So, a reviewer just said something I need to talk about.

@mrdecibel I work on and listen to 2500 songs a year, in every style from every country, done by every level of experience in the production team from beginners to experts for over 25 years, and I get paid to enhance the connection between the listener, to enhance what it is that they will enjoy… some of these are Grammy winners many of them are top-tier productions.

I think I know what people listen to and what they listen for and what they might say about it when they actually are thinking or feeling something else, that’s what I do every day at the highest level

From your words it’s clear to me that you are neither skilled or objective or experienced in getting outside of yourself enough to understand how other people listen.

In "truth", if we must, the majority of people listen to and through the vocal melody. When you get beyond that, there is the rhythm which is essential for the popularity of music. It has to have a great groove/beat and everyone listens to the groove, whether they know it or not they feel/experience the Groove and it matters to them in terms of their interest. After the top line and the groove, it is absolutely beyond you or even me with my credentials and experience to project how other people perceive things

Could be any number of qualities in infinite combinations that draws them in

I gave a roadmap for understanding why the conversation that you observe is about the sound and you are certainly welcome to disagree, yet I don’t think you’re as smart as you think you are :)

Audiophile listeners specifically do not compose or create or record or mix or master music, but they do create with the building of their system… It is a form of creativity and the currency of conversation is "sound" yes that’s true

And that fact, as I’ve explained, doesn’t add up to what you are saying. It’s just the thing that you’re observing people talking about

if you are able to peer inside of the soul and mind of other people, you should be in a totally different field, there would be a lot of money to be made :)

Brian, you would be surprised at the number of folks I interact with, many admitting to putting the musicianship and the composition 2nd in what he/she listens for, and those, that do not admit to it. I admire your passion, and your work, but I started this thread because of my point. I have my specialty, although not as high on the bar as yours, so if you feel I am not smart, that is your prerogative. But, at my end, you are blind as to what I am experiencing out here in the high end audio world. I have nothing more to say, other than keep up the great work! My best, always, MrD.

Again, I'm not doubting what you're observing, I'm saying you're conclusion as to what that observation means is incorrect 
 

audiophile listeners (whoever that group may be ) are building a system based around the "sound" of the system because that is their creative contribution, that is an absolute fact… That fact does not lead me to the conclusion that you have come to.  
 

of course you're going to come across people discussing the sound of the system that doesn't mean it's the only thing that matters or it's the primary thing. It's just the primary thing when you're talking with them or when they're out shopping.

This is beginning to sound like a circular argument.  
 I care about music.  And I care about sound, as a path to creating a more connected, more enjoyable listening experience.  That’s always been the case, even before I had the knowledge or wherewithal to indulge my passion.  
 

I also believe we have come along way, baby.  What I mean is, we lose sight of the fact that the quality of modern gear in general is pretty good.  
It has been true for some time now that even mediocre gear has reasonably good frequency response.  What it takes for gear to stand out today is a more lifelike presentation.  Whether we are talking about soundstage dimensions, or placement the of musicians across a stereo image or the realism of a bow on strings or the impact of percussion - these are the things that elevate listening at home.  They are not so easily achieved either.  Fine frequency response is not enough.  You need more of all of these elements, and some I’ve neglected to mention of course, to have a better than average system.  
That’s where a focus on sound quality has relevancy and value.  
 

When a reviewer tells me a certain piece of kit helped him achieve a greater connection to the artist or to his art, well that’s just a high compliment.  If it happens to be a tune I’m familiar with, then we have a common reference point.  And if I’ve been moved in a similar way by that artist or that tune, then he and I also now have a connection too.  And I have come a step closer to a better understanding of their perspective.  

For me, listening is an escape.  When I catch myself focusing on the sound instead of the music, unless it’s because something is wrong, I attempt to refocus on what’s important: the melody, the lyric, the voice, the mood, the energy.  You get the idea.  

I care about music. And I care about sound, as a path to creating a more connected, more enjoyable listening experience.

I totally agree with that, @woofman74 . However, in the past I was never a big fan of jazz or classical, and over the last few years I came around to gaining an appreciation of jazz due to owning better audio gear, and more recently I am gaining an appreciation for classical. This is also due to owning better gear than I used to own.

(I am all digital) and I am trying out/breaking in a pair of speakers and also breaking in some new power cords (all at the same time, unfortunately) and I started out a six hour session earlier today with Sheffield’s The Moscow Sessions and I found myself really enjoying the sound of the instruments. Then I put on (I guess it would be jazz) The Rippingtons (and I have actually listened to this CD quite a few times by now) but what always strikes me is, "There is a lot going on in front of me.)

During this speaker audition/break in, I am playing a lot of stuff I barely played before. So I put on "No Nukes." This is music I actually probably used to like a lot (and probably still appreciate) but disc one sounded horrible. I was out of the room doing other stuff for most of disc two, but it sounded better that way (out of the room). Then I put on disc one of a CD of The Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame (I think it was from the inductions?) done in the mid or late ’90s, and it was neat music that I liked that wasn’t mastered too bad.  (Actually, I feel it was mastered pretty good, and I was getting into it.)

But that seemingly pointless story was to say that poor source quality ruins my enjoyment of music that I used to really enjoy. And good source quality makes me appreciate stuff that used to leave me pretty cold.