High expectations when listening to an orchestra

@rvpiano -- Agreed. All listening is "listening in" or "seeing as." The quest for too much realism is, for me, a sign I'm seeking a simulation (a Disney ride) rather than a meaningful engagement.

@frogman 

Of course it won’t sound like the real thing. Who would expect that it would? It’s a recording. I do, however, find it surprising that some are so willing to give up and not strive for as much realism as possible.

These points seem opposed. If it's obvious that a recording is not realistic, why is it surprising that some are willing to give up seeking realism? Can you explain what you mean by realism? It must be more nuanced than this, or it would seem foolish to seek something which is obviously not there.

@millercarbon said:

"Another time, sitting a lot closer more like center floor 10-15 rows back, that I could not do. Not then. Now? Different story. So nowhere near easy, but you can come awfully close. Come and listen. You will see."

This is what I referred to as the "Disney experience." It seems like MC achieved it and that it represents, for him, the ideal kind of realism. (Or perhaps the only kind of realism!) This is interesting both as a factual accomplishment and as the audio ideal for someone involved in the hobby for so long.
@rwisem concurs with this ideal as the one he/she is seeking.
@clearthinker hits the nail on the head with the key element in this -- the "massed violins" problem. (I would add that another possible indicator is distinct instruments, properly located, in the string bass section.)

Of course, if one closes one's eyes in a symphony to hear what standard their home setup should meet, then they're probably not closing their eyes in jazz clubs very often; nor are they listening to heavily produced music, either. Of course in film, this would translate as a very odd penchant for handicam documentaries -- no Spielberg or animated or other movies would be worthwhile because the sense of "realism" would be lost.

But that last point is probably countered by this one, namely that if a system can reproduce something like a symphony orchestra with seductive literalism, then it can easily play Steely Dan. That would be a fair point, I'd guess, but I don't know what those who *don't* care about realism would say.

But then there's @ghdprentice who reports that he actually upgraded his system and "lost the fidelity" while his "new system is much more musical for other types of music." Ok, so much for that last point about a literalistic system being able to do everything.

@frogman I didn't suggest that. (Please show me where I did!) I asked you for more nuance on what you mean by realism -- and you provided it. I appreciate your additional thoughts. I agree with you that asking for complete and perfect realism isn't the way to go, and my comments thoroughly convey that in my posts, so if I misspoke, please forgive me. 

@frogman  No worries. I think we were both posing a hypothetical and then arguing against it but didn't realize that. All good.

+1 @millercarbon 

I have so many memories of terrible sounding shows. Seeing the Dead in a hockey stadium from far, far away. Hearing Art Blakey at an outdoor show where the sound bounced around and made my ears hurt. Hearing the Colorado Symphony Orchestra from behind the stage (an in-the-round hall) and barely making out various sections. Hearing Simon and Garfunkle in Central Park from far enough away that the picnickers next to me were just as loud as Art's sweet voice. I won't go on.

I've heard great shows, too. But let's face it -- live music is an aural crap shoot. Give me a great system with a great live recording, and there's far less to overcome, sonically, than exists at many concerts.