does a stereo system sound like live music ?

9rw... I wasn't referring to the whole post of Mrtennis when I said that I agreed with his comments. It was just the one sentence which I quoted which really hit me and which I commented on. I haven't really even thought about the totality of his post. It was 4:00 A.M. when I wrote what I did, and my ability and concentration to reflect on the broader content of the post just wasn't there.

Mrtennis: Audiophiles who love music (not all do) usually are seeking accuracy in a system, and accuracy isn't subjective. Some people simply are not qualified to judge because they do not have the points of reference or perhaps they lack the hearing ability. Personal preference has nothing to do with accuracy, as some people may prefer exaggerated treble or bass, and neither can be considered accurate.

My guess is that you have not heard a really good system set up properly. Still, nothing comes close to a live acoustic performance.

hi 9rw. there is knowledge, opinion and facts.

your first statement about love of music and accuracy is not based upon knowledge. there is no proof to support your premise.

therefore its an opinion. you can make your statement appear it has some weight, but it is an opinion. is accuracy subjective ? the way to ascertain accuracy in the context of stereo systems is subjective, as there is no definitive comparison between live and recorded music possible. if you mean accurate to the recording, there is no way to know what a recording sounds like and no way to know whether a stero system has reproduced the recording aaccurately, to whatever degree, as there are too many variables.

my guess is that you do not speak of knowledge and your last statement is without merit.

i have auditioned thousands of stereo systems and can say to this day that my favorite stereo system consists of stacked quads with low powered tube amps and tube preamps.

it's still subjective regardless of what you say because your statements are not based upon knowledge.

in my opinion, i have heard many stereo systems that were properly set up, but have disliked the sound of most of them.

Okay, it's not 4:00 A.M. anymore, so I'm thinking more clearly now.

The thread starts with:

"i believe that a stereo system recreates about 10 % of what a live orchestra sounds like."

I agree that reproduced music does not sound like live music. The 10% number seems to be just picked out of the air. I don't attribute any special significance to it however, other than to emphasize the proposition that reproduced music is not like live music.

In the second paragraph, it is stated:

"therefore, i also believe that a $350 Brookstone personal stereo based on the nxt technology sounds closer to most stereo systems, at any cost, than most stereo systems do when reproducing the sound of an orchestra."

The point I take from this paragraph is that just as reproduced music is not like live music, in a similar fashion, an inexpensive music system is not the same as an expensive music system. I would agree with this.

The relative difference between the two comparisons, I cannot answer as I don't know how to quantify it. Is a reproduced music system closer to live music than an inexpensive reproduced music system is to an expensive reproduced music system, or vice versa? I don't even know what to think on this point.

Not being able to resolve this question, I started thinking about something related to the inexpensive/expensive reproduced music proposition.

I started to think about how the expense and quality of reproduced music is not necessarily related to one's enjoyment of music. That's where the musician interview comment in my post arose from. People who know a lot about music, and who love music dearly, do not necessarily care about expensive, high end components. On the other hand, there are many people for whom "better" components, however you define it, do add to their appreciation of music. In other words, it's highly subjective. Some people appreciate music without a need for high end components. For other people, music is appreciated more with different, or more expensive, components. I don't see either approach as inherently superior to the other, although they do differ in price.

Taking this thought one step further, it has occurred to me that there are many audiophiles who chose the wrong path. These people appreciate music to a level of personal satisfaction without the need for very expensive gear. Yet they unwittingly found themselves on the upgrade treadmill, the route chosen by audiophiles who appriecaite music more with endless tweaking and upgrading. As a result, they spent more and more but were not any more satisfied. At some future point, they realize that spending more money isn't increasing their appreciation of music. They scale back their system, focus on the music, not on constant upgrades, and now they're content and happy. They had simply chosen the wrong route. Again, there is no judgment as to which route is best. It's subjective. Not all people choose the same route in order to appreciate music. Nor do they need to. Unfortunately, some people simply chose the wrong route needed for their personal satisfaction, and it took some reflection, and a lot of money, for them to realize it.

So Mttennis has succeeded. He has gotten me thinking about things. I just don't have the time to write dissertations on the daily barrage of open ended threads.

Mrtennis: Not to belabor this pointless discussion, but there are indeed very reliable methods to objectively determine accuracy. Talented speaker designers do this all of the time. They certainly would not rely on the judgment of a person who has a difficult time distinguishing between a "$350 Brookstone personal stereo" -- whatever that is -- and a true reference system. I stand by my post as written. Enjoy your boom box and don't give it another nonsensical thought.