What is a high end stereo SUPPOSED to sound like?

Practically, and in an objective manner consistent with modern best practices for effectively leveraging technology, I would define high end by applying the 80/20 rule therefore a high end system must practically be in the top 20% and better than 80% of the systems out there overall.

Ok, so now you have to define what "better" means. That of course will involve different strokes for different folks.

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Does it really matter what "high end " means? Maybe the whole concept should just be dumped.

I'd rather answer in terms of what it's supposed to feel like. You can hear a song from someone like Eva Cassidy on a low end system and like it for the beautiful lyrics. You can hear the same song on a higher end system and feel it in your soul. Of course, it has to be a good song. If the dynamics are there and the sound stage is there and the clarity is there and you can hear every nuance including the breathing and the decay of the notes -- those things and others combine to ignite your emotions at a different level. Low end systems can certainly elicit an emotional response based on the quality of the song but great stereos wrench you like nothing other than live music can. With a great stereo, you don't want to leave the experience.

Bryon and Almarg, are you suggesting lack of neutrality includes any and all perceivable kinds of distortion? If you are, then can we not use "the alternate", aka, accuracy? If we can, then It seems you've summed up this thread. I believe you have. But don't stop now.

Well said Ozfly. I totally agree.

Bryon and Almarg, are you suggesting lack of neutrality includes any and all perceivable kinds of distortion? If you are, then can we not use "the alternate", aka, accuracy?

The word 'neutrality' means different things to different people. I use the word to mean 'the degree of absence of colorations.' And I use the word 'colorations' to mean 'audible inaccuracies.'

My use of the term 'neutrality' is limited to the degree of absence of AUDIBLE inaccuracies. But of course some inaccuracies are inaudible, either because they are outside the scope of human perception or beneath the threshold of individual perception. So the word 'accuracy' can't be substituted for 'neutrality' without a significant shift in meaning.

IMO, another useful way of thinking about the difference between the concept of 'accuracy' vs. the concept of 'neutrality' is this... Accuracy is objective, i.e. 'inaccuracy' refers to various kinds of distortions, many of which can be measured, and all of which exist whether we hear them or not. Neutrality is partly subjective, i.e. 'colorations' refers to various kinds of sonic "signatures," many of which can be heard by some listeners but not others, either because of differences in listener hearing or differences in listener expertise.

IMO, the concept of 'accuracy,' as it's commonly used by audiophiles, is a higher-level concept that subsumes the concepts of 'resolution' and 'neutrality.' In other words, resolution and neutrality are both TYPES OF ACCURACY. Resolution can be thought of as the accuracy of the reproduced SIGNAL, whereas neutrality can be thought of as the accuracy of the reproduced DISTORTION. Some high end systems are highly resolving but not very neutral. Others are highly neutral but somewhat less resolving. Which is preferable is of course largely subjective.

Bryon