If we were to take a bad transistor radio into a tunnel and get bad reception but could still determine that we were listening to a recording of a piano, would that not be a very low percentage of the real thing, perhaps 1% for the sake of argument. Than if that same bad mono radio gets a clean signal, let us call that 2%. The sound of a basic car radio with a stereo signal on FM radio of a piano on a classical music channel, say 3%. Then a big BOSE radio gets a 4%. Surely an entry level stereo of good components gets a 5%. See where I am going?
Surely the very best ultra high end system in a great room with a great recording, say of a master tape on a R2R of a Mozart piano concerto would be greater than 5%, no? Vinyl, SET, horns, take your pick.
Such a demo was conducted at RMAF for a select group of reviewers in the Magico/Spectral room. One of those in attendance told me that after the performance ended and he opened his eyes, he actually had to familiarize himself with his surroundings because he temporarily lost himself in the experience of the performance, it was so close to convincing. Maybe not the real thing, but surely getting closer. |
Mapman,
I agree with you that there is nothing like the sound in good seats at a well designed hall. I don't think I'll ever get my Mini IIs to deliver large scale classical music convincingly or certainly not a rock concert. My room and those monitors are just too small. However, with a great recording and the right music (small scale and acoustic) the sound is pretty darn good and I dare say almost believable. Well, close enough to be emotionally moving.
Sure it's not the real thing, but it's one minute down the hall, available anytime and able to play any of my LPs with a simple lift of the tone arm. Muddy, Miles, Starker, or Arrau. Playback has come a long way.
Someday, I'll invite my buddy Edseas2 back over and ask about that 5% again. |
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. |
Somehow my original question: Are we making progress and how close are we? has prompted people to write things like "my stereo will never sound like my piano." Though I don't know how we could ever presume to know something with such certainty about the future, I do tend to agree with the sentiment. Even under the best of circumstances, I've never been really fooled, but I'm still wondering if the industry is making progress.
I had a gentleman over the other evening to hear my system. He explained that he has gone full circle in this hobby and after 50 or so years of owning many of the latest designs, he has ended up with a system that is very similar to what he had thirty years ago - very high efficiency cone/horn speakers (Altec), a vintage tube integrated amp (modified Heathkit) and a Japanese DD table (Technics). Sensing his excitement while describing his system, I think he likes his current system as much as anything he has owned. He emphasized the sense of dynamics as being very lifelike. So I ask, have we really advanced the state of the art in say the last 30 years?
Regarding how close we are to the real thing, let's forget percentages. That was a futile suggestion. How about something like this:
1. The best system I've heard sounds absolutely nothing like a real piano.
2. The best system I've heard allows me to recognize that it is in fact a recording of a piano.
3. The best system I've heard sometimes sounds a bit like a real piano.
4. The best system I've heard sounds pretty much like a real piano.
Judging from the responses to this thread, I think there is little consensus. Perhaps we should leave it at that and go and enjoy our systems. |
Timlub,
A recording of that marching band would not sound like the real thing on my stereo system. That much is obvious. However, the fact that I can identify it as a marching band with certain specificity about types of instruments, orientation of players, type of venue etc leads me to the conclusion that it is better than 5% if you mean as it sounds from a seat high up in the stadium. If you mean how it sounds from one of the players points of view, no way. How real is it is very hard to say. At the very least it is dependent upon very subject perspectives, and there will never be agreement.
It's an interesting question, though. Suppose two people are listening to a piano over a car radio. One says, "You know, it's pretty damn amazing that we can be driving down the road in a car and recognize this music coming out of nowhere as a Mozart piano concerto. It really sounds quite good, and I'm loving it." The other one says, "No way. It sounds nothing like a real piano. Scale, timbre, dynamics, harmonics, they are all wrong. Switch it to talk radio."
After reading through this entire thread, I truly think either one of those guys could be right. One guy's 95% is another guy's 5%. I find the technology simply amazing and yet I realize that we still have a long way to go. To me it's not 95% or 5%. It is somewhere in that vast middle range. That's the best I can do to answer your question. |
Phaelon,
I agree with you that the thread is going in an interesting direction. KIrkus and others have broadened my understanding of the topic tremendously. It was not my intent to peg a specific percentage to the question of how close are we to the real thing beyond that I think 5% is too low in the context of today's very "best" systems.
Has Edseas heard a really great recording on one of today's great systems? He told me he hadn't. Can we agree that we are at least getting closer to the real thing? From reading many of the posts, I think the answer for many of us is YES. Sorry for your head, Mapman. |
Fredseas2,
You banged the one note on my kids' upright piano and then compared it to a recording of a concert grand, as I remember. I agree with you that that one note did not sound identical to any one of the many notes in the recording. It wasn't even really close. But the recording certainly resembled the sound of a piano, and it wasn't a particularly good recording and it certainly was not one of the "best" systems available.
At this past RMAF I heard a live piano recital in the hotel lobby and then heard Ray Kimber's incredible four channel system play one of his IsoMic? recordings of a piano. Not identical, but boy were they similar to my ears. |
