This has been a fascinating thread. It seems to me that it has raised three related questions:
(1) How real does a state-of-the-art system sound? (The OPs question)
(2) What are the factors that limit how real a system sounds?
(3) Why do estimates about how real a state-of-the-art system sounds vary so much?
I will take a shot at the OPs question last. About the other two
(2) What are the factors that limit how real a system sounds?
Atmasphere, Shadorne, and others have already said much of what needs to be said. I would only add that, to my ears, the three principal characteristics that limit how real most systems sounds are: Dynamic range, spatial cues, and harmonic content.
My suspicion is that dynamic range, spatial cues, and harmonic content are themselves chiefly limited by recordings, rooms, and equipment, respectively. Dynamic range is limited both by the inherent informational limits of recording media and by the elective use of compression during mixing. Spatial cues are limited by acoustically under-treated rooms, which obscure spatial cues, or by acoustically over-treated rooms, which limit the directionality of spatial cues. And harmonic content is limited by various kinds of equipment-induced distortion, whether harmonic distortion, IMD, TIM, etc.. This is of course an oversimplification, but the general point is that, IMO, the chief factors that limit how real most systems sound are dynamic range, spatial cues, and harmonic content (probably in that order).
(3) Why do estimates about how real a state-of-the-art system sounds vary so much?
It seems to me that estimates vary so much for both objective and subjective reasons
Some OBJECTIVE REASONS:
-People have been exposed to different systems, including different state of the art systems. The better the systems, the higher your estimate.
-People listen to different types of music. The smaller the scale of the music you tend to listen to, the higher your estimate.
-People have different libraries of recordings. The higher the average recording quality from your personal library, the higher your estimate.
Some SUBJECTIVE REASONS:
-People have different capacities for aural perception. Its no secret that musicians perceive things in music that most other listeners do not. Audiophiles have their own form of enhanced perception, though they are probably sensitive to different things. The point is that the greater your aural perception, the greater the potential for perceived differences between real musical events and recorded ones, and so the lower your estimate.
-People have different capacities for aural memory. The better your aural memory, the more rigorously you will be able to compare recorded musical events with recalled musical events. And the more rigorous the comparison, the more you will perceive what is wrong with recorded playback, and so the lower your estimate.
-People have different capacities for aural imagination. The greater your imagination, the easier it is to fill in whats missing during recorded playback, and so the higher your estimate.
-People have different capacities for selective attention. The greater your selective attention and the better you can control it, the easier it is to ignore whats wrong with a recording or a system, and the higher your estimate.
-People have different mental standards for judging whats real. For some people, its dynamics. For others, its instrument timbres. For others, its PRaT. The point is that people dont use the same information for judging the verisimilitude of a recorded musical event. The more you use standards in which recorded playback usually suffers (e.g., dynamic range), the lower your estimate.
All of these subjective considerations point to the fact that, in order to answer the OPs question, a person must take into consideration many of his own psychological characteristics (perception, memory, imagination, etc.), and since these characteristics vary widely, answers to the OPs question vary widely. Which brings me to
(1) How real does a state-of-the-art system sound? (The OPs question)
This question could be interpreted in terms of the total amount of musical information at the listening position during the real musical event vs. the total amount of musical information at the listening position during the recorded playback of that same event. If that is how the OPs question is interpreted, then my answer is: I have no idea, but someone could probably figure this out, within some limited range of accuracy.
Alternatively, the OPs question could be interpreted in terms of how real a system sounds to people. If that is how the OPs question in interpreted, then my answer is: There is no single valid answer. There are many possible answers, each valid to an individual or to a group of similar individuals. Generally, I don't like to conclude something so subjectivist, but that is how I see it.
Bryon
(1) How real does a state-of-the-art system sound? (The OPs question)
(2) What are the factors that limit how real a system sounds?
(3) Why do estimates about how real a state-of-the-art system sounds vary so much?
I will take a shot at the OPs question last. About the other two
(2) What are the factors that limit how real a system sounds?
Atmasphere, Shadorne, and others have already said much of what needs to be said. I would only add that, to my ears, the three principal characteristics that limit how real most systems sounds are: Dynamic range, spatial cues, and harmonic content.
My suspicion is that dynamic range, spatial cues, and harmonic content are themselves chiefly limited by recordings, rooms, and equipment, respectively. Dynamic range is limited both by the inherent informational limits of recording media and by the elective use of compression during mixing. Spatial cues are limited by acoustically under-treated rooms, which obscure spatial cues, or by acoustically over-treated rooms, which limit the directionality of spatial cues. And harmonic content is limited by various kinds of equipment-induced distortion, whether harmonic distortion, IMD, TIM, etc.. This is of course an oversimplification, but the general point is that, IMO, the chief factors that limit how real most systems sound are dynamic range, spatial cues, and harmonic content (probably in that order).
(3) Why do estimates about how real a state-of-the-art system sounds vary so much?
It seems to me that estimates vary so much for both objective and subjective reasons
Some OBJECTIVE REASONS:
-People have been exposed to different systems, including different state of the art systems. The better the systems, the higher your estimate.
-People listen to different types of music. The smaller the scale of the music you tend to listen to, the higher your estimate.
-People have different libraries of recordings. The higher the average recording quality from your personal library, the higher your estimate.
Some SUBJECTIVE REASONS:
-People have different capacities for aural perception. Its no secret that musicians perceive things in music that most other listeners do not. Audiophiles have their own form of enhanced perception, though they are probably sensitive to different things. The point is that the greater your aural perception, the greater the potential for perceived differences between real musical events and recorded ones, and so the lower your estimate.
-People have different capacities for aural memory. The better your aural memory, the more rigorously you will be able to compare recorded musical events with recalled musical events. And the more rigorous the comparison, the more you will perceive what is wrong with recorded playback, and so the lower your estimate.
-People have different capacities for aural imagination. The greater your imagination, the easier it is to fill in whats missing during recorded playback, and so the higher your estimate.
-People have different capacities for selective attention. The greater your selective attention and the better you can control it, the easier it is to ignore whats wrong with a recording or a system, and the higher your estimate.
-People have different mental standards for judging whats real. For some people, its dynamics. For others, its instrument timbres. For others, its PRaT. The point is that people dont use the same information for judging the verisimilitude of a recorded musical event. The more you use standards in which recorded playback usually suffers (e.g., dynamic range), the lower your estimate.
All of these subjective considerations point to the fact that, in order to answer the OPs question, a person must take into consideration many of his own psychological characteristics (perception, memory, imagination, etc.), and since these characteristics vary widely, answers to the OPs question vary widely. Which brings me to
(1) How real does a state-of-the-art system sound? (The OPs question)
This question could be interpreted in terms of the total amount of musical information at the listening position during the real musical event vs. the total amount of musical information at the listening position during the recorded playback of that same event. If that is how the OPs question is interpreted, then my answer is: I have no idea, but someone could probably figure this out, within some limited range of accuracy.
Alternatively, the OPs question could be interpreted in terms of how real a system sounds to people. If that is how the OPs question in interpreted, then my answer is: There is no single valid answer. There are many possible answers, each valid to an individual or to a group of similar individuals. Generally, I don't like to conclude something so subjectivist, but that is how I see it.
Bryon