TONE

we still want oboes to sound like oboes, and so the idea of the system all conspiring to keep us in the same arena as the world of live music is an important reference point.
@hilde45,
Completely agree with your comment. I don’t believe that most listeners expect a 100% duplication of what’s heard live. I do believe that familiarity with the sounds of various instruments is very helpful in recognizing their individual and unique  tones and timbre. Some reference point is useful. There are no perfect audio components but some do a better job than others in reproducing tone relative to the live instrument template.
Charles .

Yup.  That's one of the main reasons I go to live music--I want to stay familiar with the sound I've trying to get (or allude to!) at home, and am willing to put up with the increasingly boorish behavior of contemporary audiences to do that.   

The MAIN  factor important to reproduce is timbre, especially voices timbre...We are programmed to recognize voices...If we had voices right all the rest come like balls on a thread...

And  there is no resemblance at all between live event and recording....This is not bad, nor good.... This is an explanable evident audible fact....

After timbre, all other acoustical factors are important but they depend of many factors, yes, electronical design of amp and speakers, are the first, but without acoustic control nobody will go very  far... 

For sure i suppose a recording where the original acoustical cues has been reproduced adequately to begin with....Many commercial music is acoustically  horrible...

@mahgister,
"The MAIN factor important to reproduce is timbre, especially voices timbre...We are programmed to recognize voices...If we had voices right all the rest come like balls on a thread...
And there is no resemblance at all between live event and recording....This is not bad, nor good.... This is an explanable evident audible fact...."



For me too.

And it's been that way since childhood. [Maybe audiophiles are born and not made, but that's digressing].

I would always prefer a $100 system with decent tone and timbre to any $10,000 one without, and I've heard plenty of those.

I remember when I used to help out at a radio station (1996-99) how all the presenters sounded different on air than they did in 'real life.' 

Their voices would have more authority and weight through the monitors than they would ever in person. You would never call the output accurate.

One day we got a ribbon microphone which was suspended on rubber bands. It's fair to say that it made voices simply sound great, and everyone preferred to use that when possible.

It was not life-like though, but maybe better than life-like.

Calming and relaxing.

Now an accurate broadcast might sound quite different...

@mahgister "And there is no resemblance at all between live event and recording"

Suggest you check a dictionary. Because you must mean that there is no perfect resemblance. Because obviously there is resemblance.