How close to the real thing?

"Progress ad Infinitum", "Karl Popper" & "verisimilitude", "Copernicus"

That's what I was trying to say Kirkus, or at least it would have been if I was smart enough.

IMO, this has become a very worthwhile thread to the extent that it has veered away from it's original and more casual, percentage of realness inquiry, into something more significant which is an examination of perceived reality and audio.

The problem here is there is little that is convenient that will quantify the subjective experience. However, that is not to say that the subjective experience *cannot* be quantified, it can and has by Dr. Herbert Melcher.

In his recent work (unpublished so far) he has shown that if music is delivered intact to the brain, it is processed in the limbic system. He has also shown that as a stereo system violates human perceptual rules, the processing is moved to the cerebral cortex.

So while we can argue about what works and what does not, our brain is working it out anyway, whether we like it or not.

Kirkus, your 'quote' of me was not verbatim and thus the meaning and demeanor was altered.

It's my impression from many of your past postings that there are a handful of conceptual errors in your understanding of the traditional application of negative feedback and its Nyquist stability criteria . . . to the point that a discussion of the associated theory and measurement performance is moot.

Yes, I imagine when one has a different viewpoint, it is convenient to use such an argument. I *am* familiar with Fourier, Shannon and Nyquist, FWIW. However I see a lot of their 'relevant' theorem as being misapplied in audio. The problem here is that while theorem is supposed, there are real-world phenomena that do not care about the theorem. When you realize that the real world isn't going to go away, often it is more pragmatic to observe it and accept that it exists.

Now I would exhort you to take a look at Chaos Theory as well,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

and having done that read Norman Crowhurst's book on negative feedback and amplifiers, called Basic Audio. You can download volume 3 as a pdf from
http://www.pmillett.com/tubebooks/technical_books_online.htm

In volume three, page 26 Crowhurst graphed the behavior of an amplifier with feedback (Nyquist diagram) that years later Choas Theory identifies as a 'strange attractor' (strange attractors are used to predict the behavior of a chaotic system). You will also see that the formula for feedback and chaotic systems are pretty much the same thing.

But I (very respectfully) remain curious as to whether or not you've ever had an auditory experience that pegs the needle on your own personal, internal "sonic truthiness" scale? And has it ever been delivered by equipment that has a design approach that's incongruous with your own? (Please note that the phrase "pegs the needle" is an important one, meaning that at the time of the experience, an experience closer to the truth cannot be imagined and/or is simply irrelevant).

Of course, and I mentioned exactly this rather early on. So I am one who maintains that we are closer to 90% than 5%, insofar as microphones, headphones and simple audio electronics (no power amps or speakers) are concerned. I made the point at that time that the recording/playback media is arguably the biggest failing.

I have had multiple experiences like this in the studio, and I have had a few like this at home with my stereo (but they don't qualify due to your criteria). My comment about the ramifications of that has already been posted and misquoted.

In his recent work (unpublished so far) he has shown that if music is delivered intact to the brain, it is processed in the limbic system. He has also shown that as a stereo system violates human perceptual rules, the processing is moved to the cerebral cortex."

If I understand you correctly, this validates my rationalization that their is no rationalizing music. I have no idea why I find music pleasurable or why, when a chord is played on a musical instrument, it seems to strike a corresponding cord in me. When that happens, it has nothing to do with my cerebral cortex. But the cerebral cortex is precisely what many of us rely on when we listen to our systems and try to validate our decisions.

Phaelon,
I agree with you that the thread is going in an interesting direction. KIrkus and others have broadened my understanding of the topic tremendously. It was not my intent to peg a specific percentage to the question of how close are we to the real thing beyond that I think 5% is too low in the context of today's very "best" systems.

Has Edseas heard a really great recording on one of today's great systems? He told me he hadn't. Can we agree that we are at least getting closer to the real thing? From reading many of the posts, I think the answer for many of us is YES. Sorry for your head, Mapman.

Sitting here listening, as I type this, to Michel Camilo's Solo album (Telarc Jazz) at something like a realistic volume level... if this is 5% of live, I'll take it as-is and be happy for a long while.