Audio reproduction is a matter of taste?

[MarkusBarkus]

...interesting. I 100% remove my glasses to listen. That said, I only use them for reading and have only had them for a few years.
 

Perhaps they feel more of an annoyance than they would if I needed them other than for reading or if I had been using them for many years.

 

I would imagine there could be some reflective effects from frames and lenses, but that'll be fun to test.

 

FWIW, some developers locally have that very cool Neumann KU100 "head mic" device which friends say has multiple "ears" you can use for recording. Now that is attention to detail. Suppose you could put glasses on it too. 

[MarkusBarkus]

I'm not sure *intellectually* where I stand on the accuracy issue.
 

I think it's possible to create a convincing version of music in the home...an enjoyable experience with enough detail, timber, etc. to satisfy the mind (my mind at least). I find that enjoyable and I'm pretty sure it's the mind running the show here.
 

I *think* my system sounds pretty good. Some friends do too. But I never think I'm actually in the hall or cafe. Too many other queues are missing.

Maybe that's a lack of imagination on my part. But I'm OK with all that. 
 

Where I notice this internal reaction most is visually.

 

Seeing those high-zoot 4K or 8K...or however many Ks we gots now around here...in the TV shops. The depth in the picture is amazing. Color is groovy (I refuse to give up on this word). And so sharp.

Abracadabra...they reach out and grab ya.
 

To me, this is a very stimulating illusion. Very enjoyable. But it does not look real (to me). Again, probably (one of) my defects at play, because it is very interesting, very stimulating. Maybe even accurate. But real? Not to me. But I'm OK with that.

[MarkusBarkus]

3 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

Watching Spurs losing to Palace. Time to move on.

Thanks for the reminder! Go Spurs! 

[MarkusBarkus]

4 hours ago, Iving said:

You could ask 100 people whether Speakers A image better than Speakers B.

...my impression is this is a genuine, good-faith effort to get things onto a more productive path, so I'll chip in and plant a seed:

 

A couple of months ago, I replaced a pair of Revel Studio2s with Magico A5s. 
 

It has been said and written that the Revels are "good" speakers, image well, etc. That was my experience over the 1.5 years I had them in my room. OK by me if you disagree with that statement, but this is what I offer.
 

My room has many acoustic treatments, commercial and DIY from plans. Pressure and velocity based pieces.

 

When the A5s arrived...then we hear what imaging is. Holy Mackerel. 

Greg Porter: God Bless the Child. A Cappella. Voice is dead-center, round and full. 
 

Roger Waters: Amused to Death. The sound effects, dog barking and narration is all over the room. My puppy goes mental, looking at the sofa. Me too.

 

These are only two of many examples. So, for those in the know:

 

How would we test/measure this to objectively confirm (or dispel) Speaker A images better than Speaker B?
 

You can hear the illusion plain-as-day. Would a mic pick it up? Could it be mapped to cross-over engineering, box design, etc.? 
 

I "know" with "metaphysical certitude," as John McLoughlin used to say, that the Magicos image waaay better than the Revels.
 

How can I prove it to you without having you to my place? Not that you're not all welcome, BTW...