Without taking sides, I think any such discussion is doomed to failure and flame unless you first quantify and agree to your definition of the term "Quality Sound" as keeps getting referenced. It doesn't have to be be the "true" definition, just the definition you agree on to use for the purpose of this particular discussion.

Without that established, it remains completely subjective and the discussion is doomed.

The second challenge is how can groups ever agree on a definition?
- Graphs of frequency sweeps are measurable and thus one could agree a certain graph (flat or otherwise) is the goal. The problem is the 'otherwise' part will again be subjective unless you can form an unlikely consensus.

- Distortion levels? Yes, tube amps introduce distortion by nature but many human brains find the effect pleasurable, others remain purists. Again, taste is subjective.

- As close to 'the real thing' as possible. Perhaps this can be agreed to as a goal but again, opinions differ. Does that mean as close to a flat graph as possible? Maybe for some but not for others. What about the environment. A mid range hump might be just the thing to create realism in one room while it colors the music too much in another. Is the environment part of the agreed to definition or not? At least the speakers must be compared against the agreed to goal in the same environment.

It's all very complex to me but I'm sure another will say it's very simple, the answer is A. But unless you can get everyone to agree on the answer as to what "Quality Sound" is, then it remains an opinion and people will disagree.

Now as to what is a good business case for Axiom? That has a solid answer. You can have market surveys, study the competition, run the numbers. etc. etc. The problem is, sometimes even the best business minds don't know for certain until the results are in.



With great power comes Awesome irresponsibility.