I’m confused. Please explain.

There is nothing wrong with picking what sounds good to you, regardless of how that sound matches live acoustic instruments.  All systems sound quite different from live acoustic music and even if we seek to most faithfully reproduce live music, we can arrive at radically different sounding systems depending on our priorities on what qualities are most important.  That is why “accuracy” and “fidelity to live music” are useless criteria; we have different goals and priorities in attaining that sound.

It helps to hear a lot to develop your own personal preferences.  It is easy to get drawn off the right path by something flashy that briefly excites but soon gets tiring so one should do a lot of listening to learn about your own “sound.”

When it comes to popular music, I hardly think fidelity to the live concert experience is the goal; I would junk my system if it sounded that bad.

  "If one chooses audio equipment by what sounds good at the moment you can end up on a wild goose chase."

ghdprentice,  What an inappropriate statement to make.  Nothing Ronboco said should lead anyone to say what you said:  "But, as you choose components that way, your system can start sounding flashy and soulless…"  Go look at Ronboco's system and room and get back to us.

Ronboco,  based on the room and equipment you are using, I bet it sounds great.  If it sounds good to you as well, then don't worry about what others' goals are.  You ask a very good question: "Are you saying studio music can somehow be made to sound like symphony instruments?"  That's a good question for a recording engineer.  I bet George Martin, recording wizard for the Beatles, or the genious Brian Wilson would give you a very quick no.  You have no trouble identifying the voices or the instruments in these recordings and they more than likely sound better than their live performances of the same music.  I would venture to say that if you are satisfied with what you hear listening to various genres of recorded music on your system, it would approximate very closely an unamplified live music event.  Don't we all know what a human voice or a piano or a crashing cymbal should sound like?

@larryi Wrote:

  That is why “accuracy” and “fidelity to live music” are useless criteria; we have different goals and priorities in attaining that sound.

I agree!

Mike

I think the goal is to achieve a reproduction of the music that you find the most enjoyable and relaxing for the resources you are willing and able to devote for building a system. Do that and you've put together a system that works for you. Its not an algebra test.  

I like Willie Nelson, a remarkable talent. I've seen him a few times in different venues. When I listen to Willie on my system, it sounds like Willie, and sounds better than any of his live shows that I've attended, although you lose the excitement of watching him make music. I also like Leonard Cohen and his Live in London album is one of my favorite pieces of music. I wasn't there but I doubt it sounded better live than on my system given all the variables. Either way, I love listening to that recording on my system and that's good enough for me.

When I listen to Willie on my system, it sounds like Willie, and sounds better than any of his live shows that I’ve attended, although you lose the excitement of watching him make music.

Plus 1, @kerrybh. I’d say the same thing, except I have never seen Willie live, so it would be fill in the blank for that part. When I do listen to Willie on my system, I particularly enjoy the way my system beings out his unique annunciation when he sings--that’s the stuff I like to hear. Actually, when I did used to frequently attend small venues to see artists I was really into (Lucinda Williams, Steve Earle, Cowboy Junkies to name a few) seeing them perform was primary for me, and the sound quality of the performance was secondary. It was a plus when the SQ was good or great, but that was not what I went for.