So should we be listening to one speaker? Once we stereo-heads get used to it, would the aesthetic experience be just as good, or better? We'd lose our ability to hear violins on the left and cellos on the right. Would that be a big loss?
He says "the room doesn't matter!" So can I stop worrying about room equalisation? He also says "we can listen through the room", so (again) why bother with equalisation, just get used to listening through the room.
He says measuring with one microphone is a waste of time, we need Spinorama. So is REW a waste of time?
He points to an older high end KEF speaker as being flat on axis but not good off - leading to a moderate result in listening tests - the first reflections acting badly (not great for something meant to be high end!) How do the current crop of KEFs compare to Harbeth speakers in this repect?
So he's saying the source is all important and the room does not matter. He's saying that a symphony in a concert hall that musicians agree sounds great should provide a great source, as long as the microphone placers & knob twidlers have great ears. This makes sense to me and perhaps explains my CD collection (the good and the bad!) It isn't my room that's bad, it isn't my speakers that are bad, it's that my bad sounding CDs are bad sources. Otherwise wouldn't all my CDs sound bad?
So why are so many recordings so bad? He says too many recording engineers are using bad speakers! So how do we get out of this "circle of confusion"?
He says active loudspeakers are the way to go, to flatten the curve and stop resonances. Is this correct? Amir uses DSP to flatten the curve - isn't that enough?
Anyone have a link to tomorrows lecture on dealing with bass? More details on this lecture here:
https://www.cirmmt.org/en/events/distinguished-lectures/toole