Your System vs. Live Music, or how close to live..

Analogue 65, Digital 50
Analogue:
J.A.Michell GyroDec MKIV -> Incognito RB300 with Lyra Helikon -> ARC PH3 ->directly through attenuators-> VTL Deluxe 100 monos.
Digital:
Monarchy DT 40b transport -> EAD DSP7000MKII ->directly through attenuators-> VTL Deluxe 100 monos

everything above revealed by Totem Forest.

Interconnects mostly AudioQuest Diamondblack
Speaker wire is Van Den Hul unterminated 3' for each speaker.

I must also add that no other system I've heard in the dealer's showrooms sounded as live as mine in my own room.

I give this a 1... and I have heard (and own) some top quality systems. Live music cannot be reproduced in the home. You must enjoy reproduced music for what it is... reproduced.

My system can be reviewed in the "System" part of this site under Ray's stuff, along with my in field recording equipment. Therefore, judging the concerts I attend and record, at home on this system, I would rate it an 80 percent. I would say the first 85% is not so difficult. It is the last 15% that is hard.

I can actually listen to my masters and reference it with the concert and venue sound. Now, that is the only way to actually measure how close your system is getting. Otherwise, you are referencing a sound that often times is artificial and just a simulation of reality. You know, studio and or multi mic'ed stuff.

IMO, most people would be unhappy with a real recording of a concert. What seems to satisfy people are recordings that are more than real. Extra, extra real! Kodachrome real. We tend to be satisfied with hyper real.

IMO, there are only a few good seats at any venue. The more you deviant from them the less real the sound is. Too many other variables get in the way, i.e, reflection, defraction, absorbtion, people talking, scratching, ect. Throw in a P.A. system and guess what, goodbye real timbres and soundstage.

Now, I not saying I can't be drawn into a P.A. system's sound. Yes I can. But, that is not "real" instruments in "real" space. It something else.

I attend a majority of these type of concerts and I try to balance the P.A. with the stage. When I am fortunate I get "real like" results. However, sometimes that is not the case and you get what you get.

Also, we only listen to sound at home and our brain can focus most of it's processes on the "sound". At a concert our other senses are operating which adds to our paradigm of "real". Thus, our brain is processing lots of information, therefore it maybe only using 60-70 percent on the actual sound. The rest on touch, smell and sight, ect.

I don't think we can be fully fooled into virtual reality until we can satisfy all of our senses. And, TV is a far cry from visual reality.

So, one way that I attempt understanding how close my recordings are is to shut my eyes during the concert and create a sonic finger print, file it and pull it up later when referencing my recordings at home.

Therefore, in summary I would say that many systems do more right than wrong. (As long as they are set up properly.) However, that last "real" element is still out there and I don't know if we would know or like it if we actually heard it just by its self.

To live? To honest to God really live acoustic music, no amps, no distortion devices, none of that? I will probably beg to differ with every post up and from here on out, and I will not make too many friends in the process. Not mine or any I have ever heard come close to the experience. There is far more joy and sensory pleasure in live performances. And whether it be Janis Ian, Guy Clark, John Hiatt,Nickle Creek,Mark O'Connor,Yo Yo Ma, the Nashville Symphony or any of the other 1000's of talented musicians here, they cannot record what they do live. No system I could ever sit in front of will bring all the nuance of being there live. I live in Nashville and I have it easy when it comes to wanting to hear live music. Live music helps me enjoy my system , and make what I consider good adjustments to my system, but it will never come close to the experience of live. At the moment in my system, though because of what I do it changes constantly, Vandersteen 2 ce's, Perreaux 3150 and SM2, Scott 350b tuner, Pioneer DV-09. Not the latest stuff in the world. but not bad. I just recently had the pleasure of auditioning Kirk930's Utopia,Tube Research system and I would say the same about it, and it is a great system no doubt, but still not the same league as live.

My Classe CA-400 and Dunlavy V based two channel system, I would say come to 75 sitting in the sweet spot, but Extend that to stereo surround sound mode on Classe SSP-50, CA-400 and Dunlavy II in concert with two channel sitting in NEXT room or back yard on a good recording (e.g. Days of the New's debut CD), closeness to live comes to 90. No kidding. Hate to admit but it is true.

At the chance of getting beat up for this I have to say that I dont build my system to sound like live music. I build it to sound as good as possible to me.

Some live concert qualities amaze me and I would give anything for my system to sound like them. But most of the time I have to wear ear plugs because of the harshness.

My system is

Classe Audio Cp 60
Classe Audio Dac 1
Classe Audio CDT 1
Genesis digital lens
Two Classe Audio ca 400's. One two channel amp per speaker that I use with Mit push pull cables.

Sonus Faber Extremas
Two Rel Stentor subs that I run in stereo.

I think my system sounds far from most live but I have to admit when I had a turntable the realism of tonal accuracy while playing Simon and Garfunkels live at central park would give me goosebumps. Well recorded live albums are the best in capturing the energy of concerts.

I have a pretty good system (if you care to see what's in it as of a while back, check the Best System You Ever Built thread), and have heard a lot of fine systems, and I'd have to fall in the camp of Jvia and Slartibartfast, I don't think you can get more than 10-15 on your scale from any system, at least for large scale classical music, and maybe a little higher for smaller scale ensembles. Dynamics and sheer volume are always compromised by reproducing systems (as well as the recording equipment itself), even for solo voice and instruments, and my system can only offer a creditable approximation of an orchestra going full bore. I feel analog gets me closest, SACD and 24/96 next, with CDs third. Note that I'm not saying that you can't enjoy what a stereo/full surround system can give you, but it just can't really be compared, in my view, to the real thing--a different reality, if you will.

I would consider myself to have a high grade audiphile system. When i go to a live jazz performance, I would say that when compared to my system, I achieve under 20%...nothing like the sound of the wood in a real instrement

Even discounting the visual ambience, no-where near. As mentioned by Rc, Jvia, Slartibartfast and Mzn50 above, reproduced music is just that: reproduced. A beautiful experience, nevertheless, and one that offers some advantages over live: where can you hear Furtwangler --or Klemperer, or S-R Vaughan, or T Monk, or Miles, etc (endless list)-- live?
Cheers