Returning to the OP, as opposed to the kind of ill-organized war on EQ that this thread has become,
That seems a tad histrionic. The technical benefits made possible by room EQ have been acknowledged, though some haven't always preferred what they heard and/or have chosen not to pursue it. That doesn't constitute a "war on EQ" and I don't see this approach being pushed on anyone else, as "war" would imply.
I have an even more simple assertion:
Simplicity, defined as fewer components or a lack of digital processing, is orthagonal to audible fidelity or even audible sound improvement.
EDIT with suggestion and corrected spelling (ack):
Simplicity, defined as fewer components, a lack of digital processing, or any recent listener experiences messing about with microphones, is orthoganal to audible fidelity or even audible sound improvement.
Given your use of the term "orthagonal" I infer you are saying that simplicity as you define it is irrelevant to audible fidelity or audible improvement. In other words,
"simplicity" doesn't tell you the fidelity or audio quality is going to be better or worse, so as a concept it's a red herring in audiophile terms. Is that correct?
It seems to me there has been disagreement about that, since many in this thread have proposed the necessity of digital processing - in the form of room correction - in achieving higher fidelity and better sound. In which case it wouldn't be orthogonal.
As to your second formulation, that seems aimed at those eschewing room EQ etc, I don't see how you can make that claim. Because you've included user experiences with, I presume, experimenting with measuring/room EQ. (Don't know what else you mean by "recent listener experience messing about with microphones.")
In which case, I don't see how you are in a position to declare someone did or didn't hear an "audible improvement" between the more corrected vs less room corrected response? That's up to the listener's goals and taste.
I heard a difference between room corrected sound and uncorrected. But "better or worse?" That's up to me thank you very much.
Let's take a possible other example: I have a small stand mounted monitor in my room, which is performing in a generally neutral fashion - maybe I've even applied room correction. And it's helped to remain neutral because it only goes down to, say, 60Hz so it's not exciting the lower room nodes like a larger speaker might in the room.
Now I replace it with a large floor standing speaker that goes down to 30Hz or below. No room correction at all is applied.
I put on some thrumming deep bass electronica, some of my favourite music. Will it sound better? To me, you bet! It will now have the depth, impact, richness that will make for a much more compelling presentation of that music. I put on some new prog rock. Will it sound "better?" You bet. Now the bass drum/bass and everything has the scale and impact that benefits such music. I listen to an orchestral spectacular, say the soundtrack to Star Trek the motion picture which I love.
On the small "neutral" monitors it's a tiny presentation, a toy version. I play it on my larger floor standing speakers and now it's much larger in scale, the sound much richer and deeper and more impactful...the kettle drums roll across the floor and envelop me more like a real concert. Is the bass response perfect, free of any bulges or nodes? No. But then, neither would most live sound, including the sound of a real symphony - there are room excitations that are part of the aural experience. So even though the uncorrected larger speaker presentation isn't technically perfect, I..and I'm sure many others...would deem it an audible improvement in terms of the sonic experience it's giving me, the listener.
Hence, I just can't see how your attempt at stating such a rule can really hold...except perhaps as a statement of your own preferences
