What is a high end stereo SUPPOSED to sound like?

One thing i have been striving for recently (I go in waves of interest on hi-fi,
right now i am 'back in') is to have 'normal' records, i.e., standard pressings
of stuff, sound good, rather than just the tried and true audiophile tested
records. I've taken a serious interest in going back to older pop stuff from
the 60's and 70's as well as jazz, blues and classical records. I will still buy
the occasional 'audiophile' record- sometimes it's unavoidable because the
standard pressing is so bad (read: Lost Highway pressing of Shelby
Lynne's Dusty record or the Junior Wells Hoodoo Man Blues), but alot of
the old Warner Bros and Columbia 'standard issue' records can sound
great. I've been able to enjoy the music more, and worry less about how
good the system sounds. But, I'm at a point where the system is pretty
mature right now, no overwhelming needs, other than a new room! (Soon
to come). PS: I'm still not entirely happy with the bass, but I'm hoping that
will get sorted as part of a new room.
Good thread.

since there are many "high end" components, combinations of such components will configure stereo systems which sound different. thus there is no "high end sound", but rather many "high end" "sounds".

what is more important is that the owner enjoys what he hears.

Like music.

Mapman, you have hit the nail on the head with your last post. Everyone (not just the recording engineers) has their own idea of what the "absolute sound," or whatever you want to call it, is; in many cases, this has absolutely nothing to do with how music actually sounds in a real performance space.

Same thing goes for the concept of "neutrality" as applied to audio reproduction equipment, despite many very fine attempts to define this concept on this board, notably by Bryon Cunningham. Equipment designers do almost always have a very specific sound in mind for their equipment. Who is to say which is more "neutral?" This judgment will of course be heavily influenced by what one's concept of the "absolute sound" is. Since this concept cannot be exactly defined, "neutrality" cannot either.

This is not to say these concepts are irrelevant, but to say that they are relevant only to how each individual listener (or those having the exact same preferences) defines them for themselves.

Hi Learsfool - I value your opinion, and I always look forward to reading your posts. We've discussed the concept of 'neutrality' many times on many threads, and we can never seem to agree on what it means or whether it's a real characteristic or a figment of audiophiles' imaginations.

I understand 'neutrality' to mean 'the degree of absence of colorations.' And I understand 'colorations' to mean 'audible inaccuracies.' So my view on neutrality is simply that...

1. Systems can be judged on the basis of the degree of audible inaccuracies.

2. The reduction of audible inaccuracies often (but not always) results in greater listener enjoyment.

Statement (2) is of course subjective. Some people enjoy audible inaccuracies. And people are entitled to enjoy whatever they like.

Statement (1) is what you and I have debated over and over. I'm not trying to argue the topic of neutrality all over again. I just want to make an observation that I believe is relevant to the topic of this thread, i.e. "What is a high end stereo supposed to sound like?" In your post on 7/12, you said...

NoNoise summed up what we all wish was the case nicely: "live music is the reference for all things audio. Hopefully, during the recording process that live reference is adhered to."

Unfortunately, this is almost never the case, and most audiophiles have no idea just how much this reference is totally ignored by most recording engineers, even when they are recording a live performance in an excellent hall.

I agree with these comments. The observation I'd like to make is that these comments assume that recordings can be judged on the basis of their accuracy. That is, the accuracy of the recording relative to the live event. That is one of two kinds of “accuracy” that appear in these discussions…

3. Accuracy of the RECORDING relative to the LIVE EVENT.

4. Accuracy of the SYSTEM relative to the RECORDING.

Admittedly, these two kinds of accuracy are different, but they have something important in common: They both require the listener to compare what he hears to SOMETHING UNKNOWN. For the first kind of accuracy, the Unknown is the live event. For the second kind of accuracy, the Unknown is the recording.

When you listen to a recording of a performance you never attended, or even a studio recording, you often say to yourself, "This recording doesn’t sound right. This isn't what the performance sounded like." You are confident of that even though you weren't there at the live event. That is exactly the same leap of logic that must be made when you listen to a system and say, "This system doesn’t sound right. This isn't what the recording sounds like."

In spite of the fact that the live event and the recording are, to some extent, Unknowns, many audiophiles believe they can reasonably speculate about them. Those speculations are, of course, uncertain. But their uncertainty doesn't mean that they are altogether unreliable. Speculations about accuracy become more reliable through experience, either experience with live music or experience with playback systems.

When audiophiles form judgments about the accuracy of a recording or the accuracy of a system, they are invariably judgments about the degree of audible inaccuracies. And judgments about the degree of audible inaccuracies are, by definition, judgments about neutrality.

Bryon