Frantz,
This is one point where we strongly disagree, although I see your point.
IMHO, in the high-end music stereo reproduction can claim to be an Art. Designers analyze the life experience, their audience and the product they are delivered - the recording - and they create products to deliver this message, surely adding or subtracting something to it to complement and enhance aspects of a limited format. Perhaps the simple technological delivery of the message is currently the objective of audio science, but for me it has never delivered rewarding results in the long time. And yes, even products measuring excellently sound different and deliver the message in different subjective ways - and unfortunately the more common reaction of "science" is denying it, not trying to understand it and the Art beyond it.
Think about an art exposition. I consider that selecting the appropriate objects to create the proper sequence of feelings in the visitor, creating the proper illumination and decoration of the space is art, making the artwork, all this is Art. I have followed the building of such expositions during all the phases and I have no doubt on it.
IMHO we do not need to be anti-science to accept it. It is a question of the definition of the objectives of sound reproduction, as people in WBF are permanently reminding us.
+1.
I was going to respond to Frantz.
I would add that while sound reproduction is a technical product of pieces of technology along with physical or electronic media, our personal viewpoint and perception interpretation is based on how it effects us as art, and how it compares to our expectations as art.
the technical is the vehicle to deliver the art. but any art has some sort of basis in the physical world. any art must obey the laws of science.
OTOH if one wants to just listen to test tones then maybe there is a merely technical aspect apart from the art and sensual. I doubt if anyone has fond memories of their last 'test tone' concert.