What is a high end stereo SUPPOSED to sound like?

I agree, an interesting article. I enjoyed the criteria for diagnosing audio nervosa, but I was even more interested in their proposed "Comparison by Contrast" method of evaluating audio equipment...

...play a larger number of recordings of vastly different styles and recording technique on two different systems to hear which system reveals more differences between the recordings.

According to Norwitz and Qvortrup, whichever system reveals larger differences among recordings is the more accurate system. And the more accurate the system, the more it conveys a recording's uniqueness...

Only if your audio system is designed to be as accurate as possible -- that is, only if it is dedicated to high contrast reproduction -- can it hope to recover the uniqueness of any recorded musical performance.

I wish I had known about that article when I wrote my very first post on Audiogon, in which I said...

How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Here’s an answer I’ve been kicking around: Your system is becoming more neutral whenever you change a system element and you get the following results:

(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique.
(2) Your music collection sounds more diverse.

That comment ignited a firestorm of argument reaching 396 posts. It was a bit of a shock for a total newbie.

N & Q use the word 'accuracy,' whereas I used the word 'neutrality,' but our meanings are essentially identical, as is our proposed method for evaluating systems. It's an interesting case of Multiple Discovery.

Bryon

Reflecting back on something so long ago is always fun. FWIW I'm still very comfortable with the term 'resolution' I preferred as expressed in my first post. But we need not go back there again. :-)

I agree that if your rig is capable of revealing the differences recording to recording with great nuance, for better or for worse, then that is most likely what a high end stereo should sound like.

Trying to make all recordings sound similarly wonderful is the sure road to audio hell. I'm pretty sure I said that or something essentially equivalent somewhere here on the forums a good while back also......

Doing that AND making it generally sound like a good simulation of something live can be done in addition but doing both together with many recordings is an even bigger challenge.

The article from enjoy the music is a good read and thought provoking. I'm not sure I agree with a couple of points , though: first, the notion that what live music sounds like is irrelevant, and second, that the system should be 'accurate' to the recording. As to the first, I think alot of equipment evaluations occur in a 'bubble,' comparing one piece of gear to another. If you spend enough time in clubs listening to acoustic music or bands that are not overamplified through PA systems (of course, with electric guitar and bass, you are going to hear some amplification 'live'), you realize that many expensive hi-fi systems are overblown. Real bass doesn't always have 'slam' and the high frequencies of a cymbal are not always 'splashy' in that super hyped-up way that you hear via some recordings. I do think knowing what real instruments sound like is relevant. Whether that is an accurate benchmark is another question, since unless you were in the venue hearing the performance later reduced to a recording, you cannot judge whether the reproduction approximates that particular live performance. And, of course, there is the recording process in the midst of this as well. An awful lot of stuff is closely miked and multi-tracked, so you get an artificially created sound. Granted, if the system is reproducing that accurately, you are going to hear that artificiality more clearly. (Different acoustic from the vocal booth, the sound of different mikes or their limitations, etc.) Trying to determine if the system accurately reproduces what is on the recording presents the same difficulty as determining what the 'original' performance sounded like in the studio (if indeed, there was a performance, rather than a bunch of different tracks being overlaid on top of each other at different times).
Me, I quit listening for particular attributes, like 'soundstaging,' or 'definition,' or 'full bandwidth.' As I mentioned above, these are only different facets of the reproduction system. Many systems can do one or several of these things well, and may satisfy a listener who is focused on that particular attribute, e.g. 'soundstage' or 'image,'' but that, to me, is not necessarily the equivalent of delivering a fully satisfying musical experience into my listening room. None of us can discount the effects of our room, even if we have spent considerable sums having the room designed and built by professionals. So, at the end of the day, does it sound lively, natural, musical and engaging? I've heard limited bandwidth systems that can engage on that level that suffer from limitations in other attributes, but are more musically satisfying. Is that accurate? Doubtful.

I would say the sound of live music is relevant as a reference for what music really sounds like but the reality is that a recording (and the venue we play it in) is not the same as a live performance.

I do not have a problem saying that the system should be "accurate" to the recording.

I also have no problem saying that a high end stereo may do certain things to these ends very well but not others. Better in that case practically to be an error of omission I would say. That way small but otherwise good monitors for example can rightfully be regarded as "high end".