What is a high end stereo SUPPOSED to sound like?

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

07-14-12: Bryoncunningham
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.

As in the Neutrality thread of 2009, I am in complete agreement with Bryon's comments and analysis, as summed up nicely in these two paragraphs. His well constructed analysis seems to me to be self-evident.

Best regards,
-- Al

Great conversation we are having here.

May I add this?
This neutrality we are talking about, ie: the absence of audible inaccuracies, be it captured at the live event, at the recorded event, or at the listener event (our system), can be ascertained better than we give our senses credit for.

All of our lives are spent honing these senses so it becomes second nature. Evolution has its advantages: it works.. Our aural memories are, I feel, much more accurate than we give them credit for.

I've always taken exception to reviewers who qualify a review with the caveat that it's been too long for a valid comparison when we've always used memory sensed events to make opinions. Why stop with audio? (maybe as a basis for an argument?) I feel most reviewers don't want to be held liable for a variety of reasons (you said this, now that) yet they can always be counted on to wax poetically over an older system they had, how they should have kept it, etc.

Therefore, I feel that we can know (recognize) accuracy when we hear it. When it's real enough to make us stop and take notice, to look over there, to visualize the event, to sit transfixed, spellbound, or hooked for the moment.

Doubting Thomas we should not be. The neutrality we are hearing is there. The frustrating thing is the differing amounts of neutrality we hear. The clues and cues are there, in one form or another, both in amounts small and large. It's just that the entire event isn't entirely neutral (I believe that to be impossible) which adds to frustration and doubt, and leads us to tinker, tweak and upgrade.

Certainty aside, I'm certain of this. :-)

All the best,
Nonoise

I tend to agree that we may underestimate our ability to remember what things sound like. Our senses are powerful tools when tuned in and assessed objectively. Regardless, each person's individual senses are all we each can really depend on.