What is a high end stereo SUPPOSED to sound like?

Mrtennis, true.

We all got into this hobby just for the enjoyment of being able to enjoy music for musics sake.

It's only when we learned of better ways to achieve that goal that led us down the path of our present condition.

All the best,
Nonoise

Since we have now defined what a high end system sounds like, maybe we can decide when or at what price point does the high end begin. For instance, for a system consisting of speakers, amps and a cd player, assuming an adeqate room and wire etc..., using MSRP for new equipment, how cheaply can you enter the 'high-end'?

Thanks for the responses. I'll admit to being pretty confused right now. On the one hand, my experience and that of many people I know confirm a stronger emotional response when listening to great music on a great stereo. Perhaps the message is less blurred or perhaps it's a more compelling, less distracting experience. It is a more transcendent experience that adds emotional magic to what was already an emotional response based on the song itself. On the other hand, many smart people here make a case that the total emotional response and the quality of the stereo are independent of one another and they have never experienced a different response to a song whether played on a boom box or a fine stereo. I'm very puzzled since I am now hearing two different things from different groups of people whom I trust. That's OK. No need to resolve the differences. I'm puzzled by many things in life.

That leads me to some questions though. Apart from the pride one achieves by doing things right and solving the difficult problems of compiling a great system, is this hobby strictly a cognitive exercise? Improving systems simply moves toward certain sonic goals without any change in emotional response to the music being played?

"is this hobby strictly a cognitive exercise? Improving systems simply moves toward certain sonic goals without any change in emotional response to the music being played? "

That's a good question!

I do not see it that way at all but I do not doubt it is sometimes the case.

One instance I recall recently was reading the recent online review of Capital Audiofest last weekend by Stereophile. I definitely got this impression that the writer was listening for some specific sound and that was his main focus for reasons unknown.

I recall in one room at CAF having a total emotional response to a demo that put it way over with me. Yes, part was the material being played but the system delivered in spades. I have read others including the gentleman from Stereophile found that particular system "needed work". Maybe. But no mention of anything resembling my experience. Maybe the wrong music was demoed in these other cases? Perhaps. A lot of demo music there was nice acoustic jazz and classical but nothing familiar that would be more likely to register in a more emotional way with me.

It's impossible to define an emotional response, because it is so subjective and cannot be correlated to the normal objective criteria associated with evaluating equipment. Newbee's plight- listening to the system, rather than the music, is a common one- and a trap i have fallen into myself. (My way out of that is to get the system to a level that surpasses my expections, through a combination of equipment selection, room treatment and tweaking and then just sit back and enjoy- sure I do 'reality checks' and sometimes get neurotic- am i hearing a spurious noise, is the VTA right, should i adjust the crossover, but, at least right now, my system is working to its highest level yet, and I can enjoy the music, and worry less about the set-up).
No system is going to reproduce all records with the same level of engagement- that goes back to the earlier comments about how a good system is revealing in the differences it demonstrates between recordings.
I've been around the 'high-end' (i use that term recognizing it is both loaded and meaningless) since the early 70's and have heard expensive systems that are not engaging and modest systems that are. How to predict what combination of components works? Leaving aside the subjective elements of what the listener prefers (more analytical, more romantic, emphasis on soundstaging/bandwidth/etc.), it all comes back to the recognition of a reproducing chain, including the room itself, as part of a system. (You can include within that the recording itself, but we have little control over that).
Get the basics right first, room, good AC power, and then its more in the nature of synergies among the equipment, including the cable. How to do it predictably? Pretty hard. We have a lot of anecdotal information, including on Audiogon, about what components seem to work well with each other.
Despite the ideal that a good amp or good speaker should play equally well with other components, I'm not sure that's true. And, invariably, certain basic choices in equipment are going to dictate the associated equipment and ultimate sound. For example, I'm using horns, not everybody's cup of tea, but apart from all the other 'hi-fi' attributes, i want a sense of 'aliveness' to the system. That in turn dictates the kind of amp that best suits the speaker (an SET tube amp) and so on. Someone else may not want to make the tradeoffs I do, and desire a different set of priorities in what they perceive as ideal.
Whatever the path, the system should engage you. Not on all records- that's too much to ask, given the wide range of quality of different recordings. What's interesting to me is that as I have gotten my system to its best level of performance yet, I can enjoy lesser recordings for their music, even though I can obviously hear the difference between the lesser recording and the 'better' one.