How much “suspension of disbelief do you need?”

I always reference piano sound. I have piano at home Steinway upright and can compare with recordings. Also solo piano is one of the best tests for system performance just by ear.

I don't obsess or even think about a recording sounding like an actual live performance. I only think about how great a recording might sound or possibly not so good if it is produced poorly or is just a lousy pressing job.

 I will say that some stripped down acoustic recordings could sound more like a live performance than more complex recordings.

I usually thoroughly enjoy what I am listening to because I am very happy with the sound of my system(s) and the music that I choose to listen to. 

When people who are in a band tell me that they have never heard a stereo that sounded as accurate as mine, where they are able to discern rim shots, listen to the original to better reproduce it and such, I know that I am close. As resolving as my system is, I still want a hair more. I can't say whether that will be sufficient or not because I am not yet there, but I believe that I am nearly there. Well recorded vocals that do not have instruments drowning out spatial details do render a "you are there" reproduction on my system, but then they were so engineered, because most were not recorded with a single stereo microphone. Different producers and engineers achieve different levels of realism. It's much like 18'th century scientists saying that science is akin to thinking God's thoughts after Him as they discovered different things. I hear pretty much what the engineer intended us to hear, assuming a good enough system to do so. You know when you are there when most of your recordings sound good. Subjective, sure, it's all you have after the fact. Listening fatigue is none existent for some fortunate people who's systems don't resolve differences in cables, and in the less fortunate, it drives them to attempt perfection. I am very near my idea of perfection, I am able to listen for hours now. Everyone has their own perception of sufficiency, and beating up others due to their level of sufficiency is an exercise in true ignorance and arrogance, which I was quite guilty of in the past. Now I could care less if you need a cheep 1960's hand held mono transistor radio to be content, or a billion dollar tube system that requires a room the size of a concert hall to be content. As long as you don't have to abuse others to achieve your idea of audio Nirvana I am thrilled that you are content.

“Over the decades I have increasingly been dissatisfied with electrified concerts. I now stick to acoustic symphonic and unamplified jazz. Otherwise my system sounds better. ”
 

Where does one find a jazz concert where no one is using a microphone?

Long ago I helped - well, stood around uselessly - at a recording of a choral concert in a chapel at an Oxford college.  We had a coincident pair of crossed ribbons(good ones) feeding directly a set of Quad ELS’s via Quad II amplifiers, all set up in the vestry separated from the chapel by a wooden door.  You could hear the choir entering the chapel and walking by the microphones, their footsteps well outside the speakers, quite uncanny.  Needless to say this was about as good a sound as you can get.

‘However if you cracked the door so you could hear the choir through the crack, and compare it with the sound through the speakers, it was night and day.  The live sound was alive, and the speaker sound might as well have been a pair of Cerwin-Vegas or JBL’s.

So no, Hifi is pretty much hopeless in recreating a real concert, no matter how expensive it is.  It can remind you of it at best.