"Spooky real" is as good a descriptor as any. My observations on the subject:
- the source material plays a huge role in the sonic outcome. Thus, the audiophile curse of listening to "good" records, limiting oneself if there is music beyond the proven warhorses. Discovering one off the beaten path is fun.
- The variables of people and system are too big to ignore. My brain doesn't have to consciously "work" to hear magic; in fact, that kind of analytical listening kills the possibility of full enjoyment.
- the "magic," such that it is, is not in my experience consistent, see source material above. A good sounding record will usually sound good on a variety of systems; a bad sounding record may sound a bit "more there" on a better system, but the system isn't going to "improve" what is baked in to the mix and master.
Is there a measure of "realness" that is common to most audiophiles? I doubt it. Rock, which I have listened to a lot of for a long time, can be compressed, multi-tracked, and fiddled with to death to make it sound "good." There may never have been an actual performance occurring at the same time in the same room with all the instruments that are included in the final product.
I find that simpler can often be better- small jazz combo, for example. That may be because the program material is less demanding (though it could be extremely dynamic and wide ranging in frequency). I find that some classical and large scale pieces wind up sounding too "cluttered" and don't scale properly in my room, which is large. But, it is not a concert hall. I cannot reproduce the sound of the 2,000 seat hall in the loft of my house. I can live with that. So, I guess part of it is expectations, too: hi-fi is convenient, and sometimes sparkles in ways that noisy PA systems, grungy clubs and lousy acoustics fail to deliver during a "real" live performance.
Trying to get as close as possible to the sound of real instruments, at a volume and size that is convincing, is, to me, a worthy goal.
