I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

@russ69 

I share your frustration and appreciate how you framed the question but I don't believe this is a gulf that can be bridged. 

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.»

Nobody sounds like Ella Fitzgerald if it could be measured and reproduced then everyone could sound like her.

An A note sung by Ella compared to the same note sung by anyone else can be measured but don’t sound the same. Or you can use a tone generator to produce that same A note so if you could measure everything you could make that tone generated sound like Ella so if that’s artifacts I’m for it!

I want the equipment that produces the most believable Ella in my living room and will use any method to get there but ultimately it's whether she sounds real or less real.  

 Would the issue be that you don't want accuracy?  You want artifacts?  I think that is the conclusion that can be drawn.  

Well, you're free to draw whatever conclusion that you would like.

My pursuit and objective  in home audio  has not changed in 30 years. I want to obtain the most natural and realistic music reproduction that I can hope to reasonably achieve. Actually listening to audio products and judging what I hear is the most effective and dependable process to achieve this goal. 

Measurements tell me next to nothing in regard to how these audio components will sound,  so I must hear them. I totally understand if others judge and select differently with buying audio components.  Do what suits you the best. 

Charles 

@realworldaudio , I feel most of what you wrote is made up. I don't think you will be able to clearly articulate what is missing from the measurements and certainly not 95% of the things that are missing. Perhaps this is the issue. This sounds more like outrage mob mentality that reasonsed criticism. I am welcome to be proven wrong.

@deludedaudiophile 

I came up with the 95% missing using historic precedents for scientific discoveries. (Throughout history the narrow minds all firmly believed that everything that could be invented was already invented, and now even a 6 year old kid knows it better.) The practices for audio gear measurements are relatively new (just a few decades old). In even 50 years, our practices will be proven as massively inaccurate, and in general quite useless as it probably covers about 5% of what our children's children will count as measurements that point towards sound quality perception. Although that will be in the future, yet it does not detract from the reality that our current practices are in their infancy. To think we know everything, and we have discovered all the secrets to sound and audio gear is the only sure bet to loose. Doing a google search will do no good now, but will help in 50 years. Also, if google search would answer deep questions on audio measurements, we would not have this discussion, and everyone would be at perfect agreement.

(BTW the 95% is just a symbolic value, please do not start a thread on whether it is 92% or 96.786734% exactly, or it's truly 57.4%... only time will tell, and although our view will change decade from decade, but the reality will be still the same: today we have a very limited concept of how to measure audio parameters to reflect on sound quality.)

So, a few examples on issues with current standard measurement practices that I know of, I will take only amplifiers for now:

*all parameters tested on non-inductive perfectly passive extremely simplistic loads, while the loudspeakers are highly complex live loads affected by the room.

*Only additive distortion is measured, subtractive distortion is not.

*Change of THD in function of output level and frequency are no paid attention to, while these are strong determiners in relation whether the sound is perceived as natural VS manufactured.

*Amplifier behavior is tested with constantly repetitive primitive signals, while the music output is a highly variable extremely complex waveform.

*It is not examined how an amplifier deals with small signals following a large pulse at the frequency extremes.

I mentioned the names of known and proven audio authorities in my initial post, because they have the answers you want from me, but I have no credibility in your eyes, so it's a waste from me to yap around. Do not believe me, as you do not know who I am, and that's fine. 

I just humbly point out to you (again), to listen to interviews with the fathers of audio measurements and high end industry and hear what they have to say. Thank you for the chat. I hope I have answered your concerns. What I wrote might be completely irrelevant to your quest, and it's quite likely that you have specific experiences that point you in the direction you want to go, where you will find fulfillment and purpose.

However, ignoring the experts on audio measurements will quite likely lead to a more protracted learning curve than what you are looking for. I wish you success and luck!