Would the issue be that you don’t want accuracy? You want artifacts? I think that is the conclusion that can be drawn. I don’t think Mahgister is remotely accurate in this regard, not regarding electrical signals. Those we can measure with extreme confidence fortunately, or my job would be impossible. If you do not want accurate, I doubt there is 100% correlation from human to human, so the only way to know what artifacts you like is for you to listen.
I can run pure 2-channel, or through the AV processor. Depending on my mood, I will listen using the AV processor and ambience surround settings. It is not accurate, but often is a more pleasant listening experience. It is more alive, with all those buzz words that audiophiles like; wide sound-stage, presence and sounds more like a live performance. It is obviously artificial though.
FIRST:
What is accuracy?
What is an acoustical artefacts ?
There is accuracy in the engineering sense of : input----->output measured linearly correlated electrical signals factors and noise ratio...
There is accuracy in acoustic and psycho-acoustic sense of the world, where timbre perception for example cannot be reduced to linearly analysed spectrum...The cochlea/brain analysis tool are highly non linear...
You confuse the two meaning of the word accurate the physical one and the acoustic one .... Then it is easy to accuse audiophiles to be deluded after this confusion ...You are not right or wrong here...You dont even see the problem if i read yourt posts...
Read the two articles i posted above...And debunk them... 😁😊
SECOND: you said.
«with all those buzz words that audiophiles like; wide sound-stage, presence and sounds more like a live performance. It is obviously artificial though.»
Here you really are wrong, calling acoustical cues and factors that are ALL OF THEM under objective controls in any audio laboratory studying acoustic perception, calling them "articicial" like in deceiving illusion compared to accurate electrical signals...Acoustic factors are OBJECTIVE, even if they are subjectively interpreted, like electrical signals are and are subject to controls method like electrical signals are...
Read the two articles above if you want a clue about why you are completely wrong by calling acoustic factors like LEV/ASW ratio for example, artificial in the sense of illusory, and suggesting that they are fancy illusions in the head of "deluded audiophile".... Sorry but acoustic is a science like electrical engineering not a fancy...
In my room by the way i learned to control these "illusions" at will with mechanical Helmholtz method among other things...
In the two articles above which i can resume by this sentence is the explanation why the ears/brain cannot be studied by linear Fourier method ONLY :
«The Fourier transform cannot, therefore, fully explain the machinations of the human brain. "The actual algorithm employed by our brains is still shrouded in mystery," says Magnasco.»
