How close to the real thing?


Recently a friend of mine heard a Chopin concert in a Baptist church. I had told him that I had gone out to RMAF this year and heard some of the latest gear. His comment was that he thinks the best audio systems are only about 5% close to the real thing, especially the sound of a piano, though he admitted he hasn't heard the best of the latest equipment.

That got me thinking as I have been going to the BSO a lot this fall and comparing the sound of my system to live orchestral music. It's hard to put a hard percentage on this kind of thing, but I think the best systems capture a lot more than just 5% of the sound of live music.

What do you think? Are we making progress and how close are we?
peterayer
Bob Katz? You're quoting a mastering engineer for pop music, who's mostly concerned with mixing, compression, synthesizers, electric guitars, and drum machines, and his comment (taken out of context) about us not being able to reproduce "live" is relevant? How?

I agree with Katz, actually, my home system is waaay far away from reproducing a stack of JBL PA systems.

Bob Katz and Pop Music - you're kidding right?

Ever hear of Chesky Records?

The notion that we don't have the ability to "reproduce "live" music" is taken out of context?

Guess you didn't read the OP's original question.

Sounds par for the course with you, you didn't read Katz' bio either.
"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."

The truth of that use to make me frown, till I accepted that recorded music must be appreciated it on its own terms and its inherent limitations - yet totally satisfying and magical for what it is. I think Katz is 100% right about recorded music versus live, unamplified (critical)music. The gap is obvious and permanent, but no reason not to love and enjoy our home systems.