Indeed. Also there have over the years (from around 1925 onwards) been different approaches to spatial recording. Early experiments with multi-channel systems suggested that for a sound stage in front of the listener that four speakers (4 channels) were the best compromise - without increasing the costs of more channels - microphones, amps and speakers, that three speakers were quite good, and that the stereo which we now accept as the norm was satisfactory - but not as good as 3 channel systems. Different recording techniques also have an impact - some attempting to remove phase information (Blumlein style), while others using spaced microphones of varying degrees. Some recordings really mess with this.
It will also depend what kinds of music one wants to listen to. Recordings of live orchestras, soloists, bands in a "real" live environment may, or should, use different techniques from those of synthesised or artificially balanced music. Much material nowadays is effectively electronically processed - and I don't really know how recordings do manage the "ambience" - which is very likely to be "artificial" in any case.
Should end users rely on the ambience within recordings, or shape their own environments, either by furnishing, hard/soft surfaces, distance between transducers etc., or even control it using speakers and extra ambience systems - such as has been used in large concert halls - though to varying degrees of success?