How close to the real thing?


Recently a friend of mine heard a Chopin concert in a Baptist church. I had told him that I had gone out to RMAF this year and heard some of the latest gear. His comment was that he thinks the best audio systems are only about 5% close to the real thing, especially the sound of a piano, though he admitted he hasn't heard the best of the latest equipment.

That got me thinking as I have been going to the BSO a lot this fall and comparing the sound of my system to live orchestral music. It's hard to put a hard percentage on this kind of thing, but I think the best systems capture a lot more than just 5% of the sound of live music.

What do you think? Are we making progress and how close are we?
peterayer
I notice that the people who are claiming current technology is close to capturing and reproducing the sound of a real musical event are severely limiting the conditions where they have experienced this phenomena. It only happens on a few records, only when I'm listening on headphones, only for small groups or solo instruments or only when I have a studio quality tape recorder playing back a tape I made in my own house. So am I to believe that 99% of the time it doesn't sound that real, but all the other times it does?

I think some of you are confusing the fact that you like the sound of your system better than live sound. That's a very different issue than whether your system can so accurately recreate a recorded event such that you cannot distinguish it from the original.
Post removed 
Good point Onhwy61, or distinction. I often prefer listening to my home system to live while recongnizing there are aspects of live performance that are simply not present in a recording and I think the issue of compression mentioned by Shadorne is a very significant part of the difference between recorded and live music.

In my experience the difference between system and real thing does not speak to what might be more enjoyable in the listening - being different doesn't speak to what might be prefered, at least not necessarily. For example, live music rarely has the soundstaging and imaging of my system, and illusion and distortion I quite enjoy even if mostly an artifact of the recording process and better, more resolving equipment.
Shadorne has hit the nail on the head- commercial recordings are the primary barrier to making it sound real.

If you were to take a set of good studio microphones and put them in a different room, away from your system, you might be quite surprised to find out how lifelike the system can be if the mics are set up right. Nothing (so far) compares to a direct mic feed...
"I have a studio quality tape recorder playing back a tape I made in my own house. So am I to believe that 99% of the time it doesn't sound that real, but all the other times it does?"

No. It means that some of us believe you can recreate a pretty good facsimile of "live" when the sound sources being reproduced are well recorded, played back using some of the finest equipment available, and the sources are in reasonable proportion to the size of the room the audio system is in, and the system has the power to recreate the output of the source instrument.