Not wishing to gt into analogue Vs digital debate so please don't take this as such - I'm simply using this to make a point. The idea of more relaxed listening has often been associated with analogue playback in comparison to digital playback. The direction of this development has been towards more accuracy rather than better adherence to psychoacoustic principles (or what's known of them). Perhaps accuracy had to come first & it's shortcomings before the divergence from psychoacoustics was realised? It's not such a bad thing as the psychoacoustic principles can be incorporated after the event, if it is now recognised.
One of the processes we are engaged in when perceiving sound is a constant evaluation of our hearing space acoustics. Anything which gives us a quicker/more accurate handle on this will tend to result in more relaxed listening, I feel.
When listening to stereo playback (two point sources) which has natural or studio created venue acoustics in the recording & playing this back in our own room acoustic, we need all the help we can get to recreate & maintain "the illusion". Sorting out one acoustic from the other can be a processing chore & the more acoustic cues & help we get, the more relaxation is achieved & possibly the more a sense of envelopment & intelligibility results.
All of this IMO, of course
One of the processes we are engaged in when perceiving sound is a constant evaluation of our hearing space acoustics. Anything which gives us a quicker/more accurate handle on this will tend to result in more relaxed listening, I feel.
When listening to stereo playback (two point sources) which has natural or studio created venue acoustics in the recording & playing this back in our own room acoustic, we need all the help we can get to recreate & maintain "the illusion". Sorting out one acoustic from the other can be a processing chore & the more acoustic cues & help we get, the more relaxation is achieved & possibly the more a sense of envelopment & intelligibility results.
All of this IMO, of course