Don't you find it interesting how people readily fall into the stereotypes assigned to them for a particular interest in life? You know what I mean: computer buffs always wear cardigans and TV shaped glasses that shrink to a little dot in the centre when they go to bed; hi-fi fanatics always drive black Golf GTIs; and musicians are always ruggedly handsome with long flowing locks... well, I mean.

Even more interesting, however, is the way two different groups of people look at a similar problem from entirely different and sometimes diametrically opposed perspectives. I have been interested in music all my life, both from a player's and a listener's point of view, and I find it fascinating, and sometimes annoying, that neither side can agree on what constitutes a good sound? Even I can't agree on what constitutes a good sound.

Let's start with loudspeakers. Simple, eh? Some are big and some are small. Mmmmm... Whilst a musician might consider JBLs, Tannoys, and Yamaha NS10s to be the ultimate in fidelity, when presented with these names an audiophile would not be able to stop laughing! Alternatively, when the hi-fi fan responds with Linn, Arcam, and Mordant-Short, the musician asks what the bass response is like and if they can make his ears bleed!

Amplifiers are another case in point. Quad are the musos' giant but the sensitive listener knows that while Quad were quite good in 1900, Naim and Linn rule nowadays. Digital? Give me a record any day!

Why this disparity? Does it matter? Well, I'm starting to believe that it is beginning to, particularly in the pop field.

Whilst listening to several recent record releases (tell no names, embarrass no producers), I noticed that although they sounded fine on the radio and housing-estate blaster, when listening on a 'good' hi-fi (Linn Sondek LP12/Ekos/Troika, Naim amps, Naim SPL speakers, for any one interested), several alarming things became apparent.

When vocalists started to sing I could hear the sound of noise gates opening and all the crud from exciters, reverbs, and reverse-thrust-polatrons coming through clear as day. The different vocal takes, although mixed together, were displayed in all their dubious glory, as was digital noise from various drum machines and samplers. This was all equally noticeable on my much more modestly-priced Rega III/Eroica/Naim Nait/LNB system, too, so you don't need to be a millionaire to hear it. I found many other glaring audio errors, and generally on expensively produced albums.

I think what happens is that studios invest lots and lots of cash and time in choosing Synclaviers, SSL desks, Lexicon reverbs and the rest of the wonderful toys which allow us to have big fun in the studio. They spend less on those boring bits, such as room acoustics and monitoring. Older albums do not seem to suffer as much from such abberations. Alright, there's the occasional creaking chair and rude word, but no god awful digital screech. Strangely enough, these errors are less noticeable on CD.

I agree that studio monitoring needs certain attributes that domestic monitoring may not; extreme loudness and the ability of the speakers not to blow up, while remaining clear at volume, is essential. A Naim amplifier driving Linn Isobarik loudspeakers have all these characteristics, too; a Quad amp with JBL speakers may go as loud but doesn't sound as clear at any volume! The old chestnut of 'flat response' doesn't tread water here, as I've never heard a studio monitor that even approaches this ideal. In fact, such a speaker would probably sound so boring that even Jason Donovan fans would fall asleep!

One of the reasons for this anomaly is in the way the two camps think. Engineers like to back up sound quality with facts: wow and flutter, frequency response, and the ability to withstand a one megaton nuclear explosion at ground zero. (Or even Motorhead.) The needs of the audiophile are more ephemeral. They talk of 'musicality' and the effect the equipment has on the ability to 'perceive' the music. "Oh yes, I've just bought a Quark three-way thongle which sounds great if I nail my mother to the ground and stick a piece of sellotape on the TV aerial every Tuesday." I jest not. There is a hi-fi connoisseur whose suggestions for improving the performance of stereo systems includes placing bits of black sticky stuff at various intimate positions on your record player. I myself can heartily recommend 'Q-Tips' as the ultimate audio accessory. One quick wipe of the outer ear and just listen to the improvement!

Sometimes all this can get out of hand. I know of several listeners who have no knowledge of how music is recorded, but who spend ages and thousands of pounds trying to get the most natural sound from discs recorded using samples processed through aural exciters and digital reverbs!

I feel that what is needed is a monitoring system which allows all the little details to be heard (eg. dirty great mains hum by deaf engineer) and of a similar tonal quality to those loudspeakers found in domestic situations. This will really annoy those people who think an ideal system consists of tri-amped Quested monitors cemented into the side of the Great Wall of China.

Of course, none of this applies to specialist musak such as Aceeeeeed and Hip-Hop, which is designed to sound right only on 18" bass speakers and buzz-saw tweeters. An album like A Walk Across The Rooftops, by The Blue Nile, is an example of a recording which uses all the paraphernalia of modern music-making: samplers, beat boxes, and drainpipes. It was produced using a monitoring system that would make most hi-fi fans drool — and not an audible glitch in sight! Of course, this may explain why their second album has been six years in the making.

When I was a working musician — or more accurately a mostly non-working musician — I was appalled by the quality of the hi-fi systems owned by engineers, producers, and A&R men. Most were amazed by the quality of even a modestly priced system, when I could persuade them to stop drinking and listen. Even more were astounded by how good vinyl could be, when played on a decent record player. Superlatives were not enough when I told them how many records I could sell if they gave me the chance. Well, actually, they used expletives... "Sod off", to be exact.

Producing a mix to suit all types of playback systems is difficult. I know. I try. Perhaps records should contain warnings: 'Do not play on a hi-fi!' 'Listen on a Walkperson only!' 'Warning! Low sample rate used!' 'Danger. This record contains notes played by Stevie Vai. Do not use when people of a nervous disposition are present!'

I guess it's all a matter of balance. Okay Mr Producer, mix your sound on those big concrete pillars, tiny radio speakers and ghetto-blasters, but please spare a thought for all of us with stereos capable of extracting every little grimace from the disc. Just a little more care and a little less 'bass 'n' treble' would do us all a world of good.

Stephen Bennett has given up trying to get his band The Fire Thieves signed by a record company. When not recording in his home studio, he can now be found working in a specialist hi-fi centre in Norwich.