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
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.
"You're treading on dangerous turf, Phaelon"

Thanks for the warning Irvrobinson.

You're not being fair. Are we talking about measurements or listening? You can't talk measurements on the "does it sound like a tube debate" and then switch to listening on the "does it sound real" debate.

You're not suggesting that there are perfect components that add or take away nothing, are you? If not, then a difference can be measured. And if a difference can be measured, then you have to give it the same weight as you did to tubes. Ha! :-)
"You're not being fair. Are we talking about measurements or listening? You can't talk measurements on the "does it sound like a tube debate" and then switch to listening on the "does it sound real" debate."

Actually, that's exactly my point. We *know* why tube amps can sound different, but the *opinion* that the playback of a recording sounds real is only measureable by measuring the individual human - in other words, can they tell the difference in a blind test? Perhaps it was you that confused me in your comparing this thread with the tube versus solid state threads.

Nonetheless, are you saying the blind comparison test would be an invalid measurement strategy?
All we need is five guys, earplugs, blindfold and a big box, like a Wilson crate, and a hand-truck. Also a Budget rental truck or even a pickup would work fine.

We lug the guy around to few different venues over the coarse of a couple nights. We uncrate and crate him up again after the venue. Maybe he gets a few cheese sticks and some water too. The guy takes notes and reveals them at the end of the experiment. Piece of cake. I'm good with a hand-truck.
Irvrobinson, blind listening test while fastidious are only valid and relevant to the small group(s) participating..

The Subjective nature of Audio is well .............