What makes up an

Getting off the subject a bit.

Does some of the audio systems we own sound better than some live performances we hear in terms of sound quality? I know an audio hi fi system can not normally reproduce the emotion of a live performance (at least nothing I have heard personally) but does home hi fidelity sound better than a public address system?

If you attend a live rock or pop type concert in a stadium, concert/theater hall or even in a smaller club setting do you actually hear instruments separated from each other or do you only hear the sound field emitted by the PA system used?

Another consideration for home audio is that a typical room in the average home creates a close monitoring situation.

What about the equipment used for some of these live events? Are they of the same quality and price tier of equipment made for home use?

The typical PA gear you find does not seem to come near the price of the hi end audio gear.

Recording studios may be a different story. Studio gear can get into the money.

Seems to me the only time you can hear true separation is from acoustic instruments that are not amplified through a common PA system. Once electronics and amplification are applied it seems that you start losing separation except what you get through further electronic manipulation in the form of panning sound to the left or right channel.

Just my thoughts as a lay person.

After reading all the post I walk away with the following about hifi:

Hifi is not based on cost but rather more of an experience and can be achieved at low to moderate expence.

The goal to achieve is to obtain equipment that achieves high resolution, plesantly accurate tonal balance, wide dispersion and low distortion, etc. Fill in the blanks as someone said.

Regardless of the equipment we end up with, it is also at the mercy of the skill and passion of the musician/artist. Our favorite tune can sound good on transistor radio just because we enjoy the skill and passion of the musicians and yes on a hifi system it will sound that much better. It’s the song, musician’s passion and skill more than the equipment.

On the other hand human nature may kick in, which is never to be satisfied. Once we have reached the threshold of hifi we may want better. Our ears may never reach the stage where they don’t want to hear something new. It is a fundemental part of human nature to want a new experience or reach beyond to higher goals.

Thus, equipment manufacures supply our wants, desires and demands.

Now the term “budget hifi” used in the current issue of TAS is clearer to me.

All of you guys/gals are very insightful and I enjoy reading the post. Thanks.

Wait. They actually used the term "High end" budget systems. hmmm

I feel that the musicians/artist make the song pleasant to the ear. Not necessarily the equipment. As stated above in various ways in the various post, a great song on a lousy system still sounds good because of the song itself. A lousy song on great equipment is still a lousy song although the performance capability of great equipment is still evident.

For comparison sake, I believe this applies to a musical instrument also. If you put a lousy musician on a instrument of proven quality, the lousy musician will make this quality instrument sound lousy. Put a very skilled musician on a lousy instrument and the song will still sound great. Put a skilled musician on a quality instrument and it sounds even better.

This is only my opinion as one who listens to and appreciates music.

Is there a general agreement that the term "budget high end" gear is a legitimate term for inexpensive gear that crosses over the threshold of hifi sound?