The closest approach...really

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?

GG

Sheer power/large scale dynamics was the main thing I was driving at. In the case of the MBL, you can add a certain sense of dimensionality to the imaging (particularly a soloist in front of full accompaniement) that is different, and for me, more convincing than Quads (or anything else).

If you've got Quads well integrated to a sub, I wouldn't have any advice for you. The Quads aren't perfect and I don't know of any way to change that. But, for all I've said about MBL, I'd personally take a great Quad/Sub set-up first, because I prioritize for certain things (particularly octave to octave balance) that the MBL doesn't shine on. I was merely pointing out that your phrase "the closest approach" begs the question "to what?" Sounds like you're on a good road for your priorities.

Good luck,

Marty

GG
I have no trouble with what Marty has pointed out to you. Actually I agree with him almost completely. I have owned Quads plus subs for practically more than 20 years, have in search of more power duplicated, triplicated even quadrupolated them, because I could not get their almost perfect timbre with cone speakers, absolutely hated the sound of a big MBL system, probably badly set up, as completely unnatural and settled on the big Sound Labs as a compromise. If you are used to the almost perfect musical timbre which ESLs are able to produce for almost all voices and instruments, you are spoilt for life. So be careful, you might stop there...(:

Newbee:

Oh yea, old von K, no audiophile I would say, music-lover yes but that had third place. First his love for power, second his vanity. Excellent business sense and very dangerous if crossed.
I also live happily in the stone age. Never really left it in actual fact.
Cheers,