How close to the real thing?

An interesting range of responses.

Let's review (EOD (equal opportunity disparagement) --Trust, and wait until the end):

Elizabeth and Fin1bxn in the very high percentage camp, IrvRobinson who thinks "reproducing piano is almost too easy", the down-to-physics pragmatic science perspective of Br3098, Depotec who, while recording, compared one ear in headphones to one ear listening live (finding they were "VERY close") [which, the ears?], Elviukai who has calculated the cost of authentic sounding transducers to exceed NASA's budget in the 1960s, an invocation of a long-dead audio design star's opinion, Fin1bxn,a proponent of (relatively) modest priced electrostatics that feel like live music, and someone whose stratospheric spending, nor his friends' drastically irrational outlay get "sad to say [do you suppose so?] not even close to the real thing."

They --we-- all have differing perspectives on this question.

Does this cast a few things in high relief for you, as it does for me?

With 'authenticity of reproduction to live music' scores running the gamut from very low single digits to over 100 per cent ("sometimes ..recorded music can be more enjoyable than live"),

*Is it conceivable that people experience live music differently from one another?*

If you don't agree with that, at least I can better understand, now, why the audio-purchasing public supports so many products, particularly at the high end. (and why Audiogon does a booming business)

This thread --thank you, Peter Provocateur-- points up another thing: we expend a lot of energy talking, writing and socializing about music: all Thought Process, conducted between the ears. Coincidentally, that is where we hear every single nuance of live music, if or when we listen to The Reference, or accept it as such.

From the very broad spectrum of responses here (philosophical, economic, comparative (live to recorded in the same room), scientific, and deductive) it occurs to me that 1) when we're talking or writing or thinking about this enterprise, be it about equipment, recordings, comparison to live music, We Are Not Listening (sound like an Audio Club meeting?); 2) we are a group with *tremendous* imagination.

Use your imagination to listen Into the Music. And beyond the equipment. I'm still trying to learn it. And mood comes into it just as much --perhaps more-- than room treatment.

Make time for Listening. Not just to music, but to the quiet in your room BEFORE you turn on your equipment. Then CHOOSE to allow the music to transport you.

Life asks us, occasionally, to be a skeptic, someone who Jax2 a different drummer: often they, like the court jester, have something important to say. When you listen to music, turn out the lights, take off your glasses, make room in your mind for the same imagination that lets the written word leap alive from the page.

When you make this choice, the Muse-ic will be there to greet you, reward you, and expand your soul. It's in there. Just stop listening to the equipment. Put your skeptical, analytic mind aside and let the music rush in. The price or configuration of your system has naught to do with satisfaction: your decision to enjoy music is where the power lies.

After that choice, everything is play...

Thank you for your patience. The very best to you, and Happy Holidays!

David Kellogg

"Also, have you used a sound meter at a given distance to see if you're playing the recording at a similar volume? If you haven't you'd be shocked at how loud a live piano is." IrvRobinson

"Agreed - very few home audio speakers can do a grand piano realistically. This is a very loud and dynamic instrument. Ditto a drum set, trumpet or trombone. Most non-musicians have no idea how loud these things go." Shadorne

From 90+ percent of the systems I've heard, higher volumes, (read real-world sound pressure levels) prove more challenging than reproducing the dynamics and timbre of most instruments, and certainly symphonic scale performance. Piano, cello, dulcimer and mandolin are stand-out exceptions, in part, I believe, due to the complexity of their harmonics.

What's an audiophile to do?

Go to more live performances, play an instrument and accept the challenge, and the present-moment fact, that reproduced music is just that. Nothing more, but also nothing less. Being satisfied with the options we have is the road to [audio] nirvana.

Peter, I had to tweak you with a percentage.

David

Are we getting somewhere?

Pubul57 states that "the "gap" is small", so I feel secure, now, in inferring that we're likely well beyond Edseas2's and other nay-sayers' 5%.

Let's look at it without prejudice: on an absolute scale, 5 of 100 per cent would produce a recording of a piano that sounded like Linus' toy instrument. We have far better playback than that today and have for many years.

The indisputable fact that we have no way to measure the more far-reaching and seemingly esoteric or obscure aspects of our marvelous minds' response capability does not reduce the joy of listening --or the pleasure of a fine and pointed discourse, for that matter.

'Progress', as Kirkus and Atmasphere describe it, *is* happening, whether Edseas or his violist friend accept it. We're beyond 5%, like it or don't.

Luddites were against technology on a religious basis: in philosophy there is no religion, nor is there, directly, religion in scientific reasoning (at least at our present level of understanding; there may be marvel or regard, but that is different: vis Hocking's "Into the Universe").

Edsea2's objection to the 5% solution appears unscientific, and though some of the more esoteric tweaks in our endeavor appear to revolve around witchcraft, I don't care: if my listening experienced is enhanced toward my goal of playback sounding more like live music, I don't care what kind of "weird sh*t" goes into, is placed upon, or comes out of my transducers.

If you can't quantify it, but it works with concensus or others' verification, that simply means our science lags behind our listening pleasure in the ability to measure what sounds convincingly authentic to the live source.

Is that a bad state of affairs? Not knowing why something works?

I submit that having something work --well beyond 5% efficacy-- is cause for celebration. I'm grateful for the pleasure and solace, not to mention the mood-changing opportunity that my music system offers me.

I've thought about it, been frustrated by it, and exhilarated as I learned to 'tune' it to [something approaching] its potential. I enjoy learning, talking and writing about it. The delight it gives me, however, comes from listening into the music, and out of myself.

Best Wishes for Festivus, whichever flavor you prefer. May there be satisfaction in your listening, and joy in your heart.

David