Get reel dood ~ such a $cam! =)) There R TONS of things that R ignored by technical measurements, like 4 instance how they respond while playing complex music instead of test tones & sweeps & bladee bla. U know this of course, as U R very technically trained, but U pretend they R not real things because it makes it harder 4 U 2 $ell ideas ~ competing with 'testimony' and 'reputation' and 'concensus' rather than 'currently technically verifiable specifications'. For instance, technically 'within the power limits' a 'small' (low power) amp can 'measure' identical to a big beefy powerful one, but they will sound very different when playing music because the tough amp will have a deeper more solid feel to it and more open sound (generally speaking) because not having 2 struggle as much.
It would really help if you were more honest rather than those clowns like in installs who pretend cables sound the same. U can put them side by side and clearly hear the differences, even though they measure the same. A good example is thin all copper wire vs thicker where one lead is aluminum instead (or whatever that silver stuff is in 'low end lamp cord' =)) It's actually 1 of the very best speaker wires! =D Another goodie is 'Amphenol spectra strip' originally marketed for SCSI drives in mainframes.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41GKOy2kFpL.jpg
I used to deal in computers & was like "WOW" makes it sound even more clear ~ but very complicated to terminate by hand =P Maybe U would like to do some studies on that? That guy who invented TV antennas or something 'Dunlavy' used a 'folded' version. Whatever the case, U should compare these 'junk' computers vs. your FancyTown 'CorkSniffery' DACs & C how they compare in 'double blind listening tests' or whatever =)
http://paulrand.coolpage.biz/SirPlexalot.htm
Have an audience of various different people & genders & ages who are NOT familiar with audiophile gear sit there and tell you which they PREFER to listen to with a variety of sources, and C wat thay thenk! =D I really like them = no 'digitalness' @ all 2 the sound = very natural =) Nothing needs 'fixing'... just the headphone amp could B a bit more gutsy, for that 'vast expansive bottomless storm' vibe like the IBM S50 gives ya' ~
Oh horrors... I used adjectives to describe a sound besides 'noise floor' or something HAHAHAHA
Oh & BTW: Being more 'accurate' technically speaking is NOT necessarily a more accurate overal RESULT. To make this easy to understand = like 'dithering' perhaps, noise can actually make something sound MORE realistic by 'smoothing out the edges'. In video processing (which U R also an expert at, judging by your 'resume') adding noise (whether in the DVD or whatever itself or after) can help reduce 'banding' artifacts by smoothing them together across distances. Also blurring like 'debanding filters' can help, and 'warp sharpening' and 'de-noising' and so many things... these are all forms of DISTORTION that CHANGE the RESULT form what they are 'fed' from gear (or files or whatever) 'upstream'. These 'alterations' that CHANGE the sound from 'what was originally there' can actually IMPROVE the REALISM of the RESULT, which is what it SHOULD always B about... not what 'measures the most technically accurate' but what 'gives the most realistic RESULT'! =) Get it now? I don't hear many people talking about this kind of thing, but it's very important. 'Distortion' is not the enemy. Like tubes have (sometimes) a very nice smooth sound, like changing a video cable from digital to analog VGA ~ it's like adding a subtle 'debanding' filter that can make the RESULT look actually more REALISTIC than the 'technically more accurate' digitally transmitted image.
This effect is really esasy to SEE with your EYES = less 'subjective' because yeah U can tell "that line there slightly blurs into the other but I see how it makes faces look more beautiful" kind of thing. Is the goal to 'torture' yoruself with the FLAWS of a recording, or to make the recording sound as NATURAL as possible? The goal of each thing should focus on the final RESULT, not just to 'duplicate' whatever ERRORS and FLAWS exist elsewhere... no, to REPAIR them and even ENHANCE what was originally there = that's what it's all about, grasshopper =D Some VISUAL examples 4 U...
https://justpaste.it/67srx
Original image (resized):
https://justpaste.it/img/fc753719a51e61f9057d027b09cb66ba.jpg
After DRASTIC MODIFICATION (so-called 'distortion'):
https://justpaste.it/img/628fbd2c219cffe407a90c19d56f6f1d.jpg
& yes, looks much more REALISTIC, even though it is 'technically' TOTALLY innacurate in 'preserving the original source'. I don't give a frak what the 'source' looked like other than what it takes to get the RESULT looking great =) If it looks (or sounds) messed up, why torture yourself? Do things that make it look & sound the best you can have =D Many examples on that page (some U might not agree with ~ hoo noze!) showing how 'distortion' & 'noise' & whatever (& I use 'blur' a LOT =) can ENHANCE things =D
Here's a horrifically inefficient (large file size for dimension) image with bad color & gamma...
https://justpaste.it/img/06f8a768cdcc076448422522a8c8f02f.png
& here it is DISTORTED LIKE CRAZY various ways to make it look much BETTER =)
https://justpaste.it/img/b21f363040b6101f2228766dbdd37914.jpg
I don't care 2 torture myself with $hitty looking movies & videos. I want them 2 look & sound GOOD! =D 'Distortion' is not the enemy... HELL no...
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Nes8mhKntg