a home sound system is supposed to replicate as much as possible the concert experience.
I respectfully disagree. I think the home sound system is supposed to replicate as much as possible the sound of a real acoustic event in a real acoustic space. That can certainly be a concert setting, but most recordings aren't, especially in pop and rock. In those cases, I think the "goal" is to make the performer sound as though they're performing in your listening room, as pleasant or sometimes unpleasant as that may be, or at the most, to make it sound as though you're in their recording studio.
I would agree completely if all recordings were actually of live performances in a concert venue. Otherwise, the real nut that's proven so hard to crack, when it comes to the level of realism (or lack thereof) in most pop or rock recordings, is that there is no "there" there. The sounds literally don't all exist in a single, real, physical space, or if they do, they aren't recorded by any kind of mic setup that's intended to capture the sound that way.
I have a Mapleshade recording (a small, Maryland-based audiophile label) of a rock band, and on first listening, most anyone would think it sounds like garbage - way too much ambience and not enough clear distinction among instruments and vocals. That's because we're all used to the "multi-mono" recording setups where everyone has their own mic and channel, and then it's mixed down later to two or 5.1 channels. But after a few minutes listening to this Mapleshade record, it begins to dawn on you that this is what a rock band sounds like when you hear one play live, in a small venue, and when you come to it from that listening perspective, you begin to realize that it really is a spectacularly real-sounding recording.
