what is good sound ?

there were two parts to this thread. the first part has been answered. the second part has not.

no one has attempted to provide a rationale, justification or reason for a position.

i have been battling with certain individuals about this for the last two months.

my perception is there is a lot of dogmatism and intolerance of opinions which differ from the conventional wisdom.

there has been argumentum ad hominem--heat but not light.

how about some defense ?

i realize that some of you don't see the necessity to defend yourself (9w ??).

however it is very easy to criticize and insult but somewhat unfair not to defend what seems to be in some cases arbitrary positions.

Mrtennis,

I think you present an illusory dichotomy. The perception of transparency, neutrality, and accuracy is a physiological/psychological process. I agree with Audiokinesis that you use critical listening to select and setup an audio system that will be satisfying and not distracting when enjoying music.

Maybe my preference for recordings of chamber and jazz music stems from my experinece with live performances of such music.

db

the dichotomy is not illusory. there are two ways to judge the merits of a stereo system, namely, equipment-based and listener-based.

a stereo system has an affect upon the listener. the stereo system can also be evaluated as to the usual criteria of neutrality, accuracy, transparency, resolution, etc. .

i believe both metods, the sound of the stereo system, independent of its affect upon the listener, or the affect upon the listener are valid.

many audiophiles feel that a listener's emotional response to sound is irrelevant as to the sound quality of a stereo system. such an approach places the stereo system as the point of reference.

i have yet to read a reasoned definitive argument rejecting one or the other position.

Mrtennis: Enlighten us.