What is a high end stereo SUPPOSED to sound like?

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.

I understand the point made above on speculating about a recording and drawing conclusions about neutrality. I've talked with recording engineers about records and been amazed about the insights they have into how they think the recording was made. To state the obvious, a highly skilled person will have more informed insights than a lay person. At the same time it is still just speculation and even highly skilled engineers or listeners can be wrong about what is going on in a recording. Any conclusions drawn from speculation are very suspect.

If cognitive psychology has taught us anything it is that memory is highly variable and sensory perception is easily manipulated. One of the most common phrases stated on internet audio forums is "trust your ears". I'm not disputing the statement, but "trust, but verify" makes even more sense.

Understood.

I've read where Steve Hoffman stated that old master tapes that were made off of tube equipment cannot be simply remastered with silicon based equipment. It will not sound right. Various types of software has to be used. And it has to be done right, according to what the engineer thinks is right.

The best we can do, being laymen, is be as true to the recording as possible, recreating it as accurately as possible. That is not to say that we can't recognize when something is right, or accurate or neutral sounding, based on our memories, faulty as they are said to be.

Manipulation can work if intended and done properly. I don't believe that's the intention of the recording engineer and another story.

But to recall or recognize when something is accurate, based on memory, should be easy enough. A recording of a lion, behind me, wouldn't scare me but a real one, not heard decades ago, would make me sh*t my pants.

Trying to convince others here that what we are hearing is where the rubber misses the road. I still say that there are enough good examples of neutrality that get through on a recording to make it convincing.

All the best,
Nonoise

I especially like this part of Drubin's response:
"draws you into the music, makes the emotional connection."