Audio nonsense

This thread is an excellent example of ALL 10 cognitive errors nicely listed here: https://aha.zone/10-cognitive-thinking-errors/

 There is no logical reason to argue somebody's private decision of purchasing audio solution, observing positive/negative results in THEIR system, and deciding to keep/sell them in spite of very expensive ticket prices, even if that improvement does not work in another system. To illustrate my point I would propose an equivalent question: Can you deny the existence of the placebo/nocebo effects because it never happened to you? Not to mention that even if you believe in them, you can never really claim it without a double-blind case study.

I didn't believe cabling impact on the audio path at first (a long time ago) and experience it everyday now, especially when some can be detected only on specific tracks. 

Let's please have some respect for other people. Arguing audio as it would be a political ideology completely disregarding rights to the individual rights/opinions is very 2022 but, simply, also very ignorant. 

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.

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.

Everything I have ever tried has made a difference of some sort.

Whether or not I cared for the difference is a different story.
 

Let's never underestimate those two above observations for two below reasons:

1) If we make a single change to our systems, even if it is not audible at this moment, our next upgrade (such as a new speaker or even a more minor component), might be differently affected by that exact change now. In short, an audio path is a chain of mutually-interactive components where each emphasizes the inate problems or advantages of all each other components (in a specific listening room!) and is in reality never guaranteed to have the same absolute result totally independent from all other components.

2) Throwing big money on our audio setup may often be equivalent to being able to buy a supercar, but not having the proper training/experience/objectivity to "drive" it. After all, audio paths are too often maintained on the basis of bigger-must-be-better, which can be simply "attested" by their ticket price. The real audio value, however, is not determined by words and numbers, but by our never-objective ears. Sadly and quite easily, we may end up like drivers in those Youtube videos of idiots damaging their supercars. Objectively, the above comparison is quite accurate: there are plenty of people out there with great means who lack ear training and sufficient hearing ability to pursue optimal component matching.  

That's why audio forums are important and useful exchanges of subjective facts and must resist the dangers of creating and maintaining "audio absolutism" cults.