Not sure I 100% agree Marco. We've all been at gigs where the sound is awful (rough, honking saxes, rubbish PA systems, classical concerts where the hall is too big ... almost any music with less than 100 performers sounds shit in the Albert Hall, but even a solo viola da gamba in a small hall like the Wigmore can disappoint - I left Jordi Saval at half time, couldn't hear him). Sometimes it's all too much - not so much the cello you mention but Ive been at Lieder recitals at the Holywell Music Room in Oxford - believed to be the UK's first dedicated concert hall, seats about 250 people - where the dynamic range was such that my ears rattled and distorted in the loud bits, but we were on the edge of seats holding breath for quiet passages, trying not to miss a syllable.
Most jazz recordings sound 'better' than the real thing but to actually see the strain on a performer's face as they execute a difficult passage, to watch the musicians gently communicate in tiny facial expressions, to feel the bass in your gut and the soles of your feet, these more than make up for crap PA systems and duff acoustics - but I don't want crap acoustics reproduced without these cues and I'm not sure any of us do.
So ... 'Live' is simply not the aspiration for me when I listen at home and '100% accurate' again required definition. For 'accurate' I would substitute 'convincing' or 'satisfying'.
So maybe the short answer to your ultimate question is 'I don't'. But neither is that the whole story.