How to meaningfully audition speakers??

I suppose that my distaste for studio recordings in general is the mixing involved which is readily heard and certainly not appreciated by me. This being the primary reason I gravitate more towards live recordings. Case in point just the other day a friend sent me a youtube link to a live clip of Melody Gardot singing "Baby I'm a Fool" recorded during a TV show. I liked it so much I spent time trying to find a live disc with this cut. I ended settling for the studio album "My One and Only Thrill" which I just received last night. The mixing involved in the studio version with the overdubbed orchestra robbed the immediacy and connection of the live performance. To most folks maybe many audiophiles, this wouldn't matter but it did to me as my first experience was that live performance which so much better communicated that song to me than the studio version. The mixing that these "sound engineers" use often times robs so much of the magic of the live performance, this one was no exception. The voice was certainly there but the recording just sounded so disjointed and pieced together and didn't have the same magic.

It does seem there really isn't enough interest outside of audiophiles that obsess over these matters. If the artists don't insist on a better end product it seemingly won't happen downstream.

My apologizes to the OP for continuing to not discuss the original question.

Multitrack recording and digital recorders are two separate issues. Multitrack recordings originated in the late 1950s and continued for decades with analog tape machines. Digital multitrack recorders didn't become available until the mid-1980s. You can make purist, audiophile oriented recordings with either analog or digital equipment.

Here's a link to an interview with Rudy Van Gelder. I take it as a fact that RVG knows more about music recording than anybody participating in this thread.

RVG mentions Bob Weinstock (Prestige producer) and his description of Wienstocks approach makes sense. I've lways preferred RVG's Prestige sound more than his Blue Note sessions and I own many of both labels. He said Weinstock was a jazz fan and gave the musicians more sway and control. Prestige along with Columbia, Riverside and Contemporary all had better tone and natural sound than the Blue Notes Rudy did. Blue Note certainty had the big talent musicians in the early portion of their careers before they moved to bigger labels.

Personally I prefer RVG's earlier two track recordings compared to his later multi track/
mic efforts. Contrary to his comments, his early stereo Prestige were his best sounding recordings in my opinion they just were more natural and truer in tonality. It's simply a matter of taste.
Charles,

Hi Onhwy61 - everything in your last post is correct; there were indeed multi-track experiments in the analog era, especially in the opera world. However, what I am trying to say is that it was not done anywhere near as much as it has been in the digital era - the main reason being it is so much easier to do it with digital technology than with tape. It is indeed possible to make purist recordings in this modern era, but pretty much no one does anymore, which is the main point I am trying to make.

One prominent engineer in my area, when asked why he doesn't do them anymore, answered that he was afraid he would be fired by people who couldn't understand why he wasn't using all of the capabilities of the new technology. Other engineers have said the same. It's the whole "it's newer, it must be better" mentality. Many engineers are afraid they will be called Luddites. It's very sad.

Czaivy and Mapman are very much on track. Listen to a real instrument in the room you will listen to music in. Compare that sound to the speakers with similar music. If possible, record. Also record your wife's voice, kids' voices, play it back.

The most realistic, closest sound is likely the best.

Folks sometimes say "what if I don't want the most accurate"?

Well, deviations from accurate means distortion. You will be further from the musical experience.

And folks have come to bastardize the term "accurate". Accurate and uncolored, which means low distortion, is not harsh, hard, or bright. Salesman trickery ruined the word "accurate" in audio, as this would be their retort for folks complaining about bright, harsh speakers. "Oh, no, that's accurate, that's why it sounds that way, can't you hear the clarity?" The supposed "clarity" was really exaggerated brightness range and tweeter response, as well as ringing, which can make things seem "super detailed" on first listen.

The most accurate speakers I know of are also easy to listen to.