what is good sound ?


when evaluating stereo systems, should the performance of the stereo system itself be the reference point, or should the listener be the basis for the evaluation ?

if the instrinsic quality of sound is the basis for judgment, then such concepts as transparency, neutrality or accuracy might be the standard for evaluation.

otherwise, the listener would be the sole judge and whatever criterion, be it based upon sonic considerations or physiological/psychological states, would be the deciding factor.

whatever approach is selected, what is the justification for either one ?
mrtennis
Post removed 
whew, I ain't touching this one. Rather read Proust (in French)-it's easier..
Mr. T, I think you've described two types of listening: hypercritical evaluative listening, and relaxed heart-&-soul listening.

In my opinion, we properly engage in the former to identify equipment that will allow us to later engage uninterruped in the latter (uninterrupted, that is, by illusion-destroying colorations and distortions).

I can get lost in a great song a cheap clock radio, if the message in the music strikes the right chord in me. But that's of no use in evaluating the sound quality of the clock radio.

I tend to give no credibility to a gushing review describing the emotion the reviewer heard in his favorite music over a particular piece of equipment. More likely to impress me would be the newfound emotional connection a reviewer feels in music that he normally dislikes. Still, that might well have more to do with the reviewer's mood than with the equipment.

Perhaps the ideal will be measurements that correlate very closely to our perceptions. That would at least be objective - free from prejudice, mood, music content, alchohol content, peer pressure, whatever. At this time I don't know of any reviewer who presents a suite of measurements that give enough information to consistently predict whether speaker A will sound better than speaker B.

In my opinion the goal of "good sound" is to recreate the same perception that the listener would have experienced at a live performance of that music. Yes emotion is a core part of what we experience at a live performance (I still smile when I think of the sheer joy of the last Rush concert I went to), but I suggest not reviewing based on emotion as that's too subjective and variable (my most trustworthy-eared audiophile friend hates Rush).
"Good" sound is completely relative to your reference frame of your most accurate/hightest fidelity stereo listening experience.. this will change as soon as you hear something "better" (which should possess a higher fidelity to the recorded source than previous frame of reference)
I remember when I thought "Good Sound" was a Dual turntable with Ortofon cartridge, a Marantz receiver, and a pair of JBL L-100's. That frame of reference has of course changed many many times.
The Key, I believe, is to have experience hearing and remembering what real musical instruments played together in an unamplified listening space sound like... anything from a symphony hall to a church organ recital, solo classical guitar, live jazz at preservation hall, blues guitar player on the street, etc... match these experiences to what you hear coming out of the speakers.