What is a high end stereo SUPPOSED to sound like?

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."

Hi guys - some great comments. A couple more of my own, in response.

Bryon wrote: "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. " One of these kinds of accuracies Bryon mentioned was "Accuracy of the RECORDING relative to the LIVE EVENT."

My comment on this is that in many cases (though of course not all), for a performing musician, unlike for the vast majority of listeners, this accuracy is NOT an unknown. This ties in with some of Onhwy61's comments: "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." One can easily add the performers to that list.

I would also agree with Nonoise and Mapman when they say that many listeners do underestimate their ability to remember what things sound like, especially when one tries very consciously to make this effort (for instance, attending a concert live in a hall in which you have some recordings of, and then listening to the recordings afterwards to compare).

That said, another point I wanted to comment on - first, my comments that Bryon quoted for reference:

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.

Bryon wrote:
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.

Though I understand the point you are making in your post, I would certainly quibble with this statement a little. My position would be that a recording can never truly capture a live event, so therefore it would never be completely accurate, which is why "neutrality" is a very subjective concept, not an absolute. As I said before, this does not mean it is not a useful concept, for an individual listener.

The point I was trying to make is that many audiophiles assume that most engineers are indeed trying to exactly recapture a live event, when in fact, the vast majority would not even think of trying - it wouldn't even occur to them. Their goal is to make their recordings "sound good." Especially with the digitally done recording nowadays, all sorts of alterations (such as added reverb, to name one of the most common) are routinely made even to recordings done in the finest of acoustic environments. No two engineers would make recordings that sounded alike of the same live event. Judging which one came closer to the actual sound between two excellent ones would be very subjective - there are simply far too many variables involved, which different people will rank differently in their priorities.

I don't write anywhere near as clearly as Bryon, but hopefully the above is reasonably clear.

Clear as an unmuddied lake, clear as a sky of azure blue (loved A Clockwork Orange).

Very few recordings go for the real, live event. Even those that are sold as live.
All that mixing and effects introduced to what the engineer, artist or label is after. Esoteric labels like MA and Mapleshade, which use minimalist recording techniques, come to mind and there are others that can be used as a reference of sorts.

I remember back when I got my Legacy Classics. The owner of the pair I auditioned knew Steve Hoffman and he had a copy of a Nat King Cole CD that was mastered incorrectly. Hoffman did it as real as possible and the CD came out only to be pulled from the shelves by the Nat King Cole estate since they had to have a certain amount of reverb in them. That CD made it sound like Nat was in the room with you. The one with the reverb didn't. Boy did I try to find a copy of that CD.

All the best,
Nonoise

So, is it fair to say that, since we are rarely in a position to compare a recording of a live event with the live event (even having been there depends on memory and seating location) and studio recordings are typically manipulated, that the ultimate test of a good system is how real the instruments sound, compared to our experience of what such instruments sound like in a live environment?