I would think accurately reproducing what is on the media vs "
assuming of course that your goal is to get closer to a live acoustic performance in your room" are in my mind two different goals. One needs to define the goal in order to attempt to achieve it. That being said, IMHO, without some kind of standard this is not achievable.
What I'm trying to say, if the goal is to hear what the mastering engineer has heard in the studio, we will have to recreate the same environment in our homes (is stereo reproduction adequate enough to capture the live sound is a different topic). Most of the music being sold/offered today is still in stereo. So, if there's a
template for example that shows, mastering studio dimensions are x,y,z, following room treatments were used and placed here, and the mastering engineer was sitting this far from the monitors. He or she was using Kii Audio three speakers (used them just as an example, which I assume need fewer room treatments and it could reduce the size and cost of the mastering studio). Now, if we can build our listening room using a template like this, we have a good chance to hear what the mastering engineer heard. In this case, to achieve this goal, I see things in
black and white. In my mind, this would be the scientistic way of approaching this goal since it will be repeatable over and over again. Anyway, sorry for the rant but this is how I feel about what the mastering engineer intended for us to hear but in our homes. I do understand that with good monitors and good room, one can accurately reproduce what is on the media but it may not be the same sound that the mastering engineer heard hence the need for the "template".
This is the ultimate audiophile goal? Right? To hear what mastering engineer intended, no more no less.
Utopian view, huh.