Not really ... it's kind of like defining pornography ... you know it when you see it ... bloom, you like it when you hear it. I guess if you've listened to live viola or cello music you'd know what bloom is, it is a sweet fullness of sound - of musical sound ... I'm sure it does not register on your meter, or if it did, you would not be able to distinguish the cello's bloom from everything else that's going on.
How about sense of space? Do you think your meter can capture that? Have you ever noticed it when listening to a good recording ... a sense of the acoustical 'space' of the venue of the recorded performance as opposed to your listening room?
So, timbre, bloom, imaging, soundstage, sense of acoustic space ... how do you discern these audio qualities from looking at meter or graph or osillyscope? Or, do you just think that because these qualities cannot be objectively demonstrated by your test equipment, they don't exist?
There is a certain nihilism, an arrogant positivism, an oversimple reductionist quality to the argument that if you can't demonstrate an audio effect on your scope it doesn't exist. Perhaps, Adam, your simple test equipment is not adequate to the complexity of the phenomena ... but, they're just sound waves, right? You've got 2 ears and a brain between them to analyze those sound waves ... and respectfully, I think more of my 'test equipment' than your frequency analyzer.
It's really very simple folks. Just because 2 pieces of equipment test the same does not mean they sound the same.
