what is good sound ?


when evaluating stereo systems, should the performance of the stereo system itself be the reference point, or should the listener be the basis for the evaluation ?

if the instrinsic quality of sound is the basis for judgment, then such concepts as transparency, neutrality or accuracy might be the standard for evaluation.

otherwise, the listener would be the sole judge and whatever criterion, be it based upon sonic considerations or physiological/psychological states, would be the deciding factor.

whatever approach is selected, what is the justification for either one ?
mrtennis
hi phd:

my thought behind this question is the reference for the answer. should it be the perfromance of the stereo system itself, judged by the usual criteria, or purely whether the listener likes the sound or not, regardless of the reasons ?

if the latter, then i suspect there would be many disagreements as to good sound, if the former, i suspect there would be more convergence. what say you ?
Well, I say one more round of drinks and then on to business. Mrtennis, on the more serious side, it is both. Remove either the stereo system or the listener and you have no evaluation.
Mr T, your question is as unanswereable as the question 'What makes for good music' Is it the technical prowess of the musicians or personal taste as to the melody, harmony, rythm etc..
Unanswerable. Heard that before? I love my rig and think it's better than good, but you may not think so...Our audiophoolish ears just don't appreciate equally....just finished Swann's Way. Much easier to write a treatise on Proust's way than answer your question. And least, one is answerable.....
i think the thread is asking a basic question which can be asked of other endeavors, namely, are there objective standards for evaluating quality or is it all subjective, in which case, it's just a matter of opinion ?

i would like to have a rational discussion, if anyone is interested.