What is a high end stereo SUPPOSED to sound like?

I'll buy Foster's answer.

Very good.

Doesn't matter. As long as it sounds very good, say well above average, to the guy or gal who paid and is listening, it is high end to me.

I suppose it is also high end if it costs way above average as well, but that alone does not assure that it sounds way above average as well, so cost alone does not mean it sounds like high end which is what the OP is asking.

"Nothing" would infer no effects from room acoustics. Is that what a high end stereo system is supposed to sound like? I am not sure about that. How would spatial queues captured in the recording be delivered to the ears accurately? Can a sound even be truly "high end" without delivering these accurately to some extent?

Inquiring minds want to know...

"If your system can recreate that "you are there" effect or "they are here" effect, then you are knocking on high ends door. Just don't expect this effect all the time since most recordings aren't made that well."

"You are there" versus "they are here" is a tricky one but a topic worth some additional analysis and discussion in order to understand what is possible and what is not practically in this regard.

Bryon hit the key point when he mentioned that sound is inherently omnidirectional. As such it is also inherently a 3 dimensional (actually 4 including time) phenomenon.

The reality of home playback of recordings that capture the spatial queues of what was performed live is that the acoustics of the room we listen in is never the same as where the recording was made. One of the biggest difference is often that of scale, ie a musical event in a large venue, like a symphony orchestra now occurs in a smaller one, your room. The original scale of what occurred cannot be matched accordingly in this case, but what can happen is an accurate "scale model" of the original can be reproduced in room at the smaller scale required.

Often if the scale of the source and target listening venues match, like say a small club setting to a decent sized listening room, the best results are possible in terms of accurately reproducing the original at the same scale.

So this is just one prime example of how recorded music can still sound like teh original live event if everything is done well. Often though, the best one can hope for is an accurate scale model of what was captured in the recording.

The perspective of the music from your listening position then comes into play as well. Sitting closer to the speakers might result in a perspective of the scaled down performance that makes it relatively seem as large as original (Hollywood plays this kind of trick all the time using scale models or CGI equivalents viewed from proper close perspective to make them seem as large as life).

I suppose it all boils down to how expensive to achieve musically satisfying?

The answer of course is: it all depends...on a lot of things!

_ _

\__/

I agree that highs and lows are nice but overrated. :-)

Most of what is going on in music occurs elsewhere. Highs and lows can be the icing on the cake but not the initial key to basic enjoyment.

I do find that a large 3-D soundstage along with the rest can help with clutter and enable the listener to better discern what is going on in a more detailed and lifelike manner.

OF course, its all relative. ITs similar to where a smaller HD TV with 3-D might suffice in a smaller room or watching from a closer distance whereas a larger screen is needed generally to see the same details from more of a distance.

I also agree with The Duke!

Well, if its expensive, it should also sound pretty darn good.

Aren't expensive things supposed to be better?

Socrates,

That's a fantastic article. One of the best I've seen on the topic.

Audio hell indeed! Stay away!!!

I hope to see more and more "born again" audiophiles after reading that!

I agree that if your rig is capable of revealing the differences recording to recording with great nuance, for better or for worse, then that is most likely what a high end stereo should sound like.

Trying to make all recordings sound similarly wonderful is the sure road to audio hell. I'm pretty sure I said that or something essentially equivalent somewhere here on the forums a good while back also......

Doing that AND making it generally sound like a good simulation of something live can be done in addition but doing both together with many recordings is an even bigger challenge.

I would say the sound of live music is relevant as a reference for what music really sounds like but the reality is that a recording (and the venue we play it in) is not the same as a live performance.

I do not have a problem saying that the system should be "accurate" to the recording.

I also have no problem saying that a high end stereo may do certain things to these ends very well but not others. Better in that case practically to be an error of omission I would say. That way small but otherwise good monitors for example can rightfully be regarded as "high end".

I suspect audio engineers want their work to stand out just like most pros so they all do their own thing as best we can.

Recording what a live performance sounds like was cool and cutting edge back in the 50s but probably pretty passe and non distinguishing these days.

They are artists in theif own right like Monet, Picasso, etc. Artists create, not reproduce in general.

Audiophiles love to battle their rooms to improve room acoustics. Sometimes, certain battles can be won but in the end the room is what it is unless of course you totally change it into something else. That's true of live venues and studios during production and our rooms at home during playback.

Room acoustics can and generally are conquered to the extent needed to SIMULATE a live sound in your room, but what you get is more off an abstract Monet determined largely by room acoustics than an accurate reproduction of what things sounded like originally.

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.

"but what you get is more off an abstract Monet determined largely by room acoustics"

Actually room acoustics and the recording production process together determine what a recording will sound like in your room and how "lifelike".

A "high end system" should be capable of fooling you with the right recording playing more times than not I would say. But in all cases it should remain true to the recording.

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.

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.

IT should sound:

enjoyable, exhilarating, powerful, delicate, enthralling.

A lot like good live music but not exactly the same.

Basically, you can't get enough!

It should not sound:

dull, boring, distorted, irritating.

Like some live music.

Basically, it either captures you or not. Its an emotional thing in the end that is enabled by technology.

I think the key is understanding that listening to music is largely an emotional experience. Everything else is just a means to that end.

Down deep, most audiophiles are driven by emotion as much as anything else. We're a bunch of emotional softies at heart.

Even Audiofeil!

o--o
\__/

"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.

HEy, Whart summaarized and nailed it pretty well I would say!

"Get the basics right first, room, good AC power, and then its more in the nature of synergies among the equipment, including the cable. "

HEy, how about also getting the right fuse????

o--o

\__/