I agree with you. But you are out of step with the fashion of saying that there is no right or wrong, and every opinion is equal. Some regard it as "undemocratic" and "elitist" to suppose that some opinions are better than others, and so they become quite hostile to that idea. Usually, though, the proponents of such ideas do not consistently adhere to their own doctrines, as, for example, they would object strongly if their bank adjusted their bank balance according to such principles.
I think you missed the mark here. Based on these two posts
Well, as I've said before, if I could sell all my speakers, I would just keep the KEF monitors + RBH & Funk subs.
There's no way in hell I would get rid of subs and just get towers. I don't care how big the towers are. I think their bass sucks in comparison to subs.
I've posted this elsewhere, so this is redundant, but I've been listening and comparing my speakers.
Revel Salon2 in 2.0 (MSRP $22K)
B&W 802D2 in 2.0 (MSRP $15K)
Linkwitz Orion3 in 2.0 (MSRP $10K)
KEF 201/2 + RBH SX-1010N in 2.2 (MSRP $8.4K)
I unequivocally preferred the 2.2 setup over all the 2.0 tower setup 100% of the time. No contest.
Going back to 2.0 towers was unpleasant. It seemed anemic in comparison to the 2.2 setup.
There's no right or wrong here. Some guys want more bass and some guys don't. It's just a matter of preference.
So when I go to a live concert, I always think, "Damn, where's the bass?"
It's pretty clear that ADTG is saying he likes to run the bass hot and that he doesn't care if this leaves him with a sound that drifts away from accuracy. Dennis' response was from a design perspective, which he did make clear, and from a design perspective there is most definitely a right and a wrong. If, however, we approach what ADTG is saying from a subjective listening preference perspective, then there is no right or wrong per se.
In the case of speakers, things get very complicated, as one may be more accurate in some respects, while another may be more accurate in other respects, and then the issue of which is more accurate involves a complex answer. To give a simple example, one speaker may be more accurate in its reproduction of midrange frequencies, while another may be more accurate in its reproduction of higher frequencies. Of course, that is just a simple example of this concept, but I want the point to be clear to whoever reads this.
For something so complex you summed it up well enough for the majority of people to understand
Which may also lead us to the conclusion that in that area where objective and subjective meet, at least to the average person/non-critical listener, it needn't be nor get more complicated than that. Does a cymbal sound like a cymbal? Does a female/male voice sound as it should? Does a drum kit, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, etc sound like it should? It seems to me that this is an easy and quantifiable way to judge a speakers accuracy (assuming you can audition it). If you can't, then all we have are the objective specs and FR charts and the discussion becomes purely academic.
Many people who like audio gear have no interest in accuracy, and just want a pleasing sound. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but many such people imagine that that means that there is no such thing as accuracy or any objective standards that are possible with audio gear. Of course, that does not follow at all; just because a particular individual has no interest in accuracy, that does not mean that there is no such thing as accuracy.
I believe Sean Olive, among others have done a few studies that have shown trained and untrained listeners prefer accurate sound. Furthermore, when the "average person" has no idea what you're talking about when you start saying things like flat frequency response and accurate sound reproduction to them, you can hardly conclude that they have no vested interest in accuracy. I don't think too many people who have heard instruments/vocals in person want them altered very much when they're reproducing them at home, but I could be way off base there.
I'm not totally sure where this post was going since it seems a bit disconnected from paragraph to paragraph, or perhaps I'm misreading/misunderstanding something. My response isn't to be combative or cheeky, I just thought the characterization of Dennis' response was a bit off, and then I don't know what I was trying to say in the other responses
