Do you presume that I am “concerned with imaging and soundstage”. I assure you I am not. My system presents much of the information that is embedded on the recording, and it sounds natural to me judging by the standard of live acoustic music. I also know this having heard the same recordings on other systems. Images and sound stage are not flat as you keep suggesting.
Images and soundstage to not seem “enhanced” in what Harry Pearson convinced us was an ever increasing effort towards precision. I pursue this type of presentation through the gear I choose and by how I choose to set up the system.
Certain gear enhances and exaggerates spatial information and it can sound artificial as a result. Wires can do the same. I refer to this as exaggeration and enhancement while you describe the opposite as bluring. That is fine. I think we both know what we want.
Quite the opposite, you have made it clear that you are not concerned with imaging and soundstage... I need not presume anything.
I would disagree that your system presents as much of the information that is embedded in the recording if you don't get clear imaging and spatial relationships. There is likely smearing from having the speakers in the corner, diffraction from the old design horn, possible resonances from the cabinet and for sure the horn, etc. I am not suggesting anything about your system and I never said your soundstage is flat. You said that it was not very precise with regard to image specificity and location in space.
I am sure that detail can be exaggerated, through either omission or commission, and I guess this could enhance image location laterally but it will only damage imaging location on depth axis and the sense of 3d images...as it will flatten images.
Again, it is not about what we want...it is about what we get vs. what is on the recording.