Audio nonsense

My approach is remarkably straight forward. I listen. If something bothers me with how it presents sonically, I work to lessen it. If I find something is missing, I work to bring it forward. Measurements can be of great help to find the source of the problem.

Thank God for our ears. Not to mention that any comment about audio without comparative listening is nonsense. As for determining what room correction might be required (for tonal accuracy, content resolution, transient response, etc.), we can easily aid it by using good headphones with a good amp and doing comparative listening with the speakers in front of you. Not surprisingly, achieving a good tonal accuracy will also result in improving all other parameters. Remarkably, you will find that sometimes what you hear from speakers you may personally prefer on some tracks, while, clearly, headphones are a superior sound device (apart from the sound stage alone). Arguing those results among listeners might be a sufficient thread for this forum, but it would make no practical sense because it is related to individual psycho-acoustics (including emotion) and may even include some missing variables that can not be discussed because they are not even determined. In short, listening, adjusting/experimenting to A/B comparing, and ending up with YOUR acceptable compromises, is the only process worth trying; disputing or arguing it here is a complete waste of time. Reporting it, however, should be encouraged and appreciated, not ridiculed.

Thank God for our ears. Not to mention that any comment about audio without comparative listening is nonsense. As for determining what room correction might be required (for tonal accuracy, content resolution, transient response, etc.), we can easily aid it by using good headphones with a good amp and doing comparative listening with the speakers in front of you. Remarkably, you will find that sometimes what you hear from speakers you may personally prefer on some tracks, while, clearly, headphones are a superior sound device (apart from the sound stage alone). Arguing those results among listeners might be a sufficient thread for this forum, but it would make no practical sense because it is related to individual psycho-acoustics and may even include some missing variables that can not be discussed because they are not even determined. In short, listening, adjusting/experimenting to A/B comparing, and ending up with YOUR acceptable compromises, is the only process worth trying; disputing or arguing it here is a complete waste of time. Reporting it, however, should be encouraged and appreciated, not ridiculed.

Great post thanks!

I will only add about headphones, that i OBSERVED that my room acoustic was done when i did not want to hear my SEVEN different types of headphone anymore...They are no more needed for sound quality superiority at all...

Room Acoustic is the ONLY audiophile key element....

Anybody can buy a good amplifier or speakers pair.... Anybody can argue about the "taste" and difference between them like about Wine...

But gear is not wine, it is ONLY a MEANS for an ACOUSTIC experience: music listening...

Tasting gear is ignorance or a hobby called : misplaced sound obsession...

I prefer listening to music and i dont give a dam about my relatively basic good gear nor to any COSTLY possible meaningless now upgrade... I dont taste sound difference...I listen piano timbre in my TUNED room instead...

Anybody can buy a good amplifier or speakers pair.... Anybody can argue about the "taste" and difference between them like about Wine...

But gear is not wine, it is ONLY a MEANS for an ACOUSTIC experience: music listening...

Tasting gear is ignorance or a hobby called : misplaced sound obsession...

I prefer listening to music and i dont give a dam about my relatively basic good gear nor to any COSTLY possible meaningless now upgrade... I dont taste sound difference...I listen piano timbre in my TUNED room instead...

I say all this because there is the same amount of audio nonsense in gear idolatry than in "tweaks"...

There is no nonsense in acoustic experiments... Learning how to hear in a specific room with specific gear was my hobby for some years... Now i am done, the process is completed,  and my new hobby is more listening music.... 😁😊

I have never understood why having a flat frequency response for speakers is a desirable attribute …..

My ideal frequency response is equivalent of when the old but now shunned ’loudness’ feature is turned on....

figures…

I will only add about headphones, that i OBSERVED that my room acoustic was done when i did not want to hear my SEVEN different types of headphone anymore...They are no more needed for sound quality superiority at all...

Based on my experience, I would agree that headphones have different characters, so using them as absolute reference is not an absolute standard or might be confusing, but as for a tonal comparison to speakers alone (or better to live music, which reminds me my ancient observations - like when after sitting 12 feet away from Dizzy Gillespie’s trumpet - I realize that my speakers sound different. LOL) I do find headphones (especially studio/monitor grade ones) very useful which may have, most likely, to do with a better phase reproduction (especially for live music), lack of crossover, smaller transducer size and therefore smaller physical deformations, and, above all, the lack of the room reflections). Also, our individual "favorite headphones" have a valid individual psycho-acoustic reasons behind it.

Addressed to the anti-tweakers: 

If your true intent is to prevent people from being taken advantage of-- if that is your sincere impulse and you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that product xyz cannot and does not work-- deriding others is a very unskillful way to go about it.