What is stopping the ultimate?

The amount of money that some folks are able and willing to expend on this hobby these days always makes me wonder why the high-end industry stops short of trying to exceed the present paradigm of reproduced sound. It seems to me that instead of wringing hands and waiting to see what new digital format or channel configuration will prevail in the battles of the big boys - who aren't selling their products based on audiophile criteria - the high-end could form an industry consortium of their own to originate a perfectionist approach to recording, software, and system parameters that could be adopted by audiophiles and the high-end industry alone. Yes, such an effort would be very expensive, as would the resulting hardware and recordings. It would also have to be backward-compatible in some way with existing formats and software. But given the amounts of cash that some of us are apparently ready to throw at mere refinements of old technology and tweaks that don't significantly advance the illusion of recreating the original performance, and the prices that are already paid for vintage records of audiophile interest, I can imagine such an all-out assault actually reinvigorating the business. In general, the new paradigm would focus on completely integrated systems (forget the separate components, mix-'n'-match approach), be multi-channel and all-digital in nature, and would require purpose-built dedicated listening environments (the answer to the thrust of the original question is the listening room, by the way - on par with software and above speakers). The recording process would be an integral part of this system, utilizing a purist audiophile-grade chain and agreed-upon microphone techniques to enable predictable multi-channel reproduction. The digital recording and storage media and all signal proccessing would have to be accomplished using a data density exceeding theoretical distortion and detection limits of electronics and the human ear. The number of discrete audio channels would be determined solely by what is acoustically required for transparent soundfield immersion (my own guess is eight, minimum). Maybe the system would even run off of a dedicated, high-power utility line incompatible with other household devices. Whatever it takes. And whatever it may be - whether a complete room/system cost a million dollars and recordings cost hundreds each - I bet that buyers would come forth and ante up. Such is the power of music (and money). And the rest of us mortals would still have what we've got today. (But I, for one, would not feel much the poorer for it, since I primarily listen to vintage records and reissues from the golden ages of rock and roll, DIY punk, studio pop, jazz, rhythm and blues, etc., where the signature [read: distorted] sound of the recording [analog and often mono] and the medium [often less than pristine] is as important to the atmosphere of the record as the performance itself!)

Clueless (who isn't) smacks the nail right on the head. The electrical interaction between the amplifier and the speaker is wayyyy complex and cannot be deduced from reading the spec sheets of both. You have to do it with your ears. That's why amps with very similar measured characteristics sound so strikingly different when connected to the same speakers and why speakers sound so very different when connected to the same amp.

I wouldn't say that at some point in the future these matters couldn't be measured and quantified but at this point we've only got one way to do it....with the ears.

Very well put Bishopwill. Good common sense point.

Further on Bishop's & Clueless' points on amp-speakers interaction: one of the reasons high nominal power amps have a market IMO, is the current reserve the manufacturer has to include in order to achieve specs such as (fortuitous example) 250W class A, measured @ 1kHz signal/8 OHM constant resistance. This power capability allows these machines to perform under normal listening conditions at reasonable db levels and deal with the varying speaker load (+ the crap from the c/overs).

Similarly, with tubes: allegedly, many of the power supplies provided for an advertsied output of 2-digit watts the power supplies are overkill -- according to traditional EE theory. This comes from hearsay, I'm not an EE...

On the other hand, for me, the original question still stands -- bar active speakers and our zero control over recording and s/w production phases: where's the ultimate?

Lack of standards throughout the chain, from microphones to speakers. Two channel sound. Overproduced recordings. Producers and engineers by law should only be alloweed three microphones when they record. Too much editing of recordings. Too many variables in assembling systems: manufacturers should offer more all inclusive systems with everything hard wired from a to z (would audiophiles buy them: buying, assembling, disassembling and selling is the heart of the hobby, no?). At least more active speaker systems to avoid mismatches. And last but not least, improved speaker systems, not that good ones now are bad, simply that they are the hardest part of the system to design and build to the highest level.