What is your listening bias

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

Clueless: I believe Byron White, in his pre-judicial football days, was nicknamed The Whizzer. And wasn't it Potter Stewart who said he couldn't define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it?

Bomarc: Hey, I was improvising.
I think Justice Earl "Ears" Warren (His friends called him "Ears") also referred to this issue as Cadence, Rhythm And Pace (CRaP) but I can't remember the case for sure...maybe it was Potter Stewart. Anyway, I can't figure it all out.

Sincerely,I remain

Clueless-- you're assessment of PRaT fits for me too, ie I know what it is when I hear it, but don't know if I could define it. It certainly is an emotional component of much of the music I listen too, and when it's "there", it makes me want to get up and dance-- slow or fast. You're right too in that it has to be an inherent part of the music (recording). Occasionally as I've attempted up-grades, I've temporarily "lost it" and of course panicked. It's a characteristic of some music that I value highly, and so have become very sensitive about it. Cheers. Craig