wht is the difference between good and bad sound ?

Over the years, I've come to believe that people differ in how they experience sound reproduction, in somewhat the same way that some foods taste good to some people but are disagreeable to others.

The simplistic answer to your question is: if the sound quality seems good to you, it is. And if it doesn't, it isn't.

Beyond that, there are a variety of qualities that high-end audiophiles value: wide dynamic range; excellent midrange, with full bass and clear highs; transparency; accurate frequency response; soundstaging; PRAT; etc. The extent to which each of these properties matters to a person can be pretty subjective, and does vary between listeners.

In somewhat the same sense, the way a given component "contributes" to sound reproduction may, or may not, be pleasing to a given listener. It will depend, I think, on what importance the listener places on each of the respective audio properties. For example, some people love the warmth of tubes, while others prefer the sound of solid state gear.

Chacun a son gout...

It's sort of like the difference between thick and thin... The trick is that one needs to decide where to draw the line.

There are very few sounds/components that are entirely good or entirely bad. Most include varying amounts of good and bad, so one needs to decide for him/herself which quality is domimant.

If one does not like the sound, it can still be good sound, and conversely, if one likes the sound, it can still be bad sound.

I hope that clears it up for you.

Lisa, stay away from that jazzman.

plato, you are confusing me. on what basis does a component
posess both good and bad qualities, if the listener doesn't like the affect of the component upon the stereo system and therefore asserts "it's a bad component" . your view is still subjective. its either "A", or "B", or part "A&B".

you certainly are entitled to your philosophical perspective. it is one of many.

i say the beauty is in the beholder and therefore if someone doesn't like the sound it's bad.

the fact that we disagree supports my thesis that there are no absolute standards of quality but only standards with which one can disagree.

Mrs Tennis,

The simple answer is an emphatic YES. Good sound is in the eye, or in this case the ear, of the beholder. In the High End world this becomes increasingly convoluted. It is a matter of taste. Alas, we reach an epiphany. We begin to realize there is no such thing as the "BEST COMPONENT." It comes down to enjoyment and how best to maximize YOUR system and taylor it to your tastes. Which strengths do you value and which are you willing to sacrafice. Lightning fast transients, Transparency, musicality, Soundstaging, Nonfatigueing, Accurate bass, Tight bass, extended bass, etc... These are a few adjetives used to describe top notch "Audiophile systems." The problem is how many of us listen to Audiophile recordings exclusively. Ideally, you would like a system that is nuetral and passes only the signal that is sent to it. Once you have heard a system that does that, sometimes you spend more time listening to the recording or the shortcomings of the recording than actually listening to music. Here is the Paradox of the High End world. How do you make a piece of Gear Accurate, but also able to sound good with the variety of genres of music as well as the wide array of recordings in the marketplace. Some of these recordings are very good and some are downright horrendous. That is why we get back to the original discussion.

Audio is arguably the most subjective hobby out there!!