If you were serious about sound you would...

Take ANY cd....play track #1.....Take cd out and spray with Armour-All.....wipe clean and Play track #1 again......It will sound like you did a Major upgrade to your system...it's like Magic....try it!

One of the few things nearly every audiophile agrees about is that you can't make the signal better than the original.

I do think you are missing the point. Yes, we all agree with the above statement, to expect 'better' is folly. OK you have your studio original and now want to listen to that at home. Now I'm sure you will agree, if playback is from your computer using a Chinese $99 DAC via a small pair of cheap speakers it will not provide a rewarding emotional experience, therefore components that do less damage are required, and so the quest continues.

Try it yourself: take a copy of your work to a high-end outlet and listen to it on their best money no object system in an acoustically treated room and compare that to what you hear in your studio! A difference I think.

The comment made that PS Audio gear is mid-fi holds true, meaning better is available and easily heard. With the millions you have spent would it not make sense to install some absorption panels, you know, like a real studio?

@donavabdear  "my main system is wonderful and I love the way it sounds but my professional system in the same room 90 degrees apart is much more accurate and it's not nearly as enjoyable I don't listen to it half as much,"

If your professional system isn't nearly enjoyable and you don't listen to it much why are you pushing everyone to go down this route?  Why would I or anyone else invest money into a system that creates call it whatever you want ,  "sound" , "music sound"  that isn't enjoyable to listen to. What am I missing? 

@phusis Great post! I also appreciate the thought about room calibration on such a "no flavorings" speaker like the Bluehorn. Honestly I didn't consider that in my thoughts and I should have never the less the reason I chose the Bluehorn as an example of studio speakers is because they are internally powered and the amps are designed for the speaker drivers individually there is no way to get to that level of accuracy buying amps and speakers that are not designed for each other. Also the speakers in a system that is trying to be accurate and not musical is spongy your brain will fill in the gaps of the music especially when you have more experience, most people have a few songs very well they know how that song sounds on different systems so when it sounds different on system A or B the experienced listener can very accurately note the differences compared to his reference, and if you listen for many many years you will also have a reference of where your reference system is accounting for it's particular deficiencies. Once again our brains are the listeners not our ears. Speakers don't have to be spongy they can be accurate simply turning the electrical signal into acoustic information. This is why there must be a baseline Wilson, Magico and the like are not flat they sound great but aren't flat, this is why you rarely see speakers with full range polar pattern test patterns like pro microphones come with. Professional speakers do come with these patters but not full frequency, even limited frequency polar patters are all over the place that's just the nature of the beast.

Room acoustics are secondary meaning other than using deep learning / AI in the near future to see the acoustic environment there is no standard because of that it isn't in the tool chest of audiophiles who are going for accurate stems to expect baseline acoustics from the manufactures built in DSP systems that is on the post playback side of the equation. 

Also yes the price is very steep on the Bullhorns but the technology is so ahead of everything else that it was the right choice for looking at a system that was reference not economic. SSL and Pro Tools are very standard, SSL, Neive, Harrison are all very good names in mixers/ preamps but SSL is probably what most high end studios use. Of course there are boutique studios not unlike audiophile playback system and recording systems that are over the top crystal clear in every facet of the recording and playback but since the standard high end recording studio doesn't have that equipment it's like having 2x the headroom in a recording and not knowing how that will sound. This exact thing happened to cassette tape manufactures in the 80s, hi end companies make cassette playback machines that made all the prerecorded cassettes sound unlistenable because they revealed information that wasn't available in standard high end cassette tape recorders.

If absolute accuracy was the goal, then this would be a simple engineering exercise. Users would go to Consumers Reports for the "best buy" based on SINAD and price. No reviewers, forums or print.   A lot of people may find that to be their preference. They want to skip the audiophile game and just listen to music. 

I want to find what cues fool my biased lying brain to make me believe it is musical so I listen to the music, not the playback system. 

If you want perfect, then a Benchmark stack ( for the rich) or a Topping stack (for mere mortals) would do for the electronics. All speakers are terrible so that is tougher.  There would be no tube equipment left. No R2R DACs. No snake oil. 

So others subjective views along with objective measures can narrow our search. Not for sound perfection, but for hearing perfection. Sound is real. Hearing is our opinion and our opinions differ.  Audiophile is finding what sounds right to you. Mostly with the goal to listen to the music.  Audiofool is belief things that are not real but expensive leads to perfection because they can pay for it. Often for bragging rights.  Funny. I was in a store and noticed a Macintosh turn table. I have never known them for tables.  Salesman admitted, they only sell them to people who want to claim they have one and never use it.  Audiofools.  It may be a great table and some may use them.  Don't have a clue as I gave up vinyl as I prefer to play music rather than play with music. 

Modern processed recordings may be more "perfect" but they lose some musicality. Pitch-box, 2 bar splice together, compressed, and processed may be technically better, but I prefer the human musicality of the entire performance. It makes a difference when the band is actually playing together taking cues from each other. Even a lot of "live performances" are spliced together and processed. . I liked the old direct to disk where they did the full side, the whole band, mixer to lathe. Flawed but musical.  Harry James could really "swing"  I don't miss the WOW and flutter, tape his, crosstalk and next groove bleed of vinyl.  Perfection or music. Take your pick. Your choice.