Something that makes you want to either sit and listen or shell out money for it in the first place. Then that is good. It's sound that gets out of the music just far enough to actually let you appreciate the music.
or taken another way...
Good isn't quite as good as "best" but Conan at least has the idea.
As for listen vs. system? As long as the biases are disclosed (or easy to determine) I don't have a problem with a listener making a value or subjective call. Although I would prefer they at least back it up with something concrete. I don't really see how you would separate the two. WE could simply listen with test equipment (JA tries this in Stereophile with him measurements) but the measurements either do not tell the whole story or are misleading. So we are stuck with both.
What good is transparency, neutrality, and accuracy if you don't like the resultant sound? It is good or not? Yes AND no. Hence the problem and the constant bickering. Somethings can be universally accepted as good but it doesn't mean people will like it. There are lots of "good" people that I wouldn't want to live with with. Are they still good? I don't like them. They are good unless I equate like with good. In which case they are not good. Or taking driving. Everyone considers themselves to be a good or above average driver (amazing, huh?). The problem is everyone follows a different set of manners and rules that are largely incompatible or mutually exclusive from each other.
see the problem?
The orginal premise is shooting to see if we (and people) can agree to compare things on a apples-to-apple basis. This will not be possible. The original premise also states us to choose are preference and defend it.
In my case this depends on the goal. If I'm evaluating the stereo for me, then only my perceptions matter. I like my distorting tube amps and crackly vinyl. Soemone else can keep their squeakly clean, Stepford Wife of a digital/transitor system to themselves. That's their business. If I'm evaluating something to for sake of comparing, then I'll judge the system itself and attempt to use some sort of common language to describe or rate it. Therefore I can "describe" or "rate" it to be good. But if I'm going to "judge" it as good, then enter the listener biases.
That's my take. Tennis anyone? Not for me. I play racquetball.
Great post, by the way.
or taken another way...
Conan what is best in life?
To crush your enemies. See them driven before you. And hear the lamentation of their women.
That is good!
Good isn't quite as good as "best" but Conan at least has the idea.
As for listen vs. system? As long as the biases are disclosed (or easy to determine) I don't have a problem with a listener making a value or subjective call. Although I would prefer they at least back it up with something concrete. I don't really see how you would separate the two. WE could simply listen with test equipment (JA tries this in Stereophile with him measurements) but the measurements either do not tell the whole story or are misleading. So we are stuck with both.
What good is transparency, neutrality, and accuracy if you don't like the resultant sound? It is good or not? Yes AND no. Hence the problem and the constant bickering. Somethings can be universally accepted as good but it doesn't mean people will like it. There are lots of "good" people that I wouldn't want to live with with. Are they still good? I don't like them. They are good unless I equate like with good. In which case they are not good. Or taking driving. Everyone considers themselves to be a good or above average driver (amazing, huh?). The problem is everyone follows a different set of manners and rules that are largely incompatible or mutually exclusive from each other.
see the problem?
The orginal premise is shooting to see if we (and people) can agree to compare things on a apples-to-apple basis. This will not be possible. The original premise also states us to choose are preference and defend it.
In my case this depends on the goal. If I'm evaluating the stereo for me, then only my perceptions matter. I like my distorting tube amps and crackly vinyl. Soemone else can keep their squeakly clean, Stepford Wife of a digital/transitor system to themselves. That's their business. If I'm evaluating something to for sake of comparing, then I'll judge the system itself and attempt to use some sort of common language to describe or rate it. Therefore I can "describe" or "rate" it to be good. But if I'm going to "judge" it as good, then enter the listener biases.
That's my take. Tennis anyone? Not for me. I play racquetball.
Great post, by the way.