The closest approach...really

Trelja and Tvad, Thanks for the heads-up on Marilyn. "Yowie" is right, and might I suggest...Zounds!

While apparently Mrtennis does not need any defenders, a couple of thoughts come to mind which apply to all of us in these audio forums.

#1, our hearing biological hearing systems may be similar, but not the same. Consider age, gender, health, etc., let alone ear shape, brain receptors, etc. and we have an infinate variety of aural perception.

#2, our experiences, training, and interests are not the same. With such different backgrounds, we bring an extensive variety of foundation information (and therefore preferences) to the listening experience.

So Mrtennis may be sensitive to sonic details that some others, if not most, may not be so sensitive to. This does not make one person right and another wrong. Ever wonder how some folks prefer only planar speakers while others demand sealed dynamic drivers? Or vented/ported systems? Or horns? If one design approach offered the TRUE reproduction of live music, wouldn't we all be listening to it in our homes?

Therefore Ggavetti, some may agree with you that you found the closest approach, but most others (based on percentage of design type sold) may have other answers.

Pryso, That's a very interesting point, but I am not sure I fully agree. That is, you are certainly right that different human brains, different backgrounds, different professions, et cetera et cetera make for different tastes. But if there is a real thing, and the notion of closest is referred to that real thing, how can it be that there isn't an objective way to define what "closest" mean?
In other words, one may have a taste for a bombastic bass, or for an incredibly acute tweeter, or for microscopic detail...and that is all good and respectable...but that ain't the real thing...in my humble opinion.

Ggavetti, what is real is what we perceive to be real. And it does not necessarily relate to huge differences, such as "bombastic bass".

My feeling is that you and I could attend the same concert, seated side by side, and have a quality recording made from that same location. Then we could each have a selection of speakers, amps, source electronics, etc. and choose systems which provide the best match (closest approach) with what we heard. Those systems could very well end up being quite different, depending upon how closely you and I might match up on the two elements I suggested.

I offered my perspective in the first place because Mrtennis stated he had never found an acceptable match of dynamic woofer with electrostatic speaker, yet many other music lovers are happy with such system combinations.

But this is all my opinion, which may also be different from yours. 8^)

Pryso, this is an interesting discussion...human ears differ, and so does our definition of what is real. On the other hand, do we have instruments that capture the true "physics" of a sound? To the extent that we have such instruments, and I am not sure we do, that is what I would consider the real thing. But you're absolutely right: our ears might differ, and very much so...and what each of us considers to be the real thing might differ big time. But if this is the case, all of our discussions should be pointless: what for me is "good" and "real" for you might be a big distortion of reality. From this standpoint, the quality of a system is a totally subjective notion. My belief is that there are ears that get closer than other do to the real thing as it can be objectively measured. These more educated ears are better equipped than others are in assessing the quality of a system. In other words, I wouldn't let the lack of education (in our ears) undermine the notion that there are better systems out there...but of course this is only my opinion, and I respect yours.