How close to the real thing?

I only disagree with the 5% part. I think that should be more like 90% and mostly constrained by the room size. A properly set up system in an auditorium could get much closer to the real thing.

As a trumpeter, I've seldom felt that I heard a recorded trumpet sound as live. There were a few direct-to-disk exceptions in the analog days and some reel-to-reel recordings got close, but most lacked some key overtones and dynamic range. Now, with DSD and other hi-rez recording techniques, I'm hearing the real thing more and more.

Interesting thread. I agree with Mapman, Atmasphere, Shadorne, and Bryon. Certainly anyone who thinks that they could possibly reproduce the sound of a full symphony orchestra in their room and have it sound remotely close to how it does live is fooling themselves. Though I know he doesn't particularly care for concluding it, Bryon is correct in saying that there is no single answer to any of these questions.

One interesting thing, Bryon - you mention that "The greater your imagination, the easier it is to fill in what’s missing during recorded playback". This does not necessarily even require imagination - if one was present at the live event that one is listening to a recording of, for instance. I frequently listen to the archival recordings made by my orchestra (I am on the broadcast committee), and I am constantly surprised by what is NOT picked up by the mikes, much more so than I am at what is picked up.

I do know what you mean, though. In fact, this imagination can be a liability for musicians that are trying to judge recordings they have made of themselves for audition purposes, for example. Also, sometimes it is difficult to tell when listening to such a recording whether the sound you don't like is your fault or the fault of the recording (for example, you think your sound is too bright). This just happened to a colleague of mine, who had to come to me to ask my opinion - this issue can cloud one's judgement very easily, messing with your head for no reason sometimes.

So far JAX2 has been the closest as the correct answer is...... 65%. Still lots of room for improvement.
So, lets keep at it.

Weseixas and Phaelon - Thanks for those kind words.

Learsfool - As I see it, aural imagination allows the listener to compare how something sounds with how it MIGHT sound. In my view, that is both an asset and a liability for an audiophile (and probably for a musician).

Aural imagination is an asset, insofar as it helps the listener identify what is wrong with a system's presentation. But it can also be a liability, since it can distract the listener from what a system is doing right, when he is just trying to enjoy himself.

So, IMO, aural imagination is beneficial, provided you can turn it off. The same thing can probably be said about other kinds of imagination.

Bryon

Thank you for the many and varied responses. The thread answered some questions which I was not aware I had asked. Having listened to many recordings of piano and other music on LP on my system since I started this thread and I have concluded that much depends on the quality of the recording, as some have mentioned.

In a few instances, to my ears, my system does indeed approach the sound of real, live, unamplified music. And so do the best of other systems that I have heard. In other cases, it is not really close. I do think we have made progress, as the systems I listened to as a child and then in college only hinted at the sound of my current system. And my system is not even close to the best that is out there.

I also think we have a long way to go and may never reach the point where one could be fooled while blindfolded 100% of the time. But that really is not the point. I asked the original question because it seems in some instances, in some rooms on great systems, we are closer than the 5% that Edseas2 suggested.

To Edseas2, moniker for my friend whose comment prompted this thread originally: thank you for joining the discussion. I'm sorry, but I don't smell a wiff of miasma in my question or implied by it. And I simply don't understand your question about my question's reciprocal.

When my piano tuner and musician friend (bass and piano) finished tuning my kids' piano after a lesson one afternoon, I invited him to stick around and to listen to some Ellington and Ray Brown. I put on a 45 RPM of "This One's for Blanton." He listen to all of side one without saying a word. He then shook his head, didn't move and quietly said, "Wow, I didn't think a stereo could do that". I know what he meant.