does a stereo system sound like live music ?

"i believe that a cheap stereo can rival an expensive stereo as a medium of enjoying and relating to the musical content"

I thought that this was an interesting line in one of Mrtennis' comments above.

Quite often in Stereophile there is an interview with a musician. Invariably, the musician is asked what his music system is composed of, with the interviewer hoping that the response will contain a list of approved audiophile components. However, often the answer from the musician is that he has a boombox or some mass market system. This has happened enough times that I recall reading a letter to the editor on the topic, or possibly it was a thread here on AudiogoN years ago. The letter, or thread, raised the point that many musicians, who presumably know a lot about music, don't seem to care too much about high end equipment. They focus on the music, and hear past the sonic limitations of the equipment they're listening to. This is the essence of the quote above from Mrtennis. If you're really into the music, the equipment doesn't matter too much. I also see this attitude in posts from some other AudiogoN members. Somebody makes a comment about how they once had a system worth many thousands of dollars, but they've since pulled back and now have a system worth much less,...and they're now a lot happier enjoying the music, even though the soundstaging, imaging, etc., etc. is less than their previous, expensive system. The constant upgrading in search of audio nirvana, in addition to taking a toll on the pocketbook, seemed to be an addiction that diverted one's attention away from enjoying what they had. And they didn't realize it until the addiction was broken and they settled back into a nice, small system, refocusing on music rather than on equipment.

I have to say, I'm starting to feel that way myself more and more.

The impression I get from reading thousands of posts and ads in AudiogoN over the years is that most of the people here are equipment addicts, not music addicts. I make no criticism of anybody in this comment; neither do I intend disrespect to people's personal priorities in pursuing this hobby. I merely state what I observe in an objective a manner as I can. And as such, I agree with the comment from Mrtennis.

9rw... I wasn't referring to the whole post of Mrtennis when I said that I agreed with his comments. It was just the one sentence which I quoted which really hit me and which I commented on. I haven't really even thought about the totality of his post. It was 4:00 A.M. when I wrote what I did, and my ability and concentration to reflect on the broader content of the post just wasn't there.

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.