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
Mapman,

I agree with you that there is nothing like the sound in good seats at a well designed hall. I don't think I'll ever get my Mini IIs to deliver large scale classical music convincingly or certainly not a rock concert. My room and those monitors are just too small. However, with a great recording and the right music (small scale and acoustic) the sound is pretty darn good and I dare say almost believable. Well, close enough to be emotionally moving.

Sure it's not the real thing, but it's one minute down the hall, available anytime and able to play any of my LPs with a simple lift of the tone arm. Muddy, Miles, Starker, or Arrau. Playback has come a long way.

Someday, I'll invite my buddy Edseas2 back over and ask about that 5% again.
Peterayer:

Yeah, and if you still have the piano in the same room as your stereo system I'll slide the cover off the keyboard, play a single note and say:

"Gosh was I being generous when I said 5%!"

Edseas2
Peter,

Recorded music in most people's homes and live music in a large well designed concert hall are two different beasts that will never be the same. I think realizing this helps manage expectations when experiencing either. Each can have its unique charms that endear themselves. Sometimes it is possible for the two different things to strongly resemble each other.

I think if an experienced listener is satisfied with both on their own terms and in relation to each other, then that is about as good as it can get.

I think I've arrived at that point in the last year or so finally, so I am a very content listener at present.

One truly missing ingredient in the process is the recording/transfer equipment. Mic's are so variable, as to be frustrating, with some real improvements recently...then there's the question of 'how to position and place' performers.
In an ideal world, they'd simply set up as if performing...but how often do we see this?
In another post a couple of years ago, I sent kuddos to Michael Buble for having the guts as a pop singer, to announce that he recorded the group he sang in front of, in a natural setting--without the extraordinary, measures normally taken--with him in LA, them in New York, etc.
Of late, we're seeing a trend toward this--in the Movie, Love Actually, the little girl singing, 'All I Want For Christmas', in the movie's climax, was singing 'live'. The director even commented that they went to great pains to let her breathing (which was a bit loud), be captured, so people would KNOW that it was her singing.
Then,in Across the Universe, the director, in order to gain the sense of reality, had the performers work with a 'live mic', and pretty much did the same thing.

IMHO, the true missing ingredients are, flat Frequency Response, (the greatest predictor of TONAL ACCURACY something the brain REALLY catches quickly), and possibly the key, DYNAMIC CONTRAST. The brain knows, what the dynamics SHOULD BE...and if we don't hear that, we simply know immediately that its a recording and not real. When we can do this consistantly, we'll be much closer.

IMHO.

Larry
Last time I listened to a live concert on my system I stood on my couch with a cigarette lighter for the encore. The next day my wife asked why there were burns on the ceiling. Oops.