Should the best systems sound almost identical?

All good discussions above and all but what Mc's original contention or question is that on a PARTICULAR recording (be it a $1000 or Strads or Guarneris)., well matched high end best systems should bring out all three pretty much just like it sounded live while being recorded. We know that more likely than not they don't.
Why is that? And many reasons are mentioned above- diff speakers type, diff amps, diff type sources and many many variables.
But If all the systems claim to be reproducing the absolute sound they are all wrong because 1) none sounds like the other and 2) none sounds like the real thing. (caveat: rare systems do come real close in absolute sense, but not exactly though)

Agree with Mc's idea of testing recording live vs reproduced in high system back to back if you have unlimited funds ( like Bill Gates) and experiment and really find out who and where the culprit/s lies. It may come to the state of current recording technology or it come to speakers limitations and anything in between. But it is clear some research needs to be conducted rather than same old same old and leading folks to spend enormous amount of money and on wild goose chases.

When I was audiophile novice I did hear such claims of experimentation where they ( e.g My own favorite speaker manufacturer- Dunlavy) were auditioning recorded , say a live real piano in between speakers and then playing same recording and switching back and forth. I never heard these type of demos ever myself but how good was the comparison? Any one knows first hand?

Once again I do maintain the fact the there are rare systems that do give you many glimpses or comes close to the real thing. ( and I am sure all of us would raise our hands to say my system does that) But the fact that like OP asks, many so called best systems do not ( on the contrary quite the opposite in some cases).

Why can't we accept the fact that our technology is not yet space age and will never will be.

Back to regularly scheduled programming and circular arguments ;-)

The discussion of the appropriate metaphor has actually been very helpful.

First, where we seem to agree. Different things sound different. A violin sounds different from a bass. A trumpet will not sound like a sax. No one will ever confuse the Vienna Boys Choir with the muppets Christmas album (which my wife nonetheless insists on subjecting me to every year. Something about childhood. Jeesh.) Doesn't matter what you reproduce these sounds on, you will hear the difference. I can hear the difference on the mono 1mm speaker on the iPad. Anything will be up to the task.

Second, things that are supposed to be the same can also sound different. One piano -- or any other type of instrument -- will not sound like every other piano. Ah, you say, but there are different types of pianos, of course those sound different. Yes. But it starts to get more interesting as we narrow our comparison set. Back to violins: folks who are trained to appreciate the differences can perceive the distinctions between, say, a Stradt and something else. Some will perceive the distinction between one Stradt and another. Yes they are more similar than different, thus identifiable as a class, but also individually distinguishable. They sound different. Could I hear that difference? Not a chance. My brain hears "violin" and stops processing -- it's never been trained to parse finer. Example, like why US troops used "lalapalooza" as a password in Asia during WWII. Certain languages do not contain sounds to distinguish between "L" and "R." If you grow up speaking said language, your brain never develops the processing bandwidth to make that distinction, and while your ears will hear the difference, your brain will simply not register it, and you won't perceive it. Same with violins or, for that matter, everything else. But a useful concept for the discussion: the difference between making (or reproducing or "hearing") distinct sounds and the ability (training, expertise, cultural, etc) to actually perceive the distinction.

This, of course, is where one may be prone to veer off into the mental masturbatory quagmire of debating objective vs subjective based reality. Is the world comprised of objectively verifiable truths, independent of any perceptual framework, or is all reality ultimately dependent on, and mutable as a product of, the particular lens through which it is being perceived? We won't be solving that one today. Just let's stipulate that folks have been debating that one for as long as there have been folks, you'll likely instinctively feel that one makes more sense to you than the other, and just make peace with the fact that about half of the people out there will think you're wrong. Moving on.

To return to the regularly scheduled programming, all of this discussion on one level misses the mark in that we're talking about original source material (a violin) rather than the task of reproducing that original source by recording it and then playing it back. One might observe, but the issue isn't whether the two violins sound different, but whether the recording and playback exercise can preserve and reproduce that distinction. I would argue, this is only partially correct. First, yes, can be reproduced. Second, however, this line of inquiry potentially confuses the issue. The ability of two sets of speakers to reproduce the ability to distinguish between two violins in no way means that either speaker sounds like the other one, or that either is closer to "truth." Guess the only way to do that would be to put the original head-to-head with the recording and see how that goes. In short, an "apples to apples" comparison (violin vs violin) ain't our project, we really need an "apples to oranges" comparison (violin vs speaker) to address our question. Yes and no.

The violin vs violin analogy becomes interesting if we, for example, contemplate comparing two identical pairs of speakers, coming out of the same plant on the same day. Will they sound identical? Only practical way I can imagine to do such a comparison would be in the testing room at the plant, on identical equipment, in the same controlled environment. Would the two sets of speakers be indistinguishable? No idea. Bet the manufacturer hopes so. Bet that's, in fact, exactly what they test for. Do all the speakers "pass"? Doubt it. If drivers are carefully "matched" pairs, must be a reason -- and that reason necessarily implicates that "unmatched" drivers, say, as between two otherwise identical pairs of speakers, sound appreciably different, at least to the ears of the designer. Otherwise, why bother? Say we then ship the two pairs of speakers to different customers, who install them in different rooms, on very different systems. Will they sound the same then? Almost certainly not. And say they continue to play for ten years in those different systems -- if we then ship them back to the manufacturer for a turn in the identical test system, in the same room, are they going to sound the same (or as close to the same) as they did when fresh off of the line? Again, no idea, but a lot more reason to question the proposition....no?

If we assume all of the preceding (your call), the question becomes whether one could reasonably expect two entirely different speaker systems (different manufacturers, electronics, enclosures, drivers, materials, sizes, designs, etc) to sound indistinguishable -- not because anyone ever intended them to be identical -- but almost by accident because each was independently designed to be able to sound like, for example, the same recording of the same violin. That's really the question, right? My response is, if we can't reliable make two violins that sound identical, if we can't even reliably make two identical speakers sound identical -- even when we're trying really hard -- how could we expect two entirely different speakers to sound identical by accident, just because they were aiming at the same target? Might it be possible? Sure, and infinite monkeys are bound to pound out Shakespeare. But I don't see it happening. (BTW, I think this is fun, not that I am entirely sure I like what that says about me....)

Dekay:

"To understand what the "original/perfect" recorded/intended sound is you would have to use the original sound engineers brain and ears (probably while listening to the music through a variety of crappy sounding speakers used in the "original" studio, as well)."

Agree that the sound engineering process and equipment is part of the entire package and a contributing factor to why audio system will never be able to perfectly reproduce an original sound.

All:
If you're familiar with Regina Carter, she's a jazz violin player that had the opportunity to perform a concert and record a CD using Paganini's own violin. When she returned to her, I'm sure very nice, violin she described it sounding like a mouse in comparison. I've only heard that violin on her recording but plan to purchase another CD using that violin in the future to see how much of the wonderful sound comes from Regina's style and how much is the violin. The sound that I would describe from the instrument is that it has an almost cello sound in the lower register that is more full than other violins.

Here's an analogy that seems to make sense to me. Have you seen Top Chef, Master Chef, or Hell's Kitchen? From time to time the chefs are asked to reproduce a dish based on taste alone. The obvious goal is to recreate the exact dish, but I've not yet seen anyone do it perfectly. The interesting fact, that I had not really thought about until this discussion, is that the judges are trying to choose the best match, but it's almost certain that their person tastes will be a factor in which one taste "better" because they are more sensitive to a particular flavor. This is similar to audio because it's virtually impossible to recreate the original, but it's still possible to prefer the recreation more than the original.

Imagine going into a hospital to get a CAT scan or MRI and the tech says that the machine isn't designed to give accurate image, but one that makes everything look kind of good. When compared to pro audio, high end equipment manufacturers go for the good sounding rather than accurate. That's the primary reason really expensive systems do not sound identical. But then again, audio equipment is not FDA approved for medical diagnosis.

i think that as has been stated before, there are two camps. one tries to minimize errors to the signal, the other tries to satisfies one's taste/preferences, or whatever word (subjective) you choose to select.

the former stereo systems as a group would tend to veer towards the neutral, while the latter would vary all over the place.

so, it's a matter of what your idea is as to the purpose of a stereo system. there is no definitive answer. there is no write or wrong.

this issue has plagued serious listeners for years. it is a philosophical issue and will be argued forever.

rehgardless of the approach what is considered "best" in stereo systems will present audible differences.