Based on my own experience and about 10 years of following audio
discussion in many forums the following seems to be true :

1) It is possible to put together a high-end system that makes great
SOUNDS but doesn't make great music

2) It is easy to put together a low-end OR high-end component system
that makes terrible sound and terrible music

3) A low-end system that makes good sound and good music for a
large number of listeners can be put together

4) A low-end system that makes good sound and GREAT music FOR A
CERTAIN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS can be put together.

5) A high-end system that makes GREAT SOUND and GOOD MUSIC
FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS can be put together.

6) A high-end system that makes GREAT SOUND and GREAT MUSIC
FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS can be put together.

7) A high-end system that makes COSMICALLY GREAT SOUND and
COSMICALLY GREAT MUSIC FOR ONE PERSON can be put
together.

8) You can't have GOOD SOUND and GREAT MUSIC in a high-end
system.

Is there a grand unified theory to explain this mish-mash? Probably
not, but that won't keep me from trying :=).

BE WARNED - the following is NOT a rigid exercise in logic. Those
searching for a treatise will be disappointed. Those searching for a
moral will be shot :=).

I make two assertions :

1) Hearing sound is not the same as hearing music

2) Hearing out of balance sound reduces the chance of hearing music
(and the correlary (or whatever that term is) Hearing balanced sound
increases the chance of hearing music

From this and my own experience (as summarized above) I hypothesize
that the experience of hearing music from low-budget systems which
objectively, measurably and subjectively do NOT produce great
SOUND occurs because the sound that IS produced is IN BALANCE.

Let me talk about what "balance" means here. It seems to me that the
lower the resolution of a system (ANY system) the easier it is to
maintain a balance. As a gross analogy, let us consider a bathroom
scale, accurate to perhaps a pound (ah, the old English system. God

bless it, guvnah) and a laboratory scale, accurate to a milligram.
I would assert that we will have a MUCH easier time finding two objects
around the house that balance to within a pound than within a
milligram. Similarly with low resolution vs. high resolution audio
systems. It is easier to "balance" a system of low resolution to a
point where no audible imbalance can be heard than a system of high
resolution. Not only that, but those elements which are not quite in
balance are harder to hear.

In a high resolution system it seems to get harder and harder to
maintain the balancing act. If you're at the point where you can
actually HEAR the distinction in shimmer between one cymbal and
another, the ear/brain seems to demand the same level of achievement
for every other sound, thus illustrating point 1) above :

1) It is possible to put together a high-end system that makes great
SOUNDS but doesn't make great music

Well, why can't we have GOOD sound and GREAT MUSIC in a high
and system? (point 8). Because of the balance problem/opportunity.
High end systems are like any piece of highly tunable machinery. When
it's good it's very, very good and when it's bad it's ... not horrid, but
it's not GOOD SOUND. It's just sound that draws attention to
itself. Sound that is ... hi-fi. In sum, we end up listening to the
SOUND, not the music. I'd rather drive a Dodge Dart that's doing
everything right, than a Jag XKE with one wheel out of balance.

Well, then, even if all that's true, what's all that blather up there
about numbers of people? Let's take the remaining points one at a
time.

2) It is easy to put together a low-end OR high-end component system
that makes terrible sound and terrible music

Obvious. There's so MANY of them that it can't be hard :=).

3) A low-end system that makes good sound and good music for a
large number of listeners can be put together

We're not asking for a lot here. Given the relatively low resolution of the
system (hence ease of balance) and the similarly low expectations of
most listeners this seems obviously true.

4) A low-end system that makes good sound and GREAT music FOR A
CERTAIN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS can be put together.

This statement is based on the "car radio" experience. A certain
number of people claim to get more involved in the MUSIC from a car
radio than the music from a high-end system. I believe them. And I
believe that what's happening is that the system is balanced (as
discussed previously) within its parameters and they thus have the
opportunity AND the willingness AND the ability to hear great music. -
a condition that does not occur in everyone.

5) A high-end system that makes GREAT SOUND and GOOD MUSIC
FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS can be put together

It seems to me there must be a fair number of combinations of high-end
components that will produce an ALMOST acceptably balanced sound
for a large number of people but don't quite ring the bell. In analogy, the
XKE with one wheel (or more) SLIGHTLY out of balance. The system
calls enough attention to itself to prevent hearing GREAT MUSIC, but
does well enough to produce GREAT SOUND over most parameters.
If this didn't occur, there would be no high-end industry. This condition
and that of number 1 (GOOD SOUND, GOOD MUSIC) is probably the
single largest source of upgrade mania, or "audiophilia nervosa" as it's
sometimes called.

6) A high-end system that makes GREAT SOUND and GREAT MUSIC
FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS can be put together.

In this case, the sound balance is exactly right and the opportunity
to hear great music exists. Given the difference in tolerations,
preferences and so on among people, I doubt that any one
system could do this for a LARGE NUMBER of people.

7) A high-end system that makes COSMICALLY GREAT SOUND and
COSMICALLY GREAT MUSIC FOR ONE PERSON can be put
together.

At this point, it's all down to the individual. If your psyche needs
the Monks of Shun Mook, or pyramids of beer cans in the corners,
black velvet or "Ribbon Chairs", the next person's surely won't.
No mass market here.

So - that's my screed, what's yours :=)

-- Bob T

Robert Trosper wrote:

Based on my own experience and about 10 years of following audio
discussion in many forums the following seems to be true :

1) It is possible to put together a high-end system that makes great
SOUNDS but doesn't make great music

...snip remainder.....

I don't trust any system that is said to "make" music of any kind. I prefer to
let the composer/musicans/producers make the music. What I want a system is to
deliver that to me in a way that most closely matches the music-makers intent.

Furthermore I choose not to limit the worth of a playback to muscial programs
alone. There are non-music recordings that are far more demanding acoustically.