What is your listening bias

Good question. Here's my two cents.

What's important - that I'm listening to good music.

Where won't I compromise - I won't listen to bad music.

Live music is basically irrelevant. Most of the music I listen to does not have a direct live equivalent. It's multitrack studio product. The best I can hope to reproduce is the control room mix. A reproduction of a reproduction.

System voicing - I use digital EQ for both room correction and tonal shaping.

Science vs. My Own Ears - I would hope that the designers of the equipment I've purchased have solid engineering backgrounds and are capable of making reliable and cost effective electronic products. I trust my own ears to assemble and setup these components.
After 20 years in this hobby I've come to the conclusion that audiophile minutae shouldn't get in the way of the enjoyment of good music. However, if pressed, I'll admit that dynamics and an even tonal balance are important.

My listening bias? A case of Becks and Ketel Vodka, what else?

With regard to #1 (do I seek soundstage, tone, transparency or dynamics): I seek them all and attain none. Sometimes I do not know what it even means. For example, with regard to soundstage, I recently spent a good part of one night discussing how wide a quartet should sound. It really depends on where you sit (does a quartet have one soundstage?). If you are more than 30 rows back the soundstage of a quartet can be narrow or wide indeed (depending on the venue). If you take a chair in perfect position, well, the live soundstage is quite different. I have heard imaging reproduced on my system consistently that is almost unobtainable in a live setting. I guess it is possible if you sit right in the middle of the quartet. I was told that is because of the placing of the microphones and the intelligence of the producer. On the other hand, I have never heard a system reproduce the tone or dynamics of a quartet live. I believe it's impossible and almost futile to pursue. On the other hand, maybe the batteries are just low in my boombox.

If you listen to electric music the quality of tone can be reproduced and even improved. After all the music is electric to begin with.

Question 2 (where do I compromise): I comprimise everywhere or would be hopelessly neurotic.

Question 3: (mnestic value of live music?? - first epigone and now mnestic - I'm wearing out my dictionary!):Well, I listened to John Hiatt live recently with Sonny Landreth backing up on slide and John sounds better on my system at home with regard to imaging and tone. The dynamics of the live concert are better and I think we owe that to those lovely compressed cds. I think this is common with electric music unless you have a very special venue and live production. On the other hand, I heard Michael Brecker do a live set recently, much of it solo sax in a nice venue, and its impossible to reproduce it in any way - same with your fiddles and oboes Detlof - but we have to keep trying.

Question 4 ( how far will I go to reach my goals?): The room I listen in has its own limitations and I have spent about as much as I am going to. I almost feel guilty/stupid spending more. It is impossible to recreate live non-electric music (IMHO) and in our lifetime we may as well get use to it and just enjoy the music and not obsess on sound.

Question 5 (trust science or your ears): Trust neither and Use both. My ears have tricked me many times. I've listened to many systems unable to tell, at first, if the room was poor, or if the speakers were misplaced, or the amp or speaker had old or inadequate caps ... ect ect ect. Had to use my head and a little science/math/reading to find out. People who rely on ONLY their ears will never understand what they are listening to and what is creating the sound. They are likely to spend vast amounts on the wrong thing and the latest gimmick (which will go unnamed). Folks who use only science and formulas will never have a very good sound system. I like to make speakers and all the people I admire and immulate (George Short, Lynn Olson) know all the formulas and science and end up doing the final tweaking by ear. Modern science has rested on the idea of testing theory with experiments and results for several centuries now. I think the whole either/or debate is unproductive.

Sincerely, I remain

I find much to agree with in the above responses, but I do have my own biases:
1. I want what I judge to be accurate vocal timbre maybe first and foremost, and that pretty much provides for correct tonal balance. If music quality/character is to deviate from accurate, I prefer it to err on the side of slightly rich and slightly warm as opposed to cool, lean, or analytical.
2.I like such stereo artifacts as soundstaging, but I will give it up for a strong, coherent, stereo image, and I'm absolutely not willing to sacrifice PRaT-- I gotta have good rhythm for the music that I really like. I'm also not willing to compromise on accurate vocal timbre. As my HF hearing is somewhat "compromised", I really enjoy good (but not exaggerated) bass. I have low tolerance for poor quality bass, ie soft, slow, loose, sloppy, and I was willing to pay the price in my choice of speakers to get what I perceive as excellent bass.
3. No clue as to what mnestic is-- it's not in my WNW dictionary-- please define-- thanks.
4. I now realize that I'm willing to go "quite a way" in system voicing to get what I want, eg, I just listened to a friends system in a large room with vaulted ceiling and 3.6 Mag. speakers (good front end w/SACD & CD). He listens to classical, opera, choral, and some jazz, and his system has almost no bass. Then I listened to some of my "low brow" music on his system-- Blues & Soul, R&R, and some favorite bass heavy New Age. Well, IMO his system sounded terrible with my music, and I'd rather not listen than use it. I think we agreed to agree that he likes his system with his music, and I like my system with my music-- they are dramatically different.
5. Next to the actual recording, the speaker/room interface is the most important part of any given stereo system IMO (assuming decent quality components and matching). I rely on the integrity of high end designers to keep their products near neutral. Steve McCormack being a good example of this. And as I know very little about electronics, I relied totally on my hearing in putting my system together. And I feel I've been very successful in doing this-- at least I really enjoy music played through it. I have no control over the recordings except to only buy/keep those that I like. Thanks for the difficult and thought provoking thread. Cheers. Craig

As a follow up: I agree with Garfish on vocals and well the whole 300-6khz range. I love bass and highs and you need it all but they always say the human ear is most sensitive to the vocal frequencies due to evolution or something. I agree. But I get stuck on PRaT. I associate that with the music and especially the performance more than the equipment. I had a turntable that I used in college as a combination pizza holder and it had some pace, rhythm & timing problems. Other than that I'm not certain I get it.

Justice Wizzard White: "I can't define PRaT, but I know it when I hear it."

Sincerely, I remain