Disturbing "Sonic Trend" showing up on SOTA audio

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.

****"In short, you need to be as passionate in your listening as a
Musician is in their playing.****

Great comment and I couldn't agree more! But, how exactly is it relevant?

I think that in it is the key to some of the disagreement about the live music
standard and the reason why it's so important. A musician's passion is
mostly expressed in ways that are seldom discussed by audiophiles: the
extremely subtle phrasing nuances and color changes; the feeling and
sense of aliveness that great music making conjures up. Those are the
things that are most difficult to record and reproduce; the magic. Not
frequency response related things nor imaging information which are what
are usually mentioned and talked about. The listener who seldom hears live
music is not equipped to judge how good a job any given component does
at passing along the "passion" information. Some pieces do a
great job of it; while some can sound very high-end in the areas of
tonality and imaging and still not pass along the magic. That's the art
(passion) in audio design.

I'd like to offer some observations re the pinpoint imaging issue. I don't
mean to take liberties with what Schubert and Learsfool are meaning to
say, and please correct me if I'm wrong; but, I think that there really is no
disagreement. To me, as concerns audio, there is much more to
"imaging" than precise and stable localization; or, at least, there
should be. I think that what Schubert refers to as "pinpoint"
imaging from a stereo system is a distortion of what is heard live due in part
to the absence of information which many of even the "best"
components can't capture/reproduce. This low level information is what
gives music much of its nuance and is part of each instrument's (or voice)
harmonic envelope. Good composers are very conscious of this and
sometimes make orchestration choices with those considerations in mind.
They don't necessarily think of a clarinet sounding completely separate
from the oboe; instead they may consider how the clarinet's harmonic
envelope will blend with the oboe's and create a unique color. This
harmonic envelope is a kind of sonic glue that connects performers in the
performance space, and allows for what players sometimes refer to as
"getting inside each other's sound". In audio the so called, and
coveted, "black spaces" between sonic images can create an
illusion of instrumental separation; however, in live music those spaces are
filled with sonic stuff that gives music complexity, nuance and feeling. As
Learsfool correctly points out the localization is there, but there is also
much more information in the spaces between the instruments which can
create the illusion of less pinpoint imaging.