The closest approach...really

Interesting discussion. While I can understand the pursuit of best sound reproduction available (within the constraints of your budget if you have one) what I can't understand is how does one know when the pinacle has been reached and that further pursuit is merely a fine tuning to ones taste? We all know that absolute fidelity to the real thing is impossible, but we really don't know how close you can get.

A recording studio engineer has the luxury of hearing live music nearly everyday and then hearing the same music reproduced on a system. The equipment choices and acoustically tailored studios of these folks are probably most indicative of a "pinnacle" in sound. I agree that home audio enthusiasts don't stand much of a chance and probably end up with something tailored to their taste. However, you can find out what pros use and select gear accordingly rather than the latest models appearing in the audio rags (still many choices but ALL highly regarded pro gear will at least have been "vetted" by many professionals/musicians).

All of this presumes that the audio engineer's ears and tastes are inline with what whatever audiophile "standard" folks in this thread hopefully applies. That just about NEVER, EVER happens.

Let us not forget musicians, engineers, and audiophiles are three distinct species, with the overlap of audiophiles and the other two being by far the smallest in the equation. Yes, there is a small movement towards those who publish things almost exactly as they were recorded, but again, it is a small movement. The industry has accepted certain bastardizations as being necessary to make music either playable on a car/table radio or saleable.

Recording engineers, like anyone working in a field mixing both art and science, leave as much of a fingerprint on the sound as anyone in the band. When you go to different restaurants, the same recipe will taste different because a different chef has prepared it. Music is absolutely no different. Anyone who hears the original tapes in comparison to the mixdowns knows the latter rarely lines up with the former. In fact, musicians seek out engineers to lend a particular flavor or "seasoning" to the end product. For example, engineers such as Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois have very recognizable sonic signatures. Lanois' work, characterized by his incredibly dark and heavy sound is as far away from what is originally put down on tape as one can imagine, yet he remains always in demand with the most well known musicians in the industry.

Bottom line, the way your system sounds is as unique as your musical taste. No need to fret over it, or feel you aren't living up to some "standard". Just go with it; whether "it" is the absolute sound of unamplified instruments or something different than that. No one is ever held to account as to why they drink Coke or Pepsi, why let them them hold you to something with your system and/or music? After all, the tastes of those involved in making and producing that music are just as varied as ours.

I'd guess that few people (in practice) judge a system by it's fidelity to the live performance that the recording in use represents. As several have noted above few people have had the opportunity to compare. Even for those who have had the opportunity (I had one such as e.p. on a wonderful cd - virtuoso French horn player Richard Todd's "With A Twist"). The recording process makes direct comparison difficult. The sound of Richard's horn, live in the studio vs via the monitors, vs via the monitors in the mix all differed - sometimes subtly, occassionally less so.

IME, most people judge a system on whether the illusion of some abstract live perfomance is convincing. This abstract illusion is more a platonic ideal than a real world reference point.

As a practical matter, the ability of a system to produce such an illusion is related to, but not identical to, what is on the recording. A great recording provides a great system an opportunity to prove convincing.

The original question posed here "Is this the closest approach" can't be answered. For timbre, detail, midrange purity, and several other components of the illusion, a Quad based system that is seamlessly extended into deep bass is one very effective approach. For the full impact illusion of a rock band at/near live volume levels, it cannot touch -IMHO- a big MBL or many other monster dynamic systems. Conversely, these dynamic systems - again IMHO - fall short of the Quad on those qualities that make the Quad so effective.

IMHO, the closest approach depends on the system, the recording, the type of music, and the particular priorities of the listener at hand. I've never heard a system that is al things to all listeners on all recordings.

Marty

Mr T, LOL! "there is one fly in the ointment' you say. A gadfly perhaps?

Detlof, I do agree with you. For myself, having overall satisfaction with the audio system(s) allows me to hear thru it to the contents of the recordings. Sometimes they are well recorded, sometimes not. Sometimes the performances are excellent, sometimes not. It has always been so, except now the performance of the system has reached a threshold where its performance seems to no longer be an issue for me. Interestingly I have also been listening to some old recordings that had, for acoustic reasons alone, not been getting much play time. Now I have discovered that many were far more involving and my earlier judgements were premature. That is all I ever wanted. As Von K once said about digital, the rest is gaslight.

:-)

Martykl, you're basically saying that the real thing has lots of dimensions, and that there is no such a thing that gets close to it along all dimensions...there are always tradeoffs.

Can you single out one or two dimensions that a quad + woofer doesn't deliver very well on (beyond sheer power, which is something I am not too concerned about -- what I have is more than enough for my room)? If so, is there anything one can do to improve the performance of a quad-based rig along these dimensions?