How do you know when a stereo sounds good?

If your stereo sounds bad, it may have permanent damage should you have been playing anything by Adele.

You won’t need to worry about it ever being able to sound better on account of the criminal negligence you have inflicted upon it and possibly yourself.  Seek professional help.

How do you know when it sounds "bad" ? And if it sounds "good" do you worry about whether it could sound better? And then what?

Question, where are these staunch objectivists defending their position that what subjectively sounds good is not necessarily the most important criteria where sound quality is concerned?

This, together with the previous (unquoted) sentence/s, is an oversimplification to the point of misrepresentation, and amounts to what is known as a straw man argument.

Folk who are not acquainted with this play on words are invited to google straw man. They are kinda "gotcha" arguments should you accept them as being an accurate representation.

Do you have a suite of measurements that removes all shadow of a doubt that you are getting good sound, sound that you enjoy?

Define "measurements".

Juries often have been known to ask the judge what is meant by "beyond reasonable doubt". Given the answer to my previous question, then what is "removes all shadow of doubt"?

Is there an assumption that I enjoy only a good sound?  Which also may require asking what is a good sound, and this is a personal preference.  I know different reviewers are sometimes quite truthful about the sound they prefer, given a choice.

Or maybe @roxy54 is correct and we ought to perhaps call it out for what it is.

When presented with a proposition that is demonstrably false, I’m probably obtuse as well.

As @roxy54 noted, this self-awareness factoid - despite being a falsity in itself and a convenient deflection by the OP - does not address the primary and fundamental error and is completely irrelevant and/or has no meaning in the context..

It seems that I am in the minority of people who recognise speech that is intended to persuade but has little regard for truth.

When a system has the ability to electronically resurrect dead musicians & they are in the room with you. 

Perhaps I'm beginning to understand Mr Denney's target audience.

The other question I have is why do you sit down one day

and absolutely love the way your system sounds yet the

next day conclude it is nothing special?

The first day you were listening to Kylie Minogue.  The next day you listened to Adele.

The last few posts prove my point, and if that makes me an "angry bird, I can live with that.

@roxy54  I can't.  I'm angry that my religious fervour and fanaticism has been exposed.  I am unworthy to be in the presence of agnostics.

Has virtue signaling jumped the shark?

@wturkey

This is quite possibly a subject that could be great for a new thread, should there be an opportunity.

My initial thoughts are that it has always been in existence of course, but only in recent times has it become so over-used in many areas of our day-to-day life its use and mis-use is becoming thoroughly transparent (and maybe even passe, as you suggest.  I don't know).

The measurements do not define your ideal, or preference, for what "good" or "enjoyable" are, they are an objective means to adjust to get that sound, and to get it reliably. Phrased the other way I think it says it somewhat backwards, and is interpreted by "pure subjectivists" as *only the measurements matter*. See it all the time. When in fact the opposite is true.

and

measurements can control, they can distinguish, they can provide for reproduciblity and repeatablity

@khughes The twisting of words by folk who eschew measurements sometimes makes my head hurt.

The narrative being presented as facts is upside down and inside out, much as we may observe in some news reports originating in certain countries - selective facts are provided but presented in such a manner as to persuade the reader that something else is actually the situation.

I have addressed (perhaps poorly) this fairly transparent non sequitur pattern of reasoning in one or two previous posts here.

The second quote is of course so perfectly succinct that any elaboration may only spoil it.

@cindyment 

The arguments are meant to first divide the groups and then once divided to isolate the target group.

Yes, I think divided only by sleight of hand and in my opinion by the use of some very deliberate and garbled misrepresentations that are abundantly transparent in their intent. I disagree that they are veiled, but I guess I'm just at the 6th standard deviation of cynical.

That this succeeds in many good and honest folk - the target group - being tricked is tremendously "clever" but entirely unethical.