wave a magic wand and poof...the stereo disappears

hi plato. i have heard thousands of stereo systems at ces, other audio shows, audio club meetings, aand friends houses.

yes i will admit that many systems sound "better" (whatever) that means than my $350 personal stereo, which is not my main system.

my point is that as long as i can enjoy the music, sound quality is not that important.

as long as a stereo system does no harm, it is listenable and i'll listen to music on it. yet i will acknowledge that sonically there are better systems.

the experience of listening to music in the home is a duality--the content and the sound. i can enjoy the music without enjoying the sound.

if there are 2 stereo systems, i may not necessarily enjoy the music more when i listen to the stereo system which i think sounds better.

it has nothing to do with logic. read two articles in stereophile several years ago , i believe by Hans Sauer about the relationship between sound and satsifaction if you are still unsure of my gist.

Then perhaps our subjectively based attempts to objectively assess and compare audio systems just aren't good enough to tell us much about which will produce better MUSIC. In the end enjoying the music has to be the only relevant outcome we are trying to optimise.

I would have thought most experienced audiophiles would judge gear by whether they are enjoying music better or not, and that most of the problem is the inadequate attempts we make to describe the differences to others.

I am not saying its easy to select gear that will give you good/better/best musical enjoyment, given all the variables. But if you enjoy nusic more on a system you think is inferior then maybe you think wrong - at least at that moment, for you, with that music.

Okay, Mrtennis,

Now I understand you better. I think we are getting to the heart of the matter.

I also have two competent systems. One is solid-state based and uses large floor-standing speakers. The other uses a combination of tube and solid-state gear and nice-sounding monitors on stands.

I know that the larger system beats the smaller system all day long if you take measurements or use a checklist to tell you which system performs better in particular areas.

But although the smaller system with the tubes is technically and audibly inferior to the larger system in many ways, I still get just as much enjoyment out of listening to music on it.

So I have two distinctly different types of sound in the house, and enjoy them both for their own unique set of qualities. And I also realize that one system is more of a euphonic musical instrument while the other is more accurate. If I really want to hear the specific character of a particular recording, I know which system to play it on.

So what is your main system -- now that you've let the cat out of the bag?

hi plato, you and agree, except for the implication that an accurate presentation is superior to a euphonic (subtractive) one. i agree that subtraction means loss, but it may be more enjoyable to listen to such a system when not in analytic mode. i agree that for the purpose of ascertaining "information" from a recording the accurate system is the way to go.

my system is a hodge podge.

digital sources: bat vk d5, audio note cd2, cal alpha/delta, but i may sell the alpha

preamp: mapletree from canada, phono and line, based upon 6sn7 in the line, w separate power supplies, cost under $1000.

amp: vtl deluxe 120 mono blocks

speakers: quad 63 and magnepan 1.6 . i am looking for a monitopr speaker under $1000, just for laughs

cable(s): dcca audio, legenburg (line cords), solitone speaker cable, sunny cable technology, soundstring line cord, soundstring interconnect

accessories: ps audio p 300 power plant, ps audio juice bar, ps audio ultimate outlet (currently not in use), sound fusion sound boosters--anti resonant devices, room tunes, egg crate mattresses on the wall, harmonix ac and speaker enacom devices, blue circle sound pillows

oh, the preamp has a tone control, custom designed.

as most are aware i like a very soft, distant sound. with the audio note, and especially using the tone control, i can achieve a very tubey presentation.

i hope this answers your question.

Accuracy doesn't have to mean harsh, hard, or nasty sounding. Most recordings are actually less harsh than people would like to believe. That's because most systems have hardness and harshness built in. A lot of it comes from using speakers with passive crossovers in critical ranges of human hearing, but I've also found that certain tubes and even certain cables tend to sound hard or harsh.

And you can have fast loud musical transients that won't hurt your ears. But I'll grant you that there are certain recordings that contain distortion, harshness and stridency that is not pleasant. But I believe there are fewer of those recordings than most people realize.

Wide dynamic swings with fast transients are an integral part of a lot of music and can sound great if the system can deliver what is there -- no more and no less. I can't imagine being content with any system that was so laid back and smooth that it seriously compresses the dynamics and removes/smooths musical transients from the music. I guess some folks prefer that alternative to harshness, but that may be because they haven't heard a system that was truly neutral and transparent. I believe such systems are in the extreme minority -- no matter how much money one spends. A lot of the so-called ruthlessly revealing types of systems are seriously flawed, in my view. The music they reproduce does not sound like actual music played by real acoustic instruments. If you want to confirm that, just go to a live unamplified concert and judge for yourself.