does a stereo system sound like live music ?

Guidocorona sez the proposition,

"How many anally retentive audiophiles can dance on the outer edges of my soundstage?"

is undecidable. Actually, I think that's quantifiable IF we all agree on the definition of anal- retentive. Then it would just be a matter of solving a space-time equation...:)
Mr Tennis sez

i believe that a cheap stereo can rival an expensive stereo as a medium of enjoying and relating to the musical content, while, presumably, an expensive stero can sound better than a cheap stereo

Quite so. Presumably, better sound can enhance the musical enjoyment and also open a wider window into the actual musicians' performance -- avoiding, that is, those rare occasions when the reporduction of Berlioz by Beecham sounds like Baroque by Leonhardt...
Methinks you've provided an adequate answer to your question.
Cheers

The other thing you miss when listening to recorded symphony music is the sound of old geezers opening up their cellophane wrapped cough drops during quiet passages in the piece. Always a treat: Crinkle......crinkle....cough, cough, cough, chair squeaks, people mumbling, paper rustling, farts, deep lung hacking, etc. Ah yes, there's nothing quite like the live event.

"i believe that a cheap stereo can rival an expensive stereo as a medium of enjoying and relating to the musical content"

I thought that this was an interesting line in one of Mrtennis' comments above.

Quite often in Stereophile there is an interview with a musician. Invariably, the musician is asked what his music system is composed of, with the interviewer hoping that the response will contain a list of approved audiophile components. However, often the answer from the musician is that he has a boombox or some mass market system. This has happened enough times that I recall reading a letter to the editor on the topic, or possibly it was a thread here on AudiogoN years ago. The letter, or thread, raised the point that many musicians, who presumably know a lot about music, don't seem to care too much about high end equipment. They focus on the music, and hear past the sonic limitations of the equipment they're listening to. This is the essence of the quote above from Mrtennis. If you're really into the music, the equipment doesn't matter too much. I also see this attitude in posts from some other AudiogoN members. Somebody makes a comment about how they once had a system worth many thousands of dollars, but they've since pulled back and now have a system worth much less,...and they're now a lot happier enjoying the music, even though the soundstaging, imaging, etc., etc. is less than their previous, expensive system. The constant upgrading in search of audio nirvana, in addition to taking a toll on the pocketbook, seemed to be an addiction that diverted one's attention away from enjoying what they had. And they didn't realize it until the addiction was broken and they settled back into a nice, small system, refocusing on music rather than on equipment.

I have to say, I'm starting to feel that way myself more and more.

The impression I get from reading thousands of posts and ads in AudiogoN over the years is that most of the people here are equipment addicts, not music addicts. I make no criticism of anybody in this comment; neither do I intend disrespect to people's personal priorities in pursuing this hobby. I merely state what I observe in an objective a manner as I can. And as such, I agree with the comment from Mrtennis.

Markphd: It's hard to argue with what you're saying; however, that's not exactly what Mrtennis said in his post. Actually, his post makes no sense at all. His first sentence is probably somewhat true, but please tell me what he's saying in the next paragraph. They're not even remotely connected.

Indeed, many musicians aren't all that concerned about the illusion of reality when they listen to a system. They're more interested in technique and the big picture. There's nothing wrong with that. But for many of us, the better the quality of reproduction, the more we will enjoy the experience.

Mrtennis, that would depend on your definition of 'better'. Having been into music for the last 45 years, I am less and less sure of what that means. One thing I know is that , in order for me to have the same acoustic experience listening To Lara St. John playing Bach on the Violin whilst being at a live concert, I would need not only to be on stage, but close enough for the proximity to become socially unacceptable in most musical circles, with the added danger of repeatedly experiencing the thrust of her bow in my eyeballs, or her elbow in my solar plexus, depending on orientation.
On the other hand, as pointed out by others, the live experience has an sensorial, social and emotional complexity and personal implications that reach far beyond the simple sonics of the source, and which are not, by definition, reproduceable electronically.
Thus, when I think of the live performance of Carlo Chiarappa Playing Bach's Ciaccona in D minor on his Stradivari under the 16th century portico of Groznjan in Croatia, I know my experience can't be ever repeated nor reproduced. Yet, was it simply the sound of his fiddle, reverberating from the vaulted ceiling which made it unique, or was this combined with Chiarappa's stage presence in checkered shirt-sleeves standing on the worned flagstones, the arched portico itself in the ancient little village square, the youth from both sides of the Iron Curtain congregated there to do and breathe music for three unforgettable weeks, the summer night with its own sounds. Or is it perhaps the longing and the 30-year-old memory of it all?