The focus and air lie

i can listen to music on a radio and get what ever the composer intended as i would on a "high end" stereo system.

What? You can't be serious. Do you just listen to melodies then? What about the musicians and conductor and arrangement? I mean bass guitar riffs not hidden behind the drums on rock. I mean to be able to follow precisely the contribution of each instrument throughout an entire complex piece with 11 or more band members or a whole orchestra?

Sorry but I don't agree at all. You need both a good recording and a good system to really hear deep into the music. Of course, if you only concentrate on lead guitar and the lead singer and pretty much ignore the rest as mere backing instruments then I do agree.

Mr Tennis,

On second thoughts I guess I must add that I probably listen very differently from most people. I listen to recordings and concentrate on a particular individual instrument and then play it again listening to another. Perhaps this is why I like studio speakers so I can hear deep into the mix as opposed to having the more general overall pleasant warm sound. So I know what you mean about simply enjoying the "tune" or "melody" and nothing more (for which a radio is sufficient)

the definition of music is the salient consideration.
a radio will present most of what you need to get achieve an emotional connection.

the difference between a high and low resolution medium is just that, resolution.

if you are focused upon accuracy of reproduction, than i would agree with you. however, much of the purpose of the music is transmitted by means of a radio.

Ndeslions: I agree that the sound of most systems is not the same as a live concert. I would extend that proposition to include all systems. Listening to reproduced music in private is not the same thing as listening to live music in a concert hall for a host of reasons - acoustic as well as psychological.

If one wants to hear live music in a concert hall, one must listen to live music in a concert hall. Included in that experience is the person next to you rusting his or her program from time to time and the guy behind you coughing every now and then - all part of the sound. Not to mention the spontanaity of the event. There are advantages and disadvantages in both reproduced sound experienced with no distractions at user controlled volumes that can be listened to repetitively, and a live performance - but these two ways of enjoying music are fundamentally different.

As to sound "quality" of a recording - that is only a part of experiencing music. Some of the recordings that I find to be the best interpretations of a piece were made from radio broadcasts in the 1940's and 50's or otherwise poor recordings- the sound quality is not great but the interpretation can be heard regardless. For example - Beethoven's 9 by Vanska recently released- great sound, dead interpretation; Beethoven's 9 by Furtwangler in Berlin during the war - poor sound, great interpretation. Each has its place.

I also agree with Mrtennis' point about music.

The MUSIC is in your head. As he says, even a clock radio will convey that, and the emotional connection to the piece. That's why although the vast majority of people have a deep relationship to music, they are happy enough with the stereo in their cars, those glorified boomboxes that are passed off as systems today, or going to a concert in a club or stadium where the sound is abysmal.

We are the lunatic fringe who demand to get as close as humanly possible through electronics because of our passion, stupidity, etc.