How close to the real thing?

The more I read this thread, the more it becomes clear to me just how much this topic has in common with the myriad threads on "tubes vs solid state" (Now I know why you've given this thread a pass Tvad). A common theme of those threads is whether or not solid state can sound like tubes. The answers always seems to narrow down to: yes to some and no to others, depending on ones personal values. I'm no expert but it seems to me that we hear with our brains, and the brain is pretty good at filtering out what it deems unimportant. Sure a home system can approach the real thing if the difference isn't that important to you. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, as with tubes, some will always hear a difference because there is one, and it's meaningful to them, while others will not because of the slight value the place on that difference.

You may be right, but to me it seems like more than just a matter of opinion in that sense that I find it hard to believe that anyone one accustomed to unamplified, acosutic music would ever be fooled by a stereo system into thinking it is real instruments in a real acoustic venue. As much as I would love to believe that my system, and other far more expensive systems I have heard, sound real, it just doesn't, though I do place a slight value on that difference. Has a recorded saxaphone, trumpet, or drum set ever sounded real to you, where you could not tell the difference (assuming you have heard the real thing)? Really? I want your system. I do agree that one person's 5% is another's 95%, but either way, somehow it is obviously never 100%, nor can it ever be IMHO. This just seems like a clearer divide to me than the tube/ss debates.

You're treading on dangerous turf, Phaelon, he says rolling his eyes. :-) Tube amps sound different from solid state amps for measureable, predictable, understandable reasons that can usually be explained by effective differences in the amp-speaker combination frequency response. The only way to tell if someone thinks a sound is "live" is by using a blind test and seeing if he or she can repeatedly correctly differentiate. I've never seen a metric for determining "live" has been achieved.

5% is a bit harsh , i would give the very best 45% of the real deal and figure on that system using at least 2-3 kw of power to get to that 45% figure...

Onhwy61, that may be so. When I got the U67s nearly 30 years ago, I knew they were great mics, but had no idea how really great they actually are.

As our equipment for recording and playback has improved, I've really come to realize that microphone technology may well be one of the areas that was well advanced beyond the rest of audio world by several decades. That simple fact is, if you have mics of this quality, you don't need 'signature' or 'reference' as descriptors :) They just work.

One time I did an on-location recording with a pair of RCA ribbon mics. I had a couple of audiophile friends with me that wanted to see it being done. At one point, I had to move the mics a couple of feet. One of my friends was wearing headphones, listening to the live mic feed. Since ribbons can be fairly sensitive, when I got to the mic stand, I said 'I'm going to move the mics now' so he would be prepared for some noise.

When I was done and got backstage again, he was in a state of shock. He had seen me go through the stage door, and then a few seconds later, he heard me *behind* him (at the point where I was ready to move the mic stand). On wheeling around, wondering how I got back behind him without him knowing it, he saw I was not there!!

Now this was a jaundiced audiophile, and training to be a conductor (currently conducting in Moscow) and *knew* that audio equipment could never sound that real. I'm telling you, he nearly had a heart attack.