I don't think most people just park themselves in front of the "hifi" and listen any more; they're using the music as background, or dancing, or singing along, or driving; not concentrating on the music "experience". There's just too many alternatives competing for our time.

And the fact is, that if there's a song or classical piece you like, you enjoy it no matter what; "Stravinsky is still Stravinsky when you experience him through a $10 pair of earbuds." indeed. or as Steve Miller put it, "You can play your music on a ten cent comb". The key to a good stereo or audio reproduction system or whatever they call it now is, do you like listening to it, to music that you don't otherwise care for particularly (although not actually hate)? if it takes you "into the music" and grabs your attention, then it's a good stereo. if you just sit there thinking "why am I listening to this crap?" it's not. And that experience widens your horizons, rather than just feeding back to you what you already know.

That's why when I did have a high-end stereo, it consisted of two 500-watt monoblocks and a pair of 2-way towers, with twin 6.5 inch woofers. Ultra inefficient, but the quality of the stereo image was just phenomenal. I agree, many people have not actually experience a good soundfield, and don't understand what stereo imaging is... an illusion that draws you into the music. Those who do understand are the ones willing to spend the money for the experience. If listening to a stereo has never given you goosebumps, you don't understand.

That's an interesting point. My wife is not a big Eagles fan to begin with, and was sick to death of Hotel California, in particular, but when she heard my DCC gold disc on my fairly decent system (I was running Celestion C2s at the time) she actually found herself listening to the song for the first time in years, as opposed to just hearing it.