How close to the real thing?

Elizabeth,

I do not believe that even the best home systems are anywhere near 90%-95% percent in terms of realism, but I will qualify my statement by stating the obvious. There are many, many factors involved in what we consider to be "real" sound - too many to discuss in detail here. So, equipment aside, I will limit myself to three.

1- space/distance/time acoustics (aka room ambiance). This is pretty self-explanitory. Your room is not a concert hall. Or a sound stage. Through technical gimmickry (hardware) you can kinda sorta reproduce the same sound, but not really.

2- our perception of sound and how we process it (psychoacoustics). Neuron action potentials and other interesting stuff.

3- simple physics. A speaker is not a piano, a guitar, or a human voice. Although you can mimic those sounds closely enough that it the differences between live and recorded are almost indetectable to a spectrum analyzer, most people can still hear the difference. Well, except Bose customers anyway.

One can monitor the playback head of a Nagra and compare it to the line as well. Amazing machine.

I agree with Elizabeth. I've played a recording of a flutist, with the flutist that made the recording standing between my speakers playing along with herself, and I can tell you the recording - which was far from SOTA - sounded a heck of a lot better than 5%. More like 90%. And that was before I upgraded my speakers.

How many other people here have tried this test?

Where audio systems fall off IMO is when you need a lot of volume to be accurate. Some live instruments are LOUD. As for reproducing a piano, that's almost too easy. We have a piano, so I know what one sounds like live, and a great stereo can do a remarkable job reproducing it. Now my wife's 22" bass drum, that my system has a little more trouble with.

I mean no offense to anyone by this, including the OP (inevitably someone will take some, I'm sure), but I just gott'a get this out, and yes I am poking fun at y'all; to me this is the kind of wholly ridiculous speculation and pointless discussion over utterly meaningless minutia that makes me want to run screaming from the room when discussed among persons over six years old...OK, maybe over eight years old. I think there are persons over eight in this discussion (though I may be called into question here), so, Picture me screaming from this room. OK, you don't know what I look like. Picture that wonderful Edvard Munch painting, "The Scream" and that'd be a great metaphor for how I feel reading just a few of the posts here (no I did not linger long and read many so I may be missing some chestnut of wisdom that'd otherwise bring me greater enjoyment in listening to music at home). There, I said it. I feel better now. Go on with your discussion and ignore the screaming man in the corner, he's just a smart ass who needs to go to bed now.

67.76%

That's my final answer.

Oh.....I'm sooooooo sorry, but that's......EXACTLY RIGHT!!! Tell'm what he's won, Don Pardo!

Help me if you can
It's just that this is not the way I'm wired

-Maynard James Keenan

it depends on music stye, few times I gett fooled myself and acept recorded voice to live(and I am not kidding) , but I have been in other room. it nevr hapened listening in stereo in listening room however.

somebody touched my favourite music(30-40% of my records are(mainly) wind band orchestras ) when we think about orchestra I have never heard small (smaller than 700lbs) speaker that convinse me more than 20%. its about "air breathe" and "dark silent" of real orchestra that is hard to convince(in some records I feel some intrument localisation better than in some orhestra auditions!). some 3 way floorstander can reproduce real 30hz(but with more than 60% discortion levels at natural listening loudness of orchestra-nobody measurs discortions on real life SPL lets say 20hz@115db/5.5m) . but thats not the same feeling. its just too small to reproduce frequency without discortions and convinsingly. what we want is lot of active cone area which designed specificaly( and which doesnt interupt or work in frequencies higher than 200hz). when I say I lot of I mean REALY lot. unfortunately nobody will produce(because qty which wll be sold will not cover even R&D)

i have gathered folowing formula in realistic low frequencies reproduction vs cost. if 100hz is referense line its nessesary to have emiting area of 4x 15 inch woofers per channel) then to achive 90hz required double manufacturing cost, 80hz double of double and so on, when we go to numbers like 50hz it starrts to be ridiculy and when reach 15hz its utopia of customers(because cost and listening area). I touched only first three octaves problems. there is alot more to properly reproduce higher range. here I believe we need invent diferent (preferably omnipolar) EAC( electrical to acoustic converter) than conventional current dynamic, e-static plasma and other converters types.

I believe we would already had this, but science work on other "problems" as we are too small group and the target(sound close to live music) is not considered as absolute nescesity of human being .