TONE

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. 

You can create a system that depends purely on the source material. With the right source material you can create the dynamics and sound pressure levels of a live performance with a much more detailed image than you would normally get at most venues.
Tone is different than timbre. Tone is a matter of frequency response. 75% of a speaker's character is due to it's frequency response in a specific room. The other 25% is due to it's radiation pattern. Some people prefer bright speakers, others want "warm",etc. This is all a matter of frequency shifts cause by the speaker's inherent frequency response in  a specific room. 
Someone who has a lot of experience measuring systems can tell what a speaker/room is going to sound like just by looking at it's response curve and the design (radiation pattern) of the drivers. The real art is in matching as precisely as possible the frequency response of both speakers and producing the kind of tone desired. One can tell by the imaging of voice how closely the channels match. We are very experienced listening to voices in a variety of conditions while live instruments we only get to hear on occasion. 
Adjusting tone is not hard at all. If you want a brighter sound put a rising response from 5 kHz to 10 kHz up just 2 dB.  Want warm? Lift 100 to 300 Hz just a dB.  Getting the two sides to match is the hard part. Just moving a speaker a few feet will change it's frequency response at the listening position. The same speaker in two different locations will have a different
"tone." This is the reason why some of us think symmetry is so important. Unfortunately, even if you have a perfectly symmetrical situation no two loudspeakers of the same model have exactly the same frequency response. This is where digital EQ excels. With a little tinkering and a calibrated measuring microphone you can get both channels to match within 2 dB from 20 Hz to 20kHz. Above 10 kHz and below 100 Hz are not critical. 
Many audiophiles belittle digital equalization and turn their noses up at it.
Drive an old Triumph Spitfire if you want. They are very endearing. But, I'm going for the 992 GT3...in a manual.