There Is Nothing Like the Real Thing - Our State of the Art

I believe this very subject is the purpose of Princeton's Bacch projects, which have been commercialized by Theoretica. I am only just starting to look into this (and maybe it comes to nothing), but will be spending a lot of time researching Bacch.....and be a visitor to their booth at Axpona

Pfreix posted this on another thread, if you have 45 minutes....I think it's an important video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq48klNJ8i0

roxy54, the issue is not in-your face or laid-back perspectives.  These are crude ways of describing the musical experience.  Music is a form of communication in addition to being a visceral experience.  If one wants just visceral pleasure, any way it is experienced is OK.  But if one views music as additionally about communication, then information retrieval is of major importance.  Objective measurement shows severe roll off of high freq with greater distance.  At all freq, there is loss of information, but short wavelengths of HF are affected more through absorption with greater distance, and smearing from acoustics.  Tonal balance is skewed towards bass freq with loss of higher freq harmonic overtones.  Try sitting at different locations at an unamplified concert.  If you have a ticket for row 20, move to the 10th, 5th and ultimately 1st rows to confirm that subjective and objective findings correlate.  Closeup reveals much more musical information as shown by the written score.

Followup on fleschler's points, I find the best way to simulate the life experience at home is with live broadcasts with a large screen video and detailed audio system.  Well-mixed sound preserves detail of all instruments even if some of the natural spatial aspects are sacrificed.  Camera closeups highlight individual players, and that helps to hear their contribution to the blend of the ensemble.

Live performance is a lot like cooking meals from scratch. It can be really really good if you know what you’re doing. Although these days frozen food, ie. Recorded music, is potentially better with all types of technology available and often is. But there still are a lot of crappy frozen meals out there - too much salt and chemicals intended to make things taste better but they really don’t.

Sorry. My aged not so nimble fingers anymore and spell check always get me into typo errors -  ecstasy of art, no extract -  I will strive not to strive.

It appears this community is divided into two camps with regard to preference for “the real thing” and the state of the art of music recording and reproduction.  I will attempt to generalize some conclusions.  One camp prefers live performances (amplified or acoustic, with the latter the majority).  They cite their preference is based a the artistic, immersive and immediate nature of the performance where all senses are stimulated. The camp notes differences in timbre, staging, imaging and dynamics from recorded and reproduced music, preferring live performances.  The second camp prefers recorded and reproduced music.  The camp cites the ability to hear all performers without smearing and loss of detail due to hall effects, and no distractions from the audience .  There is a preference for the staging , imaging, and dynamics  of recorded and reproduced music and no issues with timbre.  Both camps are neither right or wrong for it is what they prefer.  

I will always prefer a live performance of acoustic music regardless of genre, and support all of the arts (music, dance, theater, and the visual arts including architecture).  I also will frequent amplified rock and jazz performances but there are separate expectations for this experience as I attempted to articulate in this thread.  I will to strive to make my system approach my ideal of the “real thing” within my means for it  “inspires me to appreciate the real thing, in part by triggering my memories of the extract of art. “ Thank you again @northman for your eloquent post. I hope regardless of our position on live vs recorded music and the state of the art or recording and reproduction technology, we will support all of the arts this new year and on.  Let’s do are part to assure the performing and visual arts flourish healthy. I wish all health and happiness for the new year. 

@viber6 

Pure nonsense. There are all types of live sound presentation, and all are good for different purposes You prefer in-your-face perspective, not everyone does.

@fleschler, right.  The only exception is if you are lucky to sit very close to a small chamber ensemble in a small room.  In summer of 2005 before Hurricane Katrina, I went to Preservation Hall in New Orleans.  For $6 I got to hear a jazz band for 30 min.  There were 3 benches, room for 20 listeners in a cave-like room with the performers on a small stage with an upright piano.  Crackling hot and live!!  I don't see why most audiophiles crave the mid hall muddy sound--they need to go to Preservation Hall and wake up to real excitement.  Forget Carnegie and other famous halls.  Forget soundstage audiophile BS.  Preservation Hall is still around at $40 a seat.  $400 seats at Carnegie are for society conscious people who are there to be seen but don't know anything about raw sound and hearing as much as possible of the written score.

@viber6 100%.  That's why a fine recording can outperform a live performance for the audience/listener.  

@fleschler, I currently play violin in a small orchestra in a church.  Vocal soloists are on a small stage near me.  It is thrilling to hear the soloists and my fellow orchestra players at a close distance.  There are no ambient acoustical effects to smear their tone quality and detail.  But the chorus is placed beyond the last row of orchestra.  They are far away.  With the curved ceiling projecting them, the chorus is smeared worse than any low-fi audio system.  

Similar problems were evident at a concert including the Prelude #1 of Wagner's Lohengrin.  I sat in the audience in the 1st row.  This piece has 8 (eight) divided violin parts.  The first 2 rows of the string section were gorgeous with detail.  But further back, the winds, brass and percussion were badly smeared.  The concertgoer for large works has an untenable situation.  Sit in the 1st row center, get excellent  detail for the players in the front of the stage, but bad smearing for players further back, a schizophrenic situation.  Sit further back in the hall, get more uniform balance, but with uniformly muddy detail from all musicians.

@jsalerno277 ...Precisely, +10.... Ones' space and equipment can only strive to recreate the IRL experience; you can't expect on a practical level the wattage involved and the speakers flown at stage sides....not unless you're located outside of city limits with acreage about you.....not to mention 440vac mains... ;)

One experience of interest at a show in North Houston, the venue having an 8' ish tall CMU wall at the back of the lawn area....

Taking a moment to get a handle on some refreshments, I backed up to that wall.  What seemed to be a dip in the mix disappeared, likely due to cancellations and 'infill' of the effected frequencies....

I chalked it up to the audience 'soaking up' said fq's.... 🤷‍♂️😏

Another + on live vs. studio is the performers 'riffing' with each other and/or the extended plays of a fav bit.  It's always a kick to experience a group giving the crowd a treat, even if the roadies have to OT a tad...   👍😎❤

@g2the2nd We are on the same page regarding soundstaging of acoustic, in amplified live performances.   Recorded and reproduced music is getting closer, but it cannot capture the  “presentation is part of the whole flow of the music as it washes over you rather … a point on the soundstage”.   See my previous comments on staging, secondary harmonics, and hall ambience effects and their diffusion of images that creat the effect you describe and record labels coming closer than others in engineering that captures this.  

I am with @asvjerry, part of what is driving cost for more mainstream or popular acts is the lack of revenue due to streaming and people not buying physical media. 

Setting that aside I have always preferred seeing performances in smaller venues and finding new talent to enjoy in smaller venues. 

Just my 2 bit's 

I like live performances....BUT:

The ticket prices have become such I've become very picky as to Who & Where; 'who' is beginning to relate as to how old the headliner is, 'where' in regard to venues' that suck from the get go.  Been to enough of those that no seat location can overcome any amount of PA placement to be tolerable...

Us, as to the fans' response to the performance.  The 'dirty white noise' of cheering drives me to either wearing noise canceling headphones with/without ear plugs to be able to enjoy the performance vs. the response to it.  Some years back, one of which made my ears go 'pop'....and haven't been the same since...

I like 'loud'....but the performance, not the crowd.
At home, I can control the former; the latter, no....

There were a batch of small venues in the area that got destroyed by Helene along the riversides...small, low budget, funky but fun to support as they were beginning to draw more 'name' acts....

Gone.  What's left is showing the drift into big $'s to draw acts I've no interest in.

When I can stream or download at home with no crowd and little damage to our 'entertainment budget', the choice becomes obvious and influences what goes on locally....

...and the Orange Peel has always sucked....and their new venue in town shows the drift towards high $ tix....

I go to live music as much as possible.One thing I note is that while I really enjoy "imaging" on my HiFi. It is not a characteristic of live music in the same way. That does not mean I can't ID individual instruments/voices live, but that their presentation is part of the whole flow of the music as it washes over you rather than a you can point to it in the soundstage effect.

it is evident on my low cost but optimally acoustically installed system for chorus music because you dont pick the ideal spot for all live performance...

The spatial qualities of the recording when translated acoustically well in a room under control gave a speechless clarity and distinctive location for all singers ...

The live performance is superior because of the living participation  and the presence of everyone in the same space which "aura" cannot exist in recorded listening ...

Listening to well recorded music is generally a different experience, often superior to live performances.

@jnovak I disagree with you. I have been performing in choirs for 54 years, often with major orchestra members (LA Phil and Hollywood studio musicians), recorded 150+ orchestral, chamber and choral productions in major venues throughout SoCal, have 61,100 LPs/CDs/R2R/78s, etc. Listening to well recorded music is generally a different experience, often superior to live performances. Certainly I prefer a great opera performance live but when it comes to non-visual intense music performances, the venue where the music is performed dominates the quality of the sound heard. I now have a high end audio system as do two of my friends (check out my system). The great subtleties of nuances, phrasing, dynamics are present in my current system. Through the recording method, it is possible to extract greater dynamic contrasts than in live performances. That is my experience. There are still many flawed recordings as there are sonically flawed venues and seating. I also prefer listening to very flawed acoustic recordings (pre-1925) to many modern SOTA recordings. I do not adhere to a blanket statement that live performances are always superior to recorded performances sonically.

There are more varied sonic flavors in recorded music then in venues; however, there are also major labels who have produced (pre-1995) recordings that maintain the same recording venue and engineering attributes that are consistent (i.e. Columbia pop vocal recordings in the 1960s appear to maintain the same aural sound from Bennett to Mathis to Streisand, etc., not necessarily a positive sound attribute).

@jsalerno277,

I am a violinist whose reference for detail, natural timbre with accuracy of freq response is my seat in an ensemble such as string quartet, trio, piano/violin duo. 25 feet distance away from a string quartet is too far away if you want to appreciate full detail of instruments.  Even recordings have the main microphones about 10 feet or closer.  Compared to 10 feet, 25 feet severely rolls off HF and smears/homogenizes detail at all freq.  The consequences are loss of information about the subtleties of any unamplified music.

@jnovak I respect your position for the beauty of the audiophile hobby, and musical appreciation, is that we personally choose how we wish to participate, from system components choices that sound best to us, to musical genres we appreciate, to venues we frequent.  Personally, the greatest satisfaction is a live acoustical performance where there is aural immediacy and intimacy combined with visual stimuli that evoke emotion in a way that recorded and reproduced music cannot. To paraphrase part of @northman s eloquent post, I will strive for improvements to make my system approximate the “rest thing” but this only  to “inspire me to appreciate the real thing, in part by triggering my memories of the ecstasy of art.”

I don't try to compare my home system to anything but other home systems. Where home systems excel is in the ability to serve on demand! How many times have you had tickets for any given event only to not feel up to snuff on that date? Try going to the Met in your underwear. I listen on the spur sometimes at 2:00AM Where else can you do that?

@mahgister +1 Agree - like comparing apples and oranges.

Jsalerno277 , I agree some venues sound systems are not good .I watch Chicago Symphony Orchestra here at Ravinia Fextival Illinois many times, though Ravinia has a very sound systems. Every year they sound different.I do enjoy listening to them as welll as my systems. I stop chasing the real thing . If I can feel the liveness through my systems? And I enjoy the music. Iam ok.

@northman Well stated. However, I will suggest that all music venues or performances are not created equal.  There are times when I prefer listening to my own system than the "real" thing. If the live performance is amplified and I have less than ideal center front seats the experience is often not as emotional as I can experience from my home system.  Add to that audience noise and the frustration of folks standing then that experience can lack intimacy. I remember one concert with one of my favorite artists in a smallish venue where the guitar amp had an anoying ground hum.  Drove me nuts. 

25 years as a symphony musician and 25 years as a recording engineer settled my mind as to realistic sound. Acoustic instruments playing in an acoustical environment is about as real as it gets and attempts to replicate it are exactly that ------- replicas ----- never exactly like the original, but close enough. A fine recording engineer subtly uses his tools without you realizing his input. George Massenburg is my favorite "artist" engineer. Far too many recording engineers think that they are the "Hand of God" but have no concept of what an honest musical sound is. I’m constantly amazed at how a well-recorded performance using only two microphones can so effectively approach the real thing. But ---- it’s still a replica !!

I identify with the OPs observations and share them. I too enjoy chamber music concerts in a great venue. I agree with the many who note the futility of trying to replicate the live performance in your home. I find the same to be true with acoustic jazz, which I also enjoy in great smaller venues. No mikes, no mixers, no recording engineers, no mastering, no digital. The live acoustic sounds more natural because that’s what it is, subject to the venue and your seating position. 
 

The live performance aspect is a draw to concerts too. But I have vivid memories of walking out on rock concerts in venues like arenas for an NHL hockey team. One Billy Joel concert was absolutely awful. We went home and listened to Billy Joel on our audio system and were much happier. 
 

I also share the OP’s observations about MBL speakers. I listened to them at an audio show, then in a better listening room at an audio dealer. Great imaging and an outstanding naturalness of instrument timbre. Too expensive for my budget. 
 

So I live with and enjoy what I have, still finding a wide range in the quality of recordings. That’s the price you pay for having a revealing audio system. You can all too readily discern the difference between good and bad recordings, especially on acoustic music. 

Understood 

@helomech Omnidirectional speaker designs have existed for over 60 years.  One of the first I recall is the Ohm Walsh. Other brands are German Physiks, MBL, Mirage, Linkwitz Labs, Dueval, Morrison Audio, and one DCM model from the 80s with a multiple tweeter array.  Some brands were more successful than others at reproduction of “real thing” soundstage.  The best I have heard are the MLB Radialstrahler  series of speakers if you can afford the price of entry.  There soundstage is what I have attempted to describe as that produced in a live acoustic music concert - evident imaging but diffused by secondary harmonics and hall ambience. 

What I was suggesting isn’t very similar to any existing omnidirectional loudspeaker that I’m aware of. The large MBLs or BeoLabs are probably the closest, but still much too simplistic in the way they divide the bandwidths and their lack of point-source dispersion. 

@helomech Omnidirectional speaker designs have existed for over 60 years.  One of the first I recall is the Ohm Walsh. Other brands are German Physiks, MBL, Mirage, Linkwitz Labs, Dueval, Morrison Audio, and one DCM model from the 80s with a multiple tweeter array.  Some brands were more successful than others at reproduction of “real thing” soundstage.  The best I have heard are the MLB Radialstrahler  series of speakers if you can afford the price of entry.  There soundstage is what I have attempted to describe as that produced in a live acoustic music concert - evident imaging but diffused by secondary harmonics and hall ambience.  Much different than the razor sharp images produced by Magico offerings.  MLB produces music approaching the thing of attention is payed to set up because Omnidirectional speakers will exacerbate room issues.  Regarding recording technology, labels I mentioned before such as reference recordings, Linn, 2L, and old Murcury Living Presence publish in their packing inserts, liners or in peer reviewed literature the microphone placement techniques they use. 

To replicate the sound of, say, a live and non-amplified quartet, I suspect the playback system would need be incredibly complex, but somehow remain highly transparent.

I envision something like large, orb-shaped speakers that are equipped with many diaphragms firing in multiple directions, including upward-firing drivers. The drivers would produce specific octaves that correspond to each instrument, with steep crossover slopes at the extremes of the instrument’s bandwidth. This would require an “active” system with complex DSP, but one that is also low enough in noise and distortion as to essentially be a “straight wire with gain.” The drivers and enclosure/baffle would need be of the highest caliber and appropriate materials, i.e. no soft domes being used to replicate the sound of metal strings. The baffles would somehow need to have a minimal influence on the drivers and their dispersion patterns. The whole system would need to have incredible dynamic range to accommodate a recording of equal dynamic range.

That said, I think the recording system for the music in question would need be equally complex, perhaps more so.

The thing about audio recording and playback is that every link in the chain involves some amount of compromise. The very best playback systems minimize these compromises, but ultimately, they are still limited by the recording quality. At the end of the day, if you want to experience a live acoustical performance at home, you have to book some live performers.

@northman Do not apologize for an intellectual, stimulating, and intuitive analysis of the direction of society away from the “direct, sensuous experiences of the artistic imagination” based on “the tease of postmodernism and the promise of AI”.   Artistically stated from a literary perspective and in my opinion so true.  I hope you have not taken my post as a belief in the “false promise”.  However, as an audiophile, I will continually be impassioned to elevate recorded music reproduction to as close to my interpretation of the real thing for it truly “inspires me to appreciate the real thing, in part by triggering my memories of the ecstasy of art”.  I will always engage in the arts never embarrassed by being emotionally overwhelmed, whether it is literature, art, dance, music, or architecture.  I hope I have passed the ability to appreciate and quelled any fear of expressing emotion openly to my children when experiencing the arts.   Thank you for such a most stimulating post. 

@northman a lovely post

The glass half-full: there's something magical about live music that can never be reproduced. The term "aesthetic bliss" doesn't completely get at it. It's true across  the arts: there's nothing like being immersed in Monet at the Orangerie or Rothko in the Chapel; there's nothing like standing next to the *real* David in the Accademia even though you've seen reproductions all over Florence; and my respect if you know every lick on the Betty Board of Cornell '77, but if you never saw Jerry and the Dead, there's just no way to explain that presence. 

I think a nice framed Rothko poster inspires me to appreciate the real thing, in part by triggering my memories of the ecstasy of art. It would rather devalue art if we could all own Monets, if Dick's Picks = being there, if our stereos could perfectly recreate a jazz quartet. All this was the tease of postmodernism and is rather the promise of AI: that we can't distinguish between reality and artifice. It's a false promise and always will be. 

Sorry for the rant! I fear we live in a world where fewer and fewer have direct, sensuous experiences of the artistic imagination, and I think the world is the worse for it.

I have never thought I’d get the exact same sound ant home as I would at the Symphony. There’s a big difference between a symphony hall and my listening room.  Maybe using a good headphone system could get closer, certainly not using a pair of speakers and subs in a 16’x21’room.

There are many presentations in high-end audio.

There’s the “fool you it’s real” using very transparent components, dropping the noise floor (better components, room treatments, ac conditioner, filters…).

There are “musical” speakers like Devore O/96 Orangutan or the Fleetwood Deville SQ.  There’s are “musical” phono cartridges like Grado or Koetsu.  There’s is the big sound of SPU cartridges.

Then we have tube amplifiers that offer midrange magic, but often requires a highly efficient speaker.

I have 2 systems- fool you real and a flea watt system (used to discover 300b/2a3/45 tube SET (for acoustic and voices).  

Okay, my Big Sounds of the Drags was a little tongue in cheek, but it does represent the greatest contrast of live vs recorded that I could think of.  

The sound of amplified live performances are often disappointing.  The hifi nerd in me wants to lower the volume level a few (dozen) decibels and yank out the cheap cables they are using and replace them with "the good stuff." Overdriving the board in a highly-reflective venue is not my idea of a good time.  Unamplified acoustic performances typically reside in wonderful, acoustically complimentary environments which are difficult to duplicate at home.

Many, including @pgaulke60 , have responded about the inconsistency of the acoustics of live performances, at times great and at times, awful. I believe the examples given have been for music that is amplified, such as some genre of rock music.  I could not agree more.  As a music lover, attending live performances is more for the experience and excitement generated by the performers, crowd, and event.  I also have been to concerts of amplified music where the sound was awful.  I remember on particular Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band concert at the Meadowlands, NJ where my wife and used makeshift tissue earplugs to save our hearing which also attenuated the high frequency shrill. Regardless, we still danced in our seats.  I also heard Bruce solo on Broadway and even though amplified, the acoustic was well done, intimate and warm. When I speak of the real thing as my benchmark, I mean unamplified, acoustic music.   This is because, like any recording, amplified live music puts our ears at the mercy of the engineers and venue.  I am also not saying we cannot use amplified music as a benchmark.  We can use to for reproduction of the power, dynamics, and PRaT of our systems.  However, timbre, imaging/staging, micro and macro dynamic contrasts are best served by acoustic, unamplified music as the benchmark.  I will still go to and enjoy live, amplified music, but it is for the experience of composition and performance from a “rock concert” perspective.  My expectations regarding the venue acoustic is different than going to Carnegie.  

I am fortunate to have a good variety of venues to see live music here in Atlanta, GA.  We see live music 3-4 times a month., Some venues are frickin’ horrible for sound.  We stopped going to see music there, unless it was a really rare tour by a band that doesn’t tour much.  

We have other venues that we love, and it all depends on the band and how bloody loud they feel they need to play their music. Sometimes it is just too bloody loud to enjoy.  Go back a week later and a band that tempers the volume sounds much better.

Then we have venues that are just superb, no matter who plays.  Fortunately the staff doesn’t feel the need to blow our ears out.  Some of the smaller venues known for their classical dates also have wonder jazz blues and popular shows.  The Violent Femmes recently played at Orchestra Hall and it sounded great.

But, I come home and play a good pressing on my big rig and, Shazam! The soundstage, the separation of instruments, the joy of listening is all there.  Often better than I will hear in any venue because the stereo sound and immediacy of being close to the source is right there in front of me.  

In the end, I couldn’t live without live music, and I couldn’t live without my exquisitely reproduced music.

test of humanity…tears

Try 2L recording of Cantus - Kyrie for hall, harmonics, bloom and image diffusion and imo as called for specificity…. stunning on even a well executated basic system…

note Cantus playing on NPR this eve…

to the OP …. quite astute… keep chasing and wondering and being blessed with a dearth of acoustic music in reverberant space… Loved and appreciated your 2L comments

in my own field recording experience / experiment… the first introduction of distortion is microphone selection… there are no perfect transducers… quickly followed by microphone placement… then … , well you get the idea..

You can of course try a relatively simple and not terribly expensive sojourn down the path by hiring a small string ensemble to play in your listening room and capture using the affordable zoom recorder…

@_dalek__ +1 I hope to never reproduce the experience of my last few live music concerts. Incessant talkers/yelling, restless people constantly on the move, poor quality sound in poor sounding venues.

I don't understand how the live concert experience has become the de facto gold standard for listening to music. I've been attending live music performances for over five decades, some sound reinforced others not. I'd never want to reproduce at home the drivel vast majority of amplified concerts. On rare occasions volume is reasonable, sound quality fair, but then you have atrocious environmental noise levels. Acoustic or minimal sound reinforcement performances generally better on sound quality front, excessive environmental noise can still remain salient and bothersome for me. The idea visual senses also being stimulated at live events also underestimated or neglected altogether, this sometimes distracts my aural senses.

I much prefer the controlled environment of home listening vs live performance.

@saboros Bringing back memories of excellent products and transformative experiences.  
 

A friend had the TC-50s driven by top of the line Counterpoint electronics and sourced by a Sota Star Sapphire with a Gram tone arm and Koetsu Rosewood.  Magic.  

Don’t hold me to the dates.  Somewhere around 1995, say +/- 2 years, I was at Lyric in White Plains NY, where Jim Winey of Magnepan gave a lecture on the lllA design.   The source was a Sota Star Sapphire and Koetsu Rosewood.  I do not remember the tone arm.  The speakers were driven by an Audio Research SP-11 and M-300 mono blocks.  Nils Lofgren was spinning.  Transformative.  The image had weight and dimensional palpability.  Timbre true.  I brought a Proprious recording of Gregorian instruments and chants in a European Church.  I would have to dig it out of archive to give specifics.  The back and side walls of the church were evident.   My first experience of true high end reproduction even though I still feel we have a way to go to the real thing.  

i dont understand how we could compare such different experiences which cannot be compared...

Your location in a big Hall will determine for a big part everything...

In your room your acoustics parameters and location...

These 2 different experience can be valuable...But will remain forever different...

i am happy with my system ability and his limitations...Because i was in control of them not a victim...Nothing is more gratifying than to be responsible for a well tuned system/room...

I will not compare my experience with my room /system to any lived experience... They differ too much positively and negatively at the same time with one another in respect to their advantages and inconvenience...

This is perhaps the most covered topic on REGs audio forum.  (REG is Robert Greene, the longtime reviewer in TAS.)

The two speakers which immediately wowed me as they had a live music vibe re their spaciousness, imaging and even tonality were the Spica TC-50 and Magnepans. (Being so relatively inexpensive, I own both.)

@acresverde I took a peak at your system post.  Surprised at the synapse short circuit I caused based on the sophistication of your system.  Horns not a fav of mine but your system and  attention to detail lends me to conclude you know what you are doing and must be able to relate at some level to what I am saying.  

@waytoomuchstuff    The drag strip is, truly, sensory overload. Ain't nothing like the smell of burned nitro mixing with the olfactory rush of deep fried turkey legs and burning rubber all swathed in 140 db of rampaging funny car.

 @o_holter Agreed.  See my response to @viridian above.  

@mark200mph, @noromance, @ronboco  
I posted times before I am first a music lover and second, an audiophile. This produces a degree of dissociative personality disorder where I have two distinct listening modes - 90% of the time listening for enjoyment and reveling in the composition and performance, 10% of the time critical listening as an audiophile.  As an audiophile, my pursuit is a system that approaches the sound of the real thing.  It may never be.  However, Albert Einstein said:  “Imagination is everything. It is a preview of life’s coming attractions.  A person with big dreams is more powerful than one with all the facts.”  I will dream.  

@viridian i whole heartedly agreed.  TAS, especially its founding EIC Harry Pearson focused on pinpoint imaging.  However, he also established a lexicon to describe timbre, tonality, and saturation of tone (what I was describing as image density and palpability).  I have established a system to focus on exactly what you have identified.  I tried to describe how I feel the sound stage of the real thing develops where the focus of an individual instrument is blurred by the primary harmonics of other instruments, secondary harmonics of the instrument, and venue acoustic reflections.  I find the recordings by the 2L label are beginning to approach this on my system, as well as a few other labels.  I find the much desired Mercury Living Presence somewhat exaggerated sound stage, but with timbre, tonality and saturation you speak.  When I speak of the real thing I mean acoustic instruments, not amplified, such as a jazz ensemble or orchestra. This is where I believe the state of the art has room for improvement.   Also realize pinpoint imaging is correct for many studio albums where performers are isolated in sound booths and engineers establish the mix.  Here, the state of the art should permit us to hear the mix as imagined by the engineer.  I feel this has been accomplished to the most part.  

I saw David Bowie in concert one time, at Meadowlands if I recall. Let's just say he lived up to his reputation as a terrible live performer. His band was mediocre; a couple of regulars and session guys showing up for the paycheck. Terrible arena acoustics. I was actually glad it was over.

Later at home, I put Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars on the platter, lowered the tonearm, sat back, and soon everything was all right again. Just sayin

The OP’s questions are good, although ’the real thing’ is slippery. In this case it seems to apply mainly to acoustic music in good sounding concert halls, classical music perhaps.

So what about rock for example? I go to rock concerts to get the live experience, the extra something beyond the recording and production in the studio. But for sound? Seldom. I rather listen to the best recordings and productions of the songs, in a good audio system, at home.

In this case, "the real thing" is to reproduce the music as good as possible as it was recorded and produced. Usually in the studio. With increasing emphasis on production, from the mid 60s onwards. Not just a good recording, but production as part of the art.

This means that you usually cannot hear "the real thing" in live setting. It exists only on the reproduction, the album or track. For example, I cannot hear I am the walrus, or Strawberry fields forever, in a concert, even if all the Beatles were alive and well today. What I can do, however, is to get such songs to sound as good and "real" as possible, compared to the intention - from the producers, engineers, and the artists involved.

I use large bipole speakers (Audiokinesis Dream Makers) that excel in reproducing live concerts and a three dimensional sound, with very good timbre and tonality. Live recordings are often a joy. Still, for the best sound, I usually go to the studio albums.

On a basic level I understand what the OP is talking about. I play a c flute, alto flute, and some guitar, often trying to play along with the music reproduced from my system. There is certainly a distance, between what I hear from the live instrument, and what I hear from the playback. Especially with the flute. Even if the distance is smaller, with the best recordings.