Two Type of sound and listener preference are there more?

I’m definitely now (finally) in the real is good camp, but that may be merely because I’ve now been after it for 45+ yrs and have managed to cough up enough cash over time for what it was I was ultimately shooting for.

IOW, I suspect most folks relatively speaking would be more in the just starting out category than that and that the apparent disparity between the real is good understanding of what is possible and everything else may be more of an experience-vs-financial opportunity thing than anything else...IOW all that may be perfectly normal or predictable to an extent. Many people may be inclined to dabble in the hobby during their first few years or even for decades before the ultimate decision may take hold to up their game and really consider what it may take to get beyond all that.

Sounds like the Doctor is more interested in drumming up business by oversimplifying the exercise of system building by creating the impression that systems are best designed by only targeting original sound expectations, and that anything falling outside that should be carefully rejected (adding an unrealistic degree of technical difficulty)...and naturally thereby creating the dependence on a dealer for ’expert’ advice on a topic that could just as easily be left on its own since much of the fun of the hobby is in the discovery of the unexpected surprises, even in the midst of what we might otherwise think of as a purchasing mistake - like how much we didn’t realize we might like, say, imaging...until we heard it in, say, a new amp we were trying out for ourselves, even if the component was for us a no go for other reasons and we returned it. But, what would the next move then be having run across something that made us rethink our sound priorities? I think it unnecessarily constrictive to suggest that the only valid expectations are those we originally start with. And if it’s going to be a given that our expectations are subject to change as we go, what then do we really need the advice of others for? Particularly in advance of the question. I fail to see the need for any of it.

Maybe it's Not so much different ideas of what systems should sound like, but different ideas of what music should sound like.

It's live music or bust, for me, but evidently many folks just don't require any such thing.

"To be clear, I fall into the audiophile camp that wants it ALL: realistic imaging, well-resolved detail, dynamics, balance, and I want it in a package that is pleasing to hear. I guess I'd have to define "musical" as just that: pleasant to listen to. Because our ears are all different and our tastes individual, trying to divide the audiophile world into two separate camps is, IMO, a fruitless exercise."

Overall that's pretty much where I'm at (and have been for some time). AFA the OP goes, we might as well be asking to sign up for a class at our local community college called: "How To Build A Mediocre Audio System At Any Price Level". 

???

@rwinner 

"The attempt to install the 'original recording' as the objective standard for judging a system is doomed to failure from the start because It begins with the false premise that there is one, unique objective sound associated with the recording - which of course is entirely dependent on who is listening to it, what equipment is being used, the room it is being listened in, etc."

100% correct. More than that, it's not nearly so reliable as everyone seems to think even as a method for evaluating the inherent level of (lack of) quality of the recording itself. It's quite hard to resist concluding a given recording's lack of quality level from having lived with it for some time, despite the occurrence of any system changes at all. Too many times a listener will hear the same or similar levels of 'defect' in a recording as the system progresses and can't help but conclude that it's the recording itself that is to blame. I've been there and done that myself. But after major system breakthroughs, I've since discovered that my percentage of "bad" recordings went from at least 35% down to about 1%...and I suspect that were I to manage even more breakthroughs, that number might shrink further still. 

When it comes to judging the lack of sound quality in a recording, there simply is No reliable method, period. It's a complete myth. Just think of all the ultra-mega-buck systems here at Agon. Would anybody be carried away on spending all that on their system if most recordings were even half as bad as everyone says they are??

The above statement was prepared by: https:pleasesendyourbadrecordingstoivan_nosibor.com