The article from enjoy the music is a good read and thought provoking. I'm not sure I agree with a couple of points , though: first, the notion that what live music sounds like is irrelevant, and second, that the system should be 'accurate' to the recording. As to the first, I think alot of equipment evaluations occur in a 'bubble,' comparing one piece of gear to another. If you spend enough time in clubs listening to acoustic music or bands that are not overamplified through PA systems (of course, with electric guitar and bass, you are going to hear some amplification 'live'), you realize that many expensive hi-fi systems are overblown. Real bass doesn't always have 'slam' and the high frequencies of a cymbal are not always 'splashy' in that super hyped-up way that you hear via some recordings. I do think knowing what real instruments sound like is relevant. Whether that is an accurate benchmark is another question, since unless you were in the venue hearing the performance later reduced to a recording, you cannot judge whether the reproduction approximates that particular live performance. And, of course, there is the recording process in the midst of this as well. An awful lot of stuff is closely miked and multi-tracked, so you get an artificially created sound. Granted, if the system is reproducing that accurately, you are going to hear that artificiality more clearly. (Different acoustic from the vocal booth, the sound of different mikes or their limitations, etc.) Trying to determine if the system accurately reproduces what is on the recording presents the same difficulty as determining what the 'original' performance sounded like in the studio (if indeed, there was a performance, rather than a bunch of different tracks being overlaid on top of each other at different times).
Me, I quit listening for particular attributes, like 'soundstaging,' or 'definition,' or 'full bandwidth.' As I mentioned above, these are only different facets of the reproduction system. Many systems can do one or several of these things well, and may satisfy a listener who is focused on that particular attribute, e.g. 'soundstage' or 'image,'' but that, to me, is not necessarily the equivalent of delivering a fully satisfying musical experience into my listening room. None of us can discount the effects of our room, even if we have spent considerable sums having the room designed and built by professionals. So, at the end of the day, does it sound lively, natural, musical and engaging? I've heard limited bandwidth systems that can engage on that level that suffer from limitations in other attributes, but are more musically satisfying. Is that accurate? Doubtful.
