What is a high end stereo SUPPOSED to sound like?

Great point Mapman. I listen in the nearfield, allowing the illusion of virtually any perspective, according to scale, to sound convincing. Smaller, recorded venues come off more convincingly but the larger ones satisfy as well.

It also helps to turn off the analytical part of my brain when the spatial cues are convincing enough to warrant pleasure for pleasures sake. Imagination takes over and abets the process (the crime being believing something that is not).

I've also heard a better system in a larger, treated room pull it off much more convincingly. I wish I had that bigger, dedicated room to try it. It's all a trick, of sorts, and the better ones are more adept at pulling it off.

Most times, the less tricks used in a recording are the easiest to reproduce in the listening area.

All the best,
Nonoise

"High-end" has become a euphemism for expensive but I do not necessarily associate that with musically satisfying. I have heard many over the top combinations of equipment that provide an exaggerated, 'hyped up' version of reality that are neither musical nor satisfying and ultimately, aren't really 'systems' in the sense that the parts are working together effectively to create a natural sounding illusion. It may be an illusion that is more attractive, at first, but i think-long term- it would be fatiguing or simply unsatisfying. I suppose some of that is subjective, but often, in showrooms, you are supposed to be 'taken' immediately with how splashy the high frequencies sound and how deep and 'impactful' the bass is and none of this is what you typically hear with real music. There are any number of 'defining' attributes, such as 'imaging,' 'soundstage,' 'dynamics' and 'bandwidth,' but all of these describe attributes, or discrete facets of the sound, not the whole. I'm at a point where everything counts, even though all of it is a trade-off, compared to real music. (I'm not using hard rock as a benchmark, although I like it and listen to it, simply because very little of it is 'real,' in the sense of acoustic instruments or more naturally amplified ones-even in concert- lot's of distortion and over-amped drums and bass; granted a les paul played through a cranked marshall has a certain reality- but it's not the stuff i'd use to listen critically if I were trying to evaluate a system).
At best, we create an illusion that gives a level of musical satisfaction on the widest range of source material and compares favorably to what real instruments of the acoustic variety sound like. An impossible goal but one worth striving for. There are any number of approaches to get there. And i agree, the room is usually the last thing people address, when it should be the first.

I suppose it all boils down to how expensive to achieve musically satisfying?

The answer of course is: it all depends...on a lot of things!

_ _

\__/

Spot on about how the highs and lows grab you when you first enter a "high end" showroom. It's akin to what you see when evaluating TVs: settings that look great but permanently burn out the rods and cones in the back of your eye if you look long enough.

On another thread I stated just how much I'm now enjoying my CDP just by swapping out some ICs. Enough to stop listening to my iMac. All the little things you allude to besides the highs and lows that grab your attention come into play now. Gone is the indistinct, the vague, the missing, replaced by all the pertinent cues that make it seem all the more realistic. My speaker 'seems' to go lower though I know it doesn't. It just now has all the cues necessary to complete the picture of an upright bass, realistically.

Ambient cues like hands gently tapping and strumming along on instruments,
musicians preparing to play as they adjust their hands on their instruments, entering lightly before playing forcefully. There are times now where I swear I can almost discern body language or position as they play.

Spooky times indeed.

I've gotten to where, due to my listening room, I prefer these type of cues and sounds to whether or not I have that giant recreation of an orchestra's venue. Even from an orchestra, one can catch these kinds of cues, making it more convincing, for me. The rest I can fill out in my mind, overlooking the obvious.

All the best,
Nonoise

I agree that highs and lows are nice but overrated. :-)

Most of what is going on in music occurs elsewhere. Highs and lows can be the icing on the cake but not the initial key to basic enjoyment.

I do find that a large 3-D soundstage along with the rest can help with clutter and enable the listener to better discern what is going on in a more detailed and lifelike manner.

OF course, its all relative. ITs similar to where a smaller HD TV with 3-D might suffice in a smaller room or watching from a closer distance whereas a larger screen is needed generally to see the same details from more of a distance.