on what you are listening too. R&B(which I listen too)in a jazz club atmosphere sounds real similar to what I am able to recreate at my home. It depends on what your standard of live music is. Go get a MTV unplugged CD set and listen,you will be surprised in a top flight system with lights off at night how you can recreate that event.

So again,it depends on the venue you are using as a standard.

ah, it's all relative i suppose. when i've been in graduate school i always found that those from developing countries listening to boom boxes always seemed to enjoy music, be transported, deeply affected, etc., more than their spoiled first world counterparts. i have no doubt that better and better speakers do not mean those listening to them appreciate music any more, often less, than those with far less. perhaps having less, having to struggle, face REAL adversity, makes good music (any art form really), not good sound, that much more enriching. if one can see that art is often the product of a sort of pain or angst, longing, alientation, etc., then it would make sense that cultures in which oppression is commonplace would relate more to art than those of us for whom music (art) is merely yet another leisure activity. frankly i find the notion that the genuine appreciation of music rests on one's income/technological advancement disturbingly flawed and nonsensical on its face, a real non-starter.

OMG, we are on an audiophile website and people are actually arguing that a boombox is better suited to appreciate music to the greatest possible extent....go figure!

Perhaps we don't even need ridiculously expensive musical instruments to really appreciate music - after all vocals and clapping are more then enough - who cares for a nice sounding steinway - after all expensive things like pianos are just a nonsensical rich diversion for those who are unable to appreciate music....

shadorne, i never said a boombox is better suited to anything. what i said had to do with debates over the location of and access to the soul of music, or any art for that matter. sorry you are so shocked by this perspective, but your criticism is still disingenuous and unfair, though obviously one is free to appreciate music for any reason whatsoever, as such appreciation is by definition purely subjective. i just don't think any coherent case can be or ever has been made that in general those with better stereo equipment are thereby able to (or for that matter actually do) appreciate MUSIC more than those with inferior equipment, though only coincidentally this will be the cases in many instances. it is actually just an extension of the exact same argument one audiophile uses when he rejects a more expensive and better speaker or amp or whatever as not worth the cost while another finds it absolutely worth the cost. do you honestly think this indicates the latter's greater joy in or appreciation of music? just because one person can hear more nuance of timbre or dynamic range has no bearing over whether he will thereby appreciate music more than someone who cannot. (importantly, i'm not saying that when a single person hears less and then hears more, he won't appreciate the more, only than comparisons between two separate minds are, from any reasonable psychological and philosophical standpoint, quite impossible. this also doesn't mean that this greater appreciation can't be achieved either by never hearing more or hearing more and then having to go back to hearing less.) sorry if i offended you or interfered with the flow of this thread. you are correct that it has nothing to do with audiophilia, but nevertheless i believe it is correct.

Walk outside your house at 3am and listen to the birds chirping. One is three feet away and the other is thirty feet away. Ten more are in between. How do you tell they are separated? What is between them? How many terms does it take?