does a stereo system sound like live music ?

Okay, it's not 4:00 A.M. anymore, so I'm thinking more clearly now.

The thread starts with:

"i believe that a stereo system recreates about 10 % of what a live orchestra sounds like."

I agree that reproduced music does not sound like live music. The 10% number seems to be just picked out of the air. I don't attribute any special significance to it however, other than to emphasize the proposition that reproduced music is not like live music.

In the second paragraph, it is stated:

"therefore, i also believe that a $350 Brookstone personal stereo based on the nxt technology sounds closer to most stereo systems, at any cost, than most stereo systems do when reproducing the sound of an orchestra."

The point I take from this paragraph is that just as reproduced music is not like live music, in a similar fashion, an inexpensive music system is not the same as an expensive music system. I would agree with this.

The relative difference between the two comparisons, I cannot answer as I don't know how to quantify it. Is a reproduced music system closer to live music than an inexpensive reproduced music system is to an expensive reproduced music system, or vice versa? I don't even know what to think on this point.

Not being able to resolve this question, I started thinking about something related to the inexpensive/expensive reproduced music proposition.

I started to think about how the expense and quality of reproduced music is not necessarily related to one's enjoyment of music. That's where the musician interview comment in my post arose from. People who know a lot about music, and who love music dearly, do not necessarily care about expensive, high end components. On the other hand, there are many people for whom "better" components, however you define it, do add to their appreciation of music. In other words, it's highly subjective. Some people appreciate music without a need for high end components. For other people, music is appreciated more with different, or more expensive, components. I don't see either approach as inherently superior to the other, although they do differ in price.

Taking this thought one step further, it has occurred to me that there are many audiophiles who chose the wrong path. These people appreciate music to a level of personal satisfaction without the need for very expensive gear. Yet they unwittingly found themselves on the upgrade treadmill, the route chosen by audiophiles who appriecaite music more with endless tweaking and upgrading. As a result, they spent more and more but were not any more satisfied. At some future point, they realize that spending more money isn't increasing their appreciation of music. They scale back their system, focus on the music, not on constant upgrades, and now they're content and happy. They had simply chosen the wrong route. Again, there is no judgment as to which route is best. It's subjective. Not all people choose the same route in order to appreciate music. Nor do they need to. Unfortunately, some people simply chose the wrong route needed for their personal satisfaction, and it took some reflection, and a lot of money, for them to realize it.

So Mttennis has succeeded. He has gotten me thinking about things. I just don't have the time to write dissertations on the daily barrage of open ended threads.

Mrtennis: Not to belabor this pointless discussion, but there are indeed very reliable methods to objectively determine accuracy. Talented speaker designers do this all of the time. They certainly would not rely on the judgment of a person who has a difficult time distinguishing between a "$350 Brookstone personal stereo" -- whatever that is -- and a true reference system. I stand by my post as written. Enjoy your boom box and don't give it another nonsensical thought.

And of course Dr. Pingpong is not even considering that his beloved 'live' music is but a pale instantiation of the infinite variety of potential much superior performances inferred by the composer's musical score. In turn the score is but a pale instantiation of the original musical thought conceived by the composer. Hence applying the odd syllogistic pingpongism, the recorded performance is at least three order of magnitude inherently inferior to the original abstract musical conception. As a former classical music composer this inherent superiority of what's in my mind fills me with undisguised pride and gloting. Yet, as a lover of beauty, wherever it may be found, I just know that this is just a bunch of unadulterated hogwash! Which just reminds me, I better run and reconnect my system, after todays glorious audio extravaganza at Arnie's (Babybear) place. Just listening to the Music Of The Spheres in the depth of my mind is just not for me any longer.. . and how many times did I repeat the word 'just' just in this post?

Guidocorona, probably too many times. But that is just the way you are. Oops, I said it too.

if there are reliable ethods to objectively detrmine accuracy, the question is accuracy to what ? is the reference live music, in which case how do you compare the sound of a recording through a stereo system to the sound of the instrument themselves ?

if the reference is the recording, how can you verify the accuracy of the stereo system relative to a recording when the sound of a recording is unknown as well as that of the components which comprise the stereo system.

its fine to make statements but you have no evidence to back them.

you are again providing evidence that this endeavor is indedd subjective and not objective as you state.

in addition , 9rw, you have misinterpreted what i said. i did not say that there was no difference sonically between a $350 personal stereo and an expensive stereo.

there is a difference, sonically.

finally my experience listening to 100s of stereo system and a good set of ears obviously is the basis for evaluating stereo systems.

but i realize that what constitutes a reference system is subject to disagreement, because it tooo is a matter of opinion.