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
Hi Fas42,
If you can accept the explanations that Atmasphere, Mapman and Weseixas has added to what you have stated, I find it acceptable(like that matters). Their combined inputs do explain the entire list of questions that I asked about why different items sound different as well as all distortion is unwelcome. I appreciate your input... I noticed that you are fairly new, I am not an oldtimer here either, but I have read back through several threads from the years and there are arguments about the difference of harsh or grainy. We are in a very subjective hobby, we all want to help with input and sound authoritative, but what I have found is...Everyones experiences are different and that doesn't make yours right or wrong, just different... I do try to be careful about seperating fact from opinion, I believe that is where my challange or disagreement came with you, but as you can see after some nice input, your points have been reinforced/corrected. Good Listening, Tim
Timlub, It looks to me like Fas42 places a lot of importance on soundstage and imaging. There are different types of 'distortion' that affect that- primarily of bandwidth. The better it is the more intact the phase relationships, which are what defines image location.

The ability of the speakers to 'disappear' is equally important to a system's ability to convince as is detail and tonality.

When feedback is applied to an amplifier, low level harmonic noise is injected into the output of the amplifier. This is nearly all high-frequency information. Now it happens that room ambiance in recordings is often also high frequency and is also low level. The result is that by adding feedback, the low level detail associated with room size can be masked by the harmonic noise floor that is present in the amplifier. In fact *all* detail below this level will be masked. That is why amplifiers that run little or no feedback often seem to have bigger, wider and deeper soundstages.
Hi Atmasphere,
Ok, no disagreements...Feedback reduces distortion and have seen changing feedback levels change the effects, no arguments....
I guess, what I am questioning is... Labeling Distortion as a catch all phrase. It doesn't work.
Hello Atmasphere,

Wouldn't such be dependent on the topology being used, Tubes react differently vs SS with regards to negative feedback
(local or global).

Class-D amps run a lot of feedback, "alot" and they don't have issues with sound staging and details, actually they are quite possibly kings of it, but do exhibit a grainy artificial sound IMO vs conventional amplifiers (class-a, a/ab)