Pleasurably better, not measurably better

Pleasurably better could go way beyond just the sound quality of a system. I personally love butter smooth FM tuner dials that have a good deal of mass and inertia and can coast a bit if you turn them quickly. A little static in the signal on a stormy night can add to my sense of coziness. I also like the little incandescent lights on the fronts of old analog dials and indicators rather than matrix panel displays. I think an LED would do as well as long as it was also warm white like the incandescent.

When it comes to sound quality, the debate is not only what sounds better, but what differences can we actually hear vs. differences that we perceive as a result of suggestion from our other senses. I’m all for allowing for other sensory input to color my perception of the sound quality in a positive way. I’ve noticed with binaural recordings on headphones that I cannot get a realistic sense of the sound having a large spaciousness to it if I’m seeing that I’m in a small bedroom. I just can’t do it. My eyes effect how I perceive the sound. The senses work together to create an impression. If I get into a larger room with a higher ceiling I can then perceive the sound as more spacious and enjoyable. Also while wearing headphones if I move my head around it can destroy the spacious effect temporarily. I need to sit still and face in a constant direction. Perhaps head tracking headphones could help with that. Maybe some day I'll get some. 

@asctim  - Also, consider ceiling absorbers.  Amazing way to open up the sound.

@erik_squires 

Thanks for that. I've noticed a lot of audiophiles who use extensive room treatments often leave the ceiling lightly treated or not treated at all. Some of them say they don't like it with too much absorption on the ceiling. Others might just be reticent to hang things on their ceiling. Do you focus on first reflection points when using ceiling  treatments? 

In regard to my post, while listening to headphones I wouldn't expect the ceiling absorbers to do much unless the headphones were very leaky and projected considerably more sound power away from my ears than towards them. 

@asctim Sorry missed that you meant with headphones!! Hahaha. :)

I think you can always deaden a room too much, but generally speaking I have found that room treatment works in the plane you apply it.  That is, if you treat the floor and ceiling it adds height to the image.  If you add behind the speaker and listener it adds depth.

I did a whole thread on first reflection points which was misunderstood I think by many readers.  I don't think room treatments work very well at all until you reach a certain critical mass.  If you ONLY treat first reflection points I can barely hear any benefit at all.  It is only when the room overall has enough treatment to quiet it down that the 1st reflection points matter.

No?  First, I don't believe that "accuracy" is really possible in a speaker/room combination outside of the original recording space, nor do I believe the engineers would have mixed to reproduce that space.  Next, if you look at the research undertaken by JBL and Harman over time, speaker makers and measurements were based on human desire, not energy time curves.  Those who misunderstand that always end up with systems far too bright and dry.

Lastly why should I care about accuracy if it isn't more engaging to listen to?

I'm not buying a telescope to measure the distance or size or material composition of a distant star.  I'm not buying a tool to help me measure the amount of chlorine in a pool.  I'm buying gear that makes me feel good.  At best I can achieve a system that sounds good with a wide variety of source materials.

Couldn't agree more with this, not to mention all the circuitry that music goes through in the recording process should definitely change the sound of the musicians in the studio.