TONE

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.

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

You are right for sure, my word in english are not always well chosen....I only wanted to insist on the inevitable difference....I read myself a second time and i laugh at my "expression"....I apologize then and thanks for the correction...

😊

I am outspoken about the issue of “what sounds real”.
Our sense of hearing is, perhaps, our most sensitive.
I believe that anyone, if not deaf, can instantly hear if a HiFi system sounds real or not. That is, a tone deaf, 90 year old, etc. can easily choose the more real sounding between two, or more, systems.
I believe that we all are blessed with an inherent ability to know when something just sounds “right”.

Recordings are like paintings. The artists...musician, producer, recording engineers are using the tools at their disposal to create their "work of art". There is no guarantee that the artwork is going to be an accurate representation of "live music"...especially acoustic music. Mic placement, mic type, tonal shaping at the mixing console, what kind of instrument...electric or acoustic, mic'd or direct..., the type of preamps, the type of mixing monitors, etc, all have influence on what is put down on the recording, be it analog or digital capture.

BTW...millercarbon...good musicians have excellent ears that can hear changes in pitch, speed, key change, etc. Only a good musician can relate to this from their experience. Do you have this experience?

Recordings of live performances...especially professional, commercial recordings for sale of orchestral or acoustic jazz strive to capture the most accurate representation of what's coming from the stage. Add vocals to the mix and a feed is coming from the mixing board, if not split off at the mic directly to the recording machine. 

That all said...the ONLY way to get an accurate representation of the RECORDING is to use the identical playback gear that was used in the recording mixdown studio. Bob Ludwig uses Eggelston Works loudspeakers. Google Bob Ludwig and Bob Clearmountain to find out how they operate.

Most consumers don't like the accurate, "clinical" sound of studio monitors, because the accuracy of the midrange can be fatiguing to the listener. Are true "audiophiles" the same as this? The definitive answer is definitely "maybe". That's what makes audio such an enigmatic industry. People buy what they like...or simply justify what they think is a reasonable amount to spend based on perceived performance...which isn't always determined by the ears.

1+ Edgewound, absolutely true in regard to studio recordings, they are audio artwork. Many recordings were not meant to duplicate reality. Hendrix was one of the first to use audio engineering to portray a surreal experience. Those were the days of LSD. 
But it would not be just the identical equipment. It would also have to be the identical room. However, if your system/room frequency response is reasonably flat and the channels match within 1 or 2 dB across the frequency band, you will hear what they heard plus the distortion of the recording and source manufacturing process. This may not be what you like to hear so modification of the frequency response curve might be necessary. This is an individual preference. I know what I like to hear and given a microphone and digital EQ I can get any system to have the tone I like and maximize its image projection. I can not change the image size which is a matter of the way the speakers radiate.