How close to the real thing?

One truly missing ingredient in the process is the recording/transfer equipment. Mic's are so variable, as to be frustrating, with some real improvements recently...then there's the question of 'how to position and place' performers.
In an ideal world, they'd simply set up as if performing...but how often do we see this?
In another post a couple of years ago, I sent kuddos to Michael Buble for having the guts as a pop singer, to announce that he recorded the group he sang in front of, in a natural setting--without the extraordinary, measures normally taken--with him in LA, them in New York, etc.
Of late, we're seeing a trend toward this--in the Movie, Love Actually, the little girl singing, 'All I Want For Christmas', in the movie's climax, was singing 'live'. The director even commented that they went to great pains to let her breathing (which was a bit loud), be captured, so people would KNOW that it was her singing.
Then,in Across the Universe, the director, in order to gain the sense of reality, had the performers work with a 'live mic', and pretty much did the same thing.

IMHO, the true missing ingredients are, flat Frequency Response, (the greatest predictor of TONAL ACCURACY something the brain REALLY catches quickly), and possibly the key, DYNAMIC CONTRAST. The brain knows, what the dynamics SHOULD BE...and if we don't hear that, we simply know immediately that its a recording and not real. When we can do this consistantly, we'll be much closer.

IMHO.

Larry

Last time I listened to a live concert on my system I stood on my couch with a cigarette lighter for the encore. The next day my wife asked why there were burns on the ceiling. Oops.

I think that too many assume that if we hear live music that is the goal of this hobby but there are big variations in live music. With only limited experience, I think most would agree that some venues sound better than others.

I still remember when CES was still in Chicago, we were eating at Bergdoff's where there was a small jazz group going from table to table. When they came to our table, I noticed that the bass was boomy when the bass player was only about five feet from me, but had not been when he was further away. Some real is good and some is not.

I am convinced that my "realism" has greatly improved in the last several years, but I would never make an estimate of how close it is to a live performance in my room. When I am startled by a new instrument coming in or involved in the emotions of the music, I am happy.

One final comment. Long ago I had a friend who was a concert pianist. He had heard my system often and had often requested some classical piano performances and seemed to enjoy them. Finally, while at his home, I asked what he listened to. He took me into his study and showed me an old Webcor portable record player!! I must have looked shocked as he said he listened only to the performer's choices in the piece and other than that paid little attention to what he was hearing. He said he heard it all in his head.

Most performing musicians seem to spend as much time and money on home stereo as your friend, they tend not to be audiophiles - hmmmm.

That's true but they are listening for the notes, not the sound. Its an entirely different portion of the brain that is used. Try sitting in front of a keyboard and see if you can work out the notes of a favorite melody and you will see what I mean.

If you want a recording of a piano in the home to sound as real as an actual piano in the home, you have a real challenge. The problem is that the sound of the piano exists in the room- if you try to record and play back in the same room, you will have double the room signature. It won't sound right. That's why I stress that understanding the model of stereo is the first step to appreciating how real it can really sound, because if it really is sounding real, it will sound like the musical event, spliced on to the end of your room.