What makes up an

After reading all the post I walk away with the following about hifi:

Hifi is not based on cost but rather more of an experience and can be achieved at low to moderate expence.

The goal to achieve is to obtain equipment that achieves high resolution, plesantly accurate tonal balance, wide dispersion and low distortion, etc. Fill in the blanks as someone said.

Regardless of the equipment we end up with, it is also at the mercy of the skill and passion of the musician/artist. Our favorite tune can sound good on transistor radio just because we enjoy the skill and passion of the musicians and yes on a hifi system it will sound that much better. It’s the song, musician’s passion and skill more than the equipment.

On the other hand human nature may kick in, which is never to be satisfied. Once we have reached the threshold of hifi we may want better. Our ears may never reach the stage where they don’t want to hear something new. It is a fundemental part of human nature to want a new experience or reach beyond to higher goals.

Thus, equipment manufacures supply our wants, desires and demands.

Now the term “budget hifi” used in the current issue of TAS is clearer to me.

All of you guys/gals are very insightful and I enjoy reading the post. Thanks.

Wait. They actually used the term "High end" budget systems. hmmm

hi darkkeys:

there is no guarantee that accurate will be pleasant and there is no guarantee pleasant will be accurate. the recording and the stereo system can contribute to a pleasant sound.

if a stereo system is minimally inaccurate, there will be instances in which it does not sound pleasant, as a consequence of the quality of the recording.

However, Darkkeys not to worry:
Case in point: I listened to an old DECCA recording from 1963 of basso arias with Nicolai Ghiaurov just now, a LP, which got several distinctions and which is in perfect synergy with the analog part of my system. I then listened to the reel to reel tape (Columbia M2Q 516, 1963) of Mahler's 9th with Bruno Walter, a recording which is anything but perfect and also the tape machine is not quite up to the standard of the rest of my rig. Actually I should have listened the other way around. The mediocre first and the "perfect" afterwards. The point is however, Bruno Walter's conducting of the symphony was so outstanding, that after a few bars into the music, you completely forget what was alluded to above:
"if a stereo system is minimally inaccurate, there will be instances in which it does not sound pleasant, as a consequence of the quality of the recording".
If you like the music as is, you get drawn into it, forget about the system and the rest is just talk and that goes for any kind of music, not just for the classics as in my example. Condition for this to happen is of course that you are a music lover, just as much as you are an audiophile. But even if you are just an audiophile, fixated on how your rig sounds, you will find that your ears will adapt to the changes in rendering more often than not, which can make things difficult to judge properly, as we all know.

I agree with mrtennis.. If only we could take the listeners out of the equation. It does raise the question. "If a system is playing music and no one is present, can it really be called music.?? One way to take the listener out of it is to send his wife to shop for the system. Think of the money that would save. You would have a lousy little system and she would have a dozen new pair of shoes.....

Anyone coming to the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest????