Ok this will be a good thread.

Yikes Paulwp: You must have been privileged enough to have lived your audiophile-life out having auditioned and owned only the best of CD players and amps?! I find it a difficult concept to swallow that a poor CD player or a poor amp "can't do much damage"!!?! Difficult?...why it is utterly ubsurd! Gads man! You must be joking!? I mean no offence here, and much of my response is purely for amusement, but it really surprises me that someone would believe that. The difference in detail, musicality, sound-stage (not to mention all kinds of other nuances and $1000 catch-words thrown around on this site in the name of justifying adding just one more zero to the price tag) between a mediocre CD player, and an excellent player seem to me to be readily apparent to anyone with two healthy ears! The differences an amp can make are also quite profound, especially a poor quality amp to an outstanding amp. More curious to me though is the use of the word "accuracy" when it comes to reproducing music. Paulwp speaks of "inaccurate" speakers and components. OK, granted, the whole idea is to do justice to reproducing the sound of music in a life-like, musical, holographic presentation. But why does "accuracy" have such importance? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the usage here, but I tend to have preferences that tend towards the 'coloration' (there's another one of tham'thar' big words) or warmth imparted by many tube components. Is that "inaccurate" because it is not true to the actual performance of the music, or sound of the instrument(s) being played (I'm pretty sure I'd prefer it regardless)? I'm a photographer by profession, and nothing is more boring to me than the most accurate, precise and literal translation of reality in a photograph (using the tools to their maximum potential to fulfill those goals to that end). It is appropriate, and even admirable in some instances. But far more interesting, in my estimation, is the use of those same tools to express something more personal and intimate (using the tools as a means to a more expressive end, taking advantages of nuances and "control" rather than "accuracy"). I know, I'm straying way off the audio path here, and my example is not entirely appropriate as not many of us really want to distort the music and shape it into something it is not. Here, perhaps, is a better example: I recently heard a violin recital at Benaroya Hall here in Seattle, which is a wonderful venue for acoustic music. It was Vengerov performing the Ysaye violin sonatas. We had pretty good orchestra seats. It was a fabulous performance, which I thoroughly enjoyed, but on the whole, the sound of Vengerov's violin seemed rather thin and a bit distant...not as engaging as it could. It was not his playing, but perhaps the acoustics of the room. I went right out and purchased the EMI recording of those same Ysaye Sonatas. Listening to it on my stereo is far more engaging and even hair-raising at times, if you know what I mean. I don't know that my system is "accurate", nor would I think of using that to judge it. I do find it VERY engaging (hard to walk away from), and very natural, warm and musical (OK, quit it with those words now!). I don't give a rat's rear-quarters whether or not the timber and pitch are "accurate" reproductions of Vengerov's Strad. But if I am compelled by what stirs inside me to remain locked in that sweet spot in front of those two speakers....if the music moves me (inside and or outside) I'm a very happy audiophile. I don't know "accuracy", but I do know what I like when I hear it, and I think I'm rather discriminating in that regard. So is this a case of ignorance is bliss? It certainly is a case of me avoiding my workload and spending far too much time tapping on this keyboard! Back to your regularly scheduled program!

LOL. Let's see, up above, Onhwy61 says "great music is still great even on bad systems," with which Asa concurs. I'm not sure I would go that far, saying that really bad phono cartridges or really bad speakers can make even a good recording of a good performance unlistenable, whereas I've never heard a cd player or amp that bad, so bad that a good recording would be unlistenable. I've heard lots. Even a cheap portable through headphones is enough to enjoy a good recording. But there are speakers and phono cartridges that do real damage.

Now, if you don't care about accuracy, then you don't care about high fidelity. "Fidelity" - get the idea? Expressiveness is for the performers, and maybe the recording engineers. HiFi components are supposed to let us hear what the recording engineers intended for us to hear of what the performers did.

Paul

Twl, I do Buddhist chanting twice, 3 times praying, 4 times kowtow, 5 times go to church (Christian/Catholic), 6 senses all ear up to ask One question. So please don't feel offended. Thanks.

"I know that we have widely differing opinions on just about everything, but I am just now finding out how wide those differences are."

How wide are those different opinions?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Asa, I meant; IT IS... NOT, NOT NOT...

Twl's controlled environment comparison of turntables and speakers leaves me wondering if there was a good match of the Linn TT/cartridge with the Naim and poor match with the Rega.

Was the Rega TT with the Goldring cartridge and the Naim gear the typical combination you used in that store for demos? What were the customers shopping for who heard the comparison and what did they buy?

Oh, Paulup, did I really say that? Hmmm. Yea, I do jam away on the car radio, and we know that's no good as a component, ie, presumably your "bad". But then again, are we really talking about being that "bad" in componentry? I start out with a hybrid amp with volume control above because I think less than that would be a waste for someone going down our road (my girlfriend is not going down our road, so something more "bad" would be OK; its context dependant, our context being our path).

I said that something may SOUND great on a great system, but if you don't have a will towards the musical meaning - and hence, presumably, a music collection that is reflective of that will and not just great components - then you are kinda wasting what you built.

On the other hand, isn't this a moot question as far as experience? In other words, do you actually know someone who has a great system - defined as one that involves you deeply in the meaning of the music - that doesn't also have a nice collection of music that can help get you there? What person possesess the will to build "great" in a system and then not build "great" in the medium? I don't know anybody like that, and I think where that problem arises, and why people site it, is from the circumstance where a system is built in an accurate way with accuracy of sound prominent as a will - objectifying sound, even if done well - rather than a system that balances accuracy, provides it sufficiently to enable the mind to go deeper, but doesn't become attached to that accuracy at the expense of the deepening receptive musical experience. In those types of systems, many times we see Stereophile-approved components strung together but no "great" music collection. Again, this is a symptom of the mind focused on things - stereo component things, sound as things - and not a will to let go of the mind that wants to control things and, thereby, deepen into the meaning. The mind like that goes for the more impressive things first and predominantly - the components rather than the music - because such minds orientation is towards the exterior; as in, producing covet-ing in the exterior other person. This is also why you can see a correlation between system character, and egocentricity and materialism in the mind that built the system/musci collection. Or, in the case you cite, an imbalance between system and collection.

Just something to think about...