How close to the real thing?

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.

To Peterayer -

You won't like this citation much from Bob Katz - for anyone who doesn't know who he is he's one of the best recording engineers alive today - here's a link to his bio:

http://www.digido.com/images/00495-Bob_Katz_Bio.pdf

As Peter should know by now, I am fond of saying something that, on the surface, seems implausible yet, under closer scrutiny, may have a lot of merit. Old style conversation, if you will.

Here's the citation (from monoandstereo.com):

MI: Do you think that it is possible to archive the same experience as live acts on recorded media like playback systems? Have you ever heard any recordings that stunned you?

BK: Yes. I've heard great recordings that stun me. But every time I go to hear the group live in front of me with no amplification, I think that we are so far away from the live experience that we will never have that experience.

Sorry Peterayer.

While I certainly believe that someone who has never heard a SOTA system such as yours may say that he didn't know what such a system was capable of reproducing, do I believe that it approaches live, unamplified music sound wise?

No WAY Jose!

Neither does Katz.

Ed