Your question could have a book written for a response - and books have undoubtedly been written about just what a recording is supposed to "sound like".

For me, a recording should produce the closest subjective impression of actually sitting in front of a group of performing musicians, and the recording should convey the impression of that music being performed in a space other than the listener's room (good ambience reproduction). The recording should have a sense of where the musicians are physically located within the imaginary "soundstage", and the tonality of the instruments and vocals (most important in classical, jazz and other purely acoustic music) should be such that they sound "real" verses like a recording of a real event.

This is a tall order to fill!!!! A lot depends on the listening room and the equipment (maninly the speakers) in the home, and the acoustics of the listening room. A bad listening room will make even the best system sound bad. There should be no "slap" or "flutter" echoes in the room for instance.

Multi-channel recordings (DVD-A, SACD) have a better chance of reproducing the "performance space" side than purely stereo recordings, although good stereo can be awfully impressive spatially. The "bass demo CDs" that I have circulated are pretty good examples of "purist" recording techniques that capture good "tonality" and a sense of "space".

With popular (rock etc.) music that is recorded in the studio using electronic instruments and which undergoes extensive post-processing during the mixdown process, anything goes - there is no "reality" that is being "reproduced". In this sense, these recordings are more like movie soundtracks where the original "event" is not something that actually existed in real space and in real time. The recording itself is the "real event" - if that makes sense.....