In a magazine interview, Mr. Lyngdorf, one of the pioneers of DSP room compensation/equalization stated that a serious audiophile carefully selecting gear for a particular room, setting up speakers in the ideal location, using appropriate room treatments, will probably achieve better sound than can be achieved with even the best DSP compensation (he makes ultra expensive versions of such). But, for the vast majority of situations, DSP compensation is the way to go if one does not have the experience, patience and ability to make no compromises in setup.
Do my ears deceive me??
The money is in the bank, thinking of upgrading speakers, but everything I demo is no better or worse than what I have. Willing to spend up to $6,000. Upgraditis?? My main system is Mcintosh MX 134 that I bought in 2003, with a pair of Focal 836v's and a Parasound 5250 (250w/channel) amp I bought around 2012. I either blew the tweeters or crossover on my 836's, so they are in for repair. Since I've owned them for 10 years, I was considering new speakers. The blades are way more than I would spend, but I also demoed the Kef R11s, Martin Logan xtf 200's, Mcintosh XR 100s, and B&W 703 S3.
None of them sounded better than what I'm hearing right now from my BP 2006s. Would I really need to demo them in my room to make a fair comparison?? Or are speakers just not much better than they were 20 years ago? I know I love detail, and tend to lean towards aluminum tweeters. I pretty much only listen to classic rock and roll. Of all I demoed, I really like the B&W 706s. They sounded much brighter/cleaner than the others. But they had the reciever set up so I couldn't adjust the treble/bass. I love a V equalizer curve, and bump up the bass and treble a bit on my home/car systems. Maybe I just have the good luck of prefering cheaper speakers.