IMO, the video's not especially entertaining. If this was a stand-up act, I'd probably use the time to go to the bar. But that's a matter of taste. In terms of the substance of the video, it's a mixture of inaccuracy, misinterpretation, straw dogs...and, in one instance, a profound truth.
1. He gets off to a bad start, as he clearly doesn't understand what "perfect pitch" is. When a person has "perfect pitch," it means they can correctly identify the frequency of a note (C-sharp, B-flat, E, whatever) without reference to a tuned instrument. Some first-rate musicians have it, some don't. The ability to play by ear, which is what he describes, is entirely different and, I think, much more impressive. Anecdotally, Mozart heard the Allegri Misirere once and then wrote it out from memory. That's an extreme example (if the story is actually true) of having a "good ear."
The term "Golden Ear"—which I don't like—is something different from either of the above. It refers to the ability of an experienced listener to assess the sound of audio gear and recordings in an informed fashion. I've never heard it used outside the context of the audiophile pursuit. It's often a learned ability, not a God-given capacity like perfect pitch or the ability to throw a 100 mph fastball on the inside corner of the plate. Example? I once had an audiophile acquaintance over to hear a new speaker and he immediately observed that one driver in this complex product was wired out of phase. He was right. His taste in music was abominable.
2. PRAT. Anyone who uses the term (I don't) generally understands (or should) that it doesn't refer to some measurable aspect of a product that's baked in, like frequency response, sensitivity, or radiation pattern. It just a way of subjectively describing how well the product has been engineered to render music in a satisfying way. It's really no different than using terms like "speed" or "transparency" or "imaging" to qualify the success of a component. If a reviewer or consumer knows what PRAT means to them, it can be useful—to them.
3. Loudspeaker placement. I read a lot a manuals and find that recommendations, as expected, vary according to the speaker's design. Some—typically models without a rear port—can be placed near a room boundary. That's how they were designed, and bass response may suffer without any improvement in spatiality if they are pulled out into the room. To generalize, as the gentleman on the video does, is unfair to both manufacturers and to most audiophiles I know.
4. EQ? Except for DSP room correction (which is still anathema for many audiophiles) I think the guy is inventing a crisis that doesn't exist—if by "EQ", he means turning a knob or pushing a slider to alter frequency response. What audiophiles do sometimes is to choose components—say, speaker cables—that "correct" for a perceived deficiency in a system's overall sound. It can be argued, I think, that there's nothing wrong with that. You've chosen a speaker that you really like in terms of a half dozen key parameters. There's one you don't care for, something that keeps it from achieving "perfection." You find that a particular amplifier successfully addresses that one shortcoming? Go for it.
5. System optimization. He's 100% right on this one, as others have pointed out. Even informed enthusiasts can be blind to setup issues. Or their may be painfully aware that there are acoustic problems that can't be addressed with room treatments because of the dictates of a spouse/partner. That's life, and one of the things that makes this hobby endlessly fascinating to me. Audiophiles, usually, aren't "dumb." They're just dealing with their reality as best they can to enjoy music to the highest possible degree.
Andy Quint