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
Bjesien, I fully agree that playback satisfaction varies greatly. I suspect that for performing musicians listening to recorded music is not relaxing and staying at their best entails much practice. My friend used to read a great deal within a silent study.

I do find it valuable not withstanding that we share our experiences, but to assume any consensus is beyond us. I have some friends whose options I greatly respect, that is the best I can do in guiding my buying decisions.

Once I allowed myself to think that I was hearing 90% of what was real. Shortly after that I got something new and thought it was a very great improvement suggesting that before it I was only at about 50%. I decided that this was a waste of time. Sometimes when I leave my music room with something playing, I close the door and while descending the stairs, ask myself whether it sounds like real music being played. My answer always, thus far, is no.
Irvrobinson, I was thinking the same thing. I noted above that I do sound quite often for live music. You think audiophiles are subjective, you should hear musicians talking about EVERYTHING changes the sound of their instruments. Stings, different brands of horns sound different, piano, piano strings, drums and different skins...... It does not have to be exact to sound live. I've had a celloist in and pianist seperately in my home, they both commented that they could have been fooled. I truly believe that if we are listening to excellent recordings where the scale of the venue is close to our living room that it is possible to come very close to the live experience, if any variables change we lose that live charm very quickly. My system doesn't fool anybody on larger scale music, but I still enjoy it. Somewhere in the above thread, it was mentioned of a live/recording comparison of a small group called Misty River. After I read that, I ordered this recording. On a couple of their songs (not all) you can hear the order of the girls placement when they sing, you can hear very specific intstrument placement and the tonal balance and mic work on this recording is quite good... Honestly, I would not be fooled on this recording, but It comes closer than I thought it would and as I made reference to before as single cello or piano can fool alot of people.
good listening, Tim
To build on what Timlub says about musicians preferring different strings, etc.

I know a luthier who flies around the world to choose all his own sustainable wood stock. He looks closely at different internal bracing for different sounds and player preferences. He might choose Honduran Mahogany or Cedar for a neck. Brazilian Rosewood is his preference for bridges. Saddles, soundboards, fingerboards all the more complex. Some of his finest guitars sell for 30k. So many details and such artistry.

Have to say I'm leaning more toward 40% when I really think about it. We are all blessed with the ability to even experiment with audio and I'm happy to have the ability to squabble about it.