Schubert is exactly right. Few owners of high end systems are devoted concert goers; consequently, the notion of what is truly natural sounding becomes distorted. The idea that the sound of live music is the best standard for judging the fidelity of any audio system has been debated countless times. In my opinion there is an obvious logic in using the sound of live as the standard. However, arguments are made against this idea and the "unpredictability" of the various contributors to the final recorded sound is pointed out. In a way, this objection to the idea smacks of the "all cables sound the same" argument. To some listeners there is obvious value in using the sound of live when putting together a system that strives for naturalness; assuming , of course, that there is substantial exposure to the sound of live. So, why are some so quick to dismiss the idea? One goal of this hobby is to assemble a system that sounds good to the listener; that is fun to listen to, neutrality be damned. No apologies need be made for wanting that. Another approach is to have a system that reproduces as much as possible of what was recorded. No matter what some may think, it is a valid approach to system building. Being very familiar with the sound of live definitely helps in assessing naturalness in a component in spite of all the unknowns that seem to invalidate this approach for some. How could it not help? It's not easy and requires dedication; but, to suggest that there isn't a lot of merit to the idea is silly.
