Worst measuring loudspeaker?

[Purité Audio]

We name names here.

Sorry my omission, Vivid Audio courtesy of HiFI News.

Home Page

Hi-Fi News covers everything in audio electronics. Disc players, streamers, amplifiers, headphones, turntables, speakers, and more.

www.hifinews.com

Keith

 

[MattHooper]

I mentioned earlier in the thread talk with my reviewer friend who had the larger Borresen X6 speakers in his place to review - the next size up from the X3 Erin reviewed.

While he was reviewing them he described them to me just as he does in his review:
Large and deep sound staging, precise imaging, highs refined enough to be enjoyable, really punchy bass that he was having fun with. But in listening he found a hole in the midrange, just as Erin did.
He ended up seeing this in some quick measurements. Though ultimately he really enjoyed the speaker.

FWIW, snippets from that Boressen X6 review. You can see from the in room measurements they feature the same type of mid range dip as X3s did:

————————

Still running records, I cued up Vladimir Ashkenazy’s 1973 recording of Franz Schubert’s Piano Sonata in G, D.894 (London CS 6820). Here, I began to scratch my head a bit. After listening to a full side of the massive, planet-smashing power of this monstrous music, I began to feel like something was missing. I’m used to this album making my listening room feel like a tomb that’s a hundred feet underground. It’s ponderous music, relying more on the left hand than the right, and it relies on the power of the entire piano, of the instrument as a unified device, to make its point.

The X6s recessed the piano in space, moving it backward into the soundstage, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but they also removed much of the power of the actual instrument, making it sound thin and small. I listened to this LP a couple of times, while moving the X6s around in an attempt to reinforce the lower mids a touch. Spreading the speakers out wider and toeing them in so that they pointed at my ears improved things a little.

With the additional width and the toe-in, the soundstage increased in size and scale, which was a very good thing—more about that later. The lower-midrange dip was reduced in intensity, but still there. After I’d satisfied myself that I had the X6s positioned properly, I decided to run the X6s through the Anthem Room Correction process that’s built into my Anthem MRX 300 home-theater receiver. Now mind you this—I only use the MRX 300 for watching movies. I run the front L/R preamplifier outputs into my Hegel P3A preamp, with the MRX 300 powering the center and two surround speakers. I run ARC on any speaker that’s going to hang around in my room for any length of time, mostly to balance the volume levels between the main left and right and the other three speakers. I’m far, far from critical regarding home-theater sound quality. So long as it’s in the ballpark, I’m happy.

I’ll repeat in clearer terms—I did not use the ARC-modified signal to drive the X6s for this review. ARC provides me with a generalized, not-too-detailed view of what’s going on in my room—one that’s reasonably consistent from speaker to speaker. Looking at the room curve, I noted a fairly wide trough, centered at roughly 200Hz, that maxed out at nearly 10dB. This, it seemed, was where the power of the piano was hiding.

The red trace is the measured response

Once I’d accounted for this trait, I continued listening without much concern, as there was so much to like about these speakers.

…..

There was much to like here with the Børresen X6. The bass was excellent, and up top, the X6’s highs were smooth and unfatiguing. The Børresens threw an image in my room that was delightful in its solidity.

I wasn’t that bothered by the X6’s lower-midrange dip. I’m quite adept at listening around deviations such as this. I did, however, find myself gravitating somewhat toward music that didn’t rely on this power region. I’d be remiss if I did not mention that several people who listened to the X6s in my room were put off by this frequency aberration.

Børresen X6 Loudspeaker

———————————

I know that people here eschew such reviews and just want to be shown comprehensive measurements.

From my own perspective, I would see enough information in that review to let me know I would not be seeking out these loudspeakers for myself.

 

[garyrc]

My impression of the Klipschorn's sound is that the midrange has a shouty quality, and bass is thin and punchy, likely not going much below 50Hz. It's not my preferred sound.

Klipschorns, in the right room, with the right room treatment, and the right EQ, sound a lot like the live orchestras I've heard or played in. Some of those live orchestras could be "shouty" at times, as well, and seemed to have rather different frequency response balances from hall to hall, and outside, even with the same selections and instrumentalists (we toured). If freed by a very long rest during rehearsal, I would sometimes walk across the front of the orchestra in -- maybe -- row 10, and frequency balance and general sound would change every few feet in ways that would seem to not be due to the angles of incidence, but as all of you know, this can be tricky.

I've had my Khorns in several different rooms, always pressed into corners. Of the many audio stores in which I have heard them over the past 40 or so years, only 2 have had them pushed all the way into corners.

Mine "shout" only when playing a few, very early, bad, CDs.

They are capable of very high quality, especially dynamics (macro and micro), while playing the likes of Beethoven, Mahler, Sonic Highlights w/ Richard Morris and the Atlanta Brass, Miles Davis, etc.

Curves:

1) Average of 8 mic positions, which, of course, "averages out" or smooths all the curves, and Audyssey Reference (response deliberately slopes down above about 6K):

2) With Audyssey Flat (wouldn't be without it). Just 1 mic position. The graph is cut off in the deep bass because I, and most people, would use a SUB below that. Actually, I can crossover to my sub at either 60 Hz, or even 40 Hz, depending on the needs of the recording, the room PLUS the recording, and the listeners.

I read this graph as about +/- 3 dB (+ 4 and -2 above 60hz) at and above the probable crossover point. Note that each pair of the horizontal lines on the graph is 1 dB apart. This is for flat-ish recordings, with music mostly from the Classical and Romantic periods, plus Jazz and Film scores.

3) Below is a graph taken with 1 microphone, but 2 Klipschorns in the front corners of the room, which delivered slightly different bass, so were averaged. It is compensation for recordings that are highly deficient in the bass. The EQ to produce this in our room is noted across the top.

 

[thewas]

...
I wasn’t that bothered by the X6’s lower-midrange dip. I’m quite adept at listening around deviations such as this. I did, however, find myself gravitating somewhat toward music that didn’t rely on this power region. I’d be remiss if I did not mention that several people who listened to the X6s in my room were put off by this frequency aberration.

Typical prose, having to choose some special "audiophile music" so such horribly wide dip which sucks the energy out of "real music" doesn't make it unbearable. Most 2.0 audiophiles suffer from similar (I also did before I start measuring and understanding why) mainly due to the placement of their loudspeakers around one meter from the front wall (and even worse often the distance to the side walls, furniture and floor is similar), in this case possibly the poor response of the loudspeaker (if it is similar to the X3 one) is added to it, at least he is honest about his friends opinions on it.

 

[MAB]

Typical prose, having to choose some special "audiophile music" so such horribly wide dip which sucks the energy out of "real music" doesn't make it unbearable. Most 2.0 audiophiles suffer from similar (I also did before I start measuring and understanding why) mainly due to the placement of their loudspeakers around one meter from the front wall (and even worse often the distance to the side walls, furniture and floor is similar), in this case possibly the poor response of the loudspeaker (if it is similar to the X3 one) is added to it, at least he is honest about his friends opinions on it.

View attachment 421730
View attachment 421731

Yeah, the often repeated mythology saying that people should not place speakers near the back wall, repeated over and over again.
I always wonder if dealers say this crap just to get the customer into an endless loop of moving their speakers around, playing specific tracks that don't excite modes, putting lots of effort into avoiding the issues with their systems. Devoid of measurements, it's like a game with no end.

It reminds me of the 'toe-in' dance that some manufacturers get customers into with speakers that feature poorly mismatched directivity, especially with the boosted treble showroom sound. At some point the flaws seem to become a selling point.

 

[Purité Audio]

I often hear ‘they need space to breathe’ what a load of cobblers, shuffling backwards and forwards stems from when the only way. of cancelling a room mode was to attempt to find the problematic frequency’s quarterwave.
Keith

 

[teashea]

The worst ..... lots of contenders. For me the ones that stand out are the Yamaha NS10's.

When I see NS10's in a studio, that studio immediately loses a substantial amount of credibility to me.

 

[MattHooper]

at least he is honest about his friends opinions on it.

Yes. And honest about his own opinion. The opinion in his review mirrored the opinion he gave me during the review period. He noted the dip in the mid range, but found enough to like about the speaker as well so he enjoyed them. He’s able to enjoy a wider range of loudspeakers than I am, which suits that job.
ASR generally works by having a certain criteria for loudspeaker performance, against which speakers are rated good or poorly performing. Outside ASR, the attitude is more along the lines of “ we will try to describe what music sounds like through a set of loudspeakers as best we can, and the listener can decide whether the speaker might appeal to them or not.”

I appreciate both approaches.

Audiophiles are all over the map in terms of the speakers they find satisfying, including as we know, plenty of loudspeakers that ASR members would reject based on the criteria used here. After all, you’ve got long time Klipsch fans, Maggie fanatics, Horn and tiny tube fans, Lowther fans, Zu fans, you name it.
Even with the Borresen X3, on other audiophile forums while some stated they didn’t like what they heard from the X3 there was the occasional X3 owner who’d demo’d plenty of speakers, chose the X3, and were extremely happy with the performance of the speaker in their system. So when it comes to loudspeakers, I’m not gonna knock anybody’s choice if it turns their crank.

I would like to have heard the X6 myself, just out of curiosity to see what it might do well, even if going in I’d know I’m not gonna choose a loudspeaker with that mid range dip.

 

[MattHooper]

Yeah, the often repeated mythology saying that people should not place speakers near the back wall, repeated over and over again.

But plenty of speakers do sound better pulled out from the back wall. Have you ever experienced this? I certainly have.

Most (though not all) speakers sound better pulled out from the back wall in my room.
And I’ve had auditions of loudspeakers where I had to ask the proprietor to pull the speakers out from the back wall because the bass was boomy, and pulling them out from the back wall fixed the issue.

So I’m unsure what you are criticizing. If it’s merely the absolutism that all speakers sound better pulled up from the back wall, I could see that, though I’m not sure I see the absolutism as prevalent as you do.

I always wonder if dealers say this crap just to get the customer into an endless loop of moving their speakers around, playing specific tracks that don't excite modes, putting lots of effort into avoiding the issues with their systems. Devoid of measurements, it's like a game with no end.

I’ve usually found an end to that “ game” as have most other audiophiles I know. Most of my loudspeakers end up in a similar position in my room, giving me satisfying sound. Most audiophiles get there as well.

It reminds me of the 'toe-in' dance that some manufacturers get customers into with speakers that feature poorly mismatched directivity, especially with the boosted treble showroom sound. At some point the flaws seem to become a selling point.

That reminds me of the recent Danny Richie examination of the Wilson Watt puppy 8.
Naturally, he found all sorts of things wrong with it (his business depends on it). Among them were as I remember poorly matched directivity in the drivers leading to the listener position being very critical.

It got me, wondering if this doesn’t account for the claims made by many reviewers and owners of the Wilson speakers as well as Wilson themselves: when it comes to their loudspeakers that allow fine adjustment of the distance of each driver to the listener.
This requires apparently a well-trained dealer to set up the speakers for you, and to minutely adjust the position of the moveable driver modules until the sound locks in at listening position. Wilson claims this has to do with finding precisely the right timing of the drivers so all the sound arrives at the right time at the listening position. And so many times I’ve read the account of “ even parts of an inch adjustment made significant sound differences, and it wasn’t until the dealer made all the most mute adjustments that the sound finally came together in an amazing way.”

My suspicion is that if this is true at all, perhaps not due to some “ perfection of timing” but rather due to Wilson’s own poor design and matching of drivers and crossovers/directivity, which they are making up for and going through through this “ my new dialling in” process for the listener to get them to sound ok.

 

[MAB]

But plenty of speakers do sound better pulled out from the back wall. Have you ever experienced this? I certainly have.

Most (though not all) speakers sound better pulled out from the back wall in my room.
And I’ve had auditions of loudspeakers where I had to ask the proprietor to pull the speakers out from the back wall because the bass was boomy, and pulling them out from the back wall fixed the issue.

So I’m unsure what you are criticizing. If it’s merely the absolutism that all speakers sound better pulled up from the back wall, I could see that, though I’m not sure I see the absolutism as prevalent as you do.

Boomy speakers with showroom bass sound bad near the wall with the only cure (outside of room equalization) is to pull them out from the wall, many of us have experienced this unfortunate situation. It was the point of my post, no idea what you aren't sure of.

Boomy speakers are cause of the problem that makes customers pull the speaker out form the back wall. That place where the bass boom is managed is most often not the most ideal for the other aspects of the speaker, like the cancellation effect that @thewas posted about. Many speakers with well-designed bass sound better near the wall because of the reduced cancellation effect, as well as other issues. The physics of the bass cancelation from the wall are really simple, the measurements are really clear, the phenomena has been known for ages and can be trivially demonstrated even without a speaker or microphone. Lots of customers find only a few places in their room that are acceptable to manage their boomy bass problem, an unnecessary compromise if the market was filled with speakers that have well-designed bass response.

I’ve usually found an end to that “ game” as have most other audiophiles I know. Most of my loudspeakers end up in a similar position in my room, giving me satisfying sound. Most audiophiles get there as well.

Yes, see above.

That reminds me of the recent Danny Richie examination of the Wilson Watt puppy 8.
Naturally, he found all sorts of things wrong with it (his business depends on it). Among them were as I remember poorly matched directivity in the drivers leading to the listener position being very critical.

It got me, wondering if this doesn’t account for the claims made by many reviewers and owners of the Wilson speakers as well as Wilson themselves: when it comes to their loudspeakers that allow fine adjustment of the distance of each driver to the listener.
This requires apparently a well-trained dealer to set up the speakers for you, and to minutely adjust the position of the moveable driver modules until the sound locks in at listening position. Wilson claims this has to do with finding precisely the right timing of the drivers so all the sound arrives at the right time at the listening position. And so many times I’ve read the account of “ even parts of an inch adjustment made significant sound differences, and it wasn’t until the dealer made all the most mute adjustments that the sound finally came together in an amazing way.”

My suspicion is that if this is true at all, perhaps not due to some “ perfection of timing” but rather due to Wilson’s own poor design and matching of drivers and crossovers/directivity, which they are making up for and going through through this “ my new dialling in” process for the listener to get them to sound ok.

Wilson are an example of a manufacturer with many models that are not likely to sound good near a wall in most rooms, and require the end user to 'listen around' the faults. The Watt/Puppy don't allow the individual driver alignment that their other various models have. But yeah, much of Wilson's ethos marketing is built on this micro-alignment concept circle of confusion, with mentalists dealers supposedly aligning things. It's a game.

Boomy showroom bass, as well as strong toe-in sensitivity are some of the things that we see way too often in this industry, often worse on expensive speakers. The bass is a much easier problem and can be measured trivially, the results are trivial to simulate, and the path to fixing the design is often trivial to implement. The mismatched directivity and resulting toe-in dance requires somewhat more advanced understanding, and more challenging measurements to integrate drivers, crossover, and cabinet. Many manufacturers don't even get the bass right though.

 

[MattHooper]

Boomy speakers with showroom bass sound bad near the wall with the only cure (outside of room equalization) is to pull them out from the wall, many of us have experienced this unfortunate situation. It was the point of my post, no idea what you aren't sure of.

OK, thanks. It wasn’t really clear in your post what you meant. You were depicting it as a myth that you shouldn’t play speakers near the back wall, where it clearly isn’t a myth since that really does negatively affect a great mini loudspeakers.

But instead, you were lodging a complaint against certain types of loudspeakers, that’s a different complaint from what was implied.

Many speakers with well-designed bass sound better near the wall because of the reduced cancellation effect, as well as other issues.

Sure. I’ve experienced that too in my room.

Though of course, Even well-designed loudspeakers can ignite room nodes

And well, it may be the case that, what in your view are “ well-designed loudspeakers,”
can work well against back walls, I don’t think that’s really a big issue for most audiophiles who usually have either a dedicated room or at least have a set up in which they can position the loudspeaker to their satisfaction.

In my case, I don’t want my speakers near the walls. I like to get some more direct sound, and I like a sense of immersion so I prefer to be somewhere between seven and 8 feet from the speakers. It’s a lot easier to pull the speakers out a few feet from the wall behind them to achieve this. Also, I like the illusion of sound staging in the imaging and pulling loudspeakers away from the back wall makes that effect feel more natural to me, versus loudspeakers against the wall where the wall provides a visual disconnect -how can the performers occupy a space that is taken up by a flat wall? Like the performers appearing behind the wall.

Further, it’s been my experience of having a great number of loud speakers in my room that I’ve always been able to achieve smooth sound relatively easily. Not always perfect of course. Even now, I can hear the occasional excitement of a room node. But this is very rarely the case or intrusive on the sound of most music, where otherwise the base sounds wonderfully tight and impactful.

So I certainly get that certain speaker designs can make integration of a speaker easier in a room for smooth sound. But frankly, even if that’s the case I find the importance of this a bit overblown in terms of my own experience, and I think the experience of many other audiophiles who for years I’ve been finding satisfying sound with loudspeakers of all sorts of designs.

 

[thewas]

We are in 2025, a serious audio setup needs correction in the modal region which makes the corresponding argument against placing the loudspeakers close to the wall not valid. If someone wants to get his loudspeakers closer, they need a large room so the null gets very low in frequency or use subwoofers or bass cardioid loudspeakers. Also the arguments that audiophiles are satisfied with their typical setups while partially true (as usually many of them seem to be all the time in search of something new) doesn't mean anything, when you hear a well setup system with no large dips and peaks in the modal region down to 20-30 Hz, you don't want to return back.

 

[killdozzer]

We are in 2025, a serious audio setup needs correction in the modal region which makes the corresponding argument against placing the loudspeakers close to the wall not valid. If someone wants to get his loudspeakers closer, they need a large room so the null gets very low in frequency or use subwoofers or bass cardioid loudspeakers. Also the arguments that audiophiles are satisfied with their typical setups while partially true (as usually many of them seem to be all the time in search of something new) doesn't mean anything, when you hear a well setup system with no large dips and peaks in the modal region down to 20-30 Hz, you don't want to return back.

I always had a feeling this is because finally the wider audience honed in on what works rather than keep on testing what obviously doesn't.

 

[Mart68]

Audiophiles are all over the map in terms of the speakers they find satisfying, including as we know, plenty of loudspeakers that ASR members would reject based on the criteria used here. After all, you’ve got long time Klipsch fans, Maggie fanatics, Horn and tiny tube fans, Lowther fans, Zu fans, you name it.
Even with the Borresen X3, on other audiophile forums while some stated they didn’t like what they heard from the X3 there was the occasional X3 owner who’d demo’d plenty of speakers, chose the X3, and were extremely happy with the performance of the speaker in their system. So when it comes to loudspeakers, I’m not gonna knock anybody’s choice if it turns their crank.

I'm not about knocking other people's choices either, however, in the case of 'bad' loudspeakers owners have a tendancy to blame the recordings for poor sound, on the grounds that it cannot be their loudspeakers, when in fact it is.

I was reading a thread on another forum where people listed recordings that sound 'bad'. Many rock and pop titles were mentioned, most of which I own and which I think sound fine. Needless to say there was violent disagreement within the thread as to what recordings were 'bad.'

In other words owners of loudspeakers considered bad by 'ASR standards' actually don't like their speakers. They just don't realise it.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Hardly the worst, but £6k for a two way ( standard colours £500 more for special) and stands at £1800!View attachment 421056

If you compare the measured ranges is it much worse than this at the top end?

 

[MAB]

But instead, you were lodging a complaint against certain types of loudspeakers, that’s a different complaint from what was implied.

I would like speakers to not have boomy showroom bass, you just didn't get that point, sorry it wasn't clear to you.

The result of speakers with boomy showroom bass is the phenomena that they sound bad when backed into a wall, where they actually would have likely had the best bass response had it not been for the boomy showroom bass.

The result of this is the self-reinforcing myth in the industry that speakers as a rule should not be backed into a wall. This bogus unphysical idea is repeated over and over, and is trivial to measure and hear the effect. Even choir acoustics have been designed for ages with the concept of the half-space of a wall in mind.

But it's 2025 now. And we still have the majority of the industry making boomy showroom bass, causing audiophiles to move their speakers out into the room because the boominess of the bass prevents them from being able to consider closer placement where they would actually have a chance of getting good bass response.
Fine if you feel it's more immersive in your space. Speakers with no showroom boom can still be placed in the center of the room too.

But IDK, it didn't seem that you got this:

Worst measuring loudspeaker?

We name names here. Sorry my omission, Vivid Audio courtesy of HiFI News. https://www.hifinews.com/index.html Keith

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Ageve]

Hardly the worst, but £6k for a two way ( standard colours £500 more for special) and stands at £1800!View attachment 421056

50 dB scaling, and 20-20000 Hz range:

Stereophile review:

Vivid Kaya S12 loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system, an Earthworks microphone preamplifier, and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the Vivid Audio Kaya S12's farfield behavior, and an Earthworks QTC-40 mike for its nearfield responses. I left the vestigial grilles that cover the two...

www.stereophile.com

I didn't have time to optimize the placement by moving the speakers closer to the sidewalls and the wall behind the speakers, which means the low-frequencies are shelved down. But note the superbly even response in the upper midrange and treble. Other than a slight excess of energy in the mid-treble region, the trace gently slopes down in the optimal manner as the frequency increases.
...
The Vivid Kaya S12's measured performance is indicative of the superb loudspeaker engineering I have come to expect from this brand.—John Atkinson

In-room response >500 Hz looks nice, and close to a wall (rear port) bass would probably be ok as well (for a small speaker).

It's expensive, and it looks like Barbapapa, but I honestly think the measurements look just fine. It would be interesting to see a spin.

 

[MattHooper]

We are in 2025, a serious audio setup needs correction in the modal region

Darn. Today I’ve learned I don’t have a serious audio set-up.

which makes the corresponding argument against placing the loudspeakers close to the wall not valid. If someone wants to get his loudspeakers closer, they need a large room so the null gets very low in frequency or use subwoofers or bass cardioid loudspeakers. Also the arguments that audiophiles are satisfied with their typical setups while partially true (as usually many of them seem to be all the time in search of something new) doesn't mean anything, when you hear a well setup system with no large dips and peaks in the modal region down to 20-30 Hz, you don't want to return back.

I understand the arguments for why many people want to “ perfect” bass response.
But having heard such systems, I haven’t personally found it game changing.
For instance, I’ve auditioned the Kii Audio speakers a number of times, tuned to the room, and even with direct comparison to some other passive speakers, I still preferred the passive speakers.

In my own case I integrated 2 JL Audio subs with my Thiels, using their Crossover and employing dsp for room nodes in the bass region - it was a very seamless sound, and just a bit smoother top to bottom. But in the end, I preferred the sound without the subs, and didn’t feel the added equipment and hassle was adding enough to be worth it, so I eventually sold it all.

So some of us have kind of been there and gone back.

 

[MattHooper]

The result of speakers with boomy showroom bass is the phenomena that they sound bad when backed into a wall, where they actually would have likely had the best bass response had it not been for the boomy showroom bass.

I disagree with this characterization.

I’ve given reasons already why many audiophiles preferred to have speakers away from the back walls, which isn’t entirely about getting smooth bass response. Often enough that will place speakers further away from the listening position then they want, they want more immersion so they pull the speakers closer, the imaging feels more natural when there is space behind and around the speakers and which the “ musicians appear” rather than “ appearing” against or behind a wall in between the speakers. Plus they can get more direct sound, or as placing speakers further away against the wall behind them can start to emphasize more room reflections.

It’s not for nothing that many high end speakers are therefore made for how many files are going to actually use them, and to perform best when pulled out from the back wall to some degree.

Therefore, the characterization “ Boomy showroom bass” doesn’t make that much sense. When the speakers are set up in a showroom away from the back wall, as they are likely to be used, they are not creating “Boomy bass.” Not even in the showroom.
I certainly wouldn’t have chosen my speakers if they had indistinct bloated boomy bass.
And they certainly don’t sound that way in my home.

So, well, yes, I get your point about what you prefer in the design of loudspeaker, I find your argument this a touch exaggerated.

 

[thewas]

Darn. Today I’ve learned I don’t have a serious audio set-up.

You know that you know it already, otherwise you would be enjoying music instead of writing pages of texts.

I understand the arguments for why many people want to “ perfect” bass response.
But having heard such systems, I haven’t personally found it game changing.
For instance, I’ve auditioned the Kii Audio speakers a number of times, tuned to the room, and even with direct comparison to some other passive speakers, I still preferred the passive speakers.

In my own case I integrated 2 JL Audio subs with my Thiels, using their Crossover and employing dsp for room nodes in the bass region - it was a very seamless sound, and just a bit smoother top to bottom. But in the end, I preferred the sound without the subs, and didn’t feel the added equipment and hassle was adding enough to be worth it, so I eventually sold it all.

So some of us have kind of been there and gone back.

Yeah sure, typical anecdotal stories where "surprisingly" never documented measurements exist, despite having supposedly used DSP.
And of course "old and experienced power-audiophiles" would never admit that their approach is inferior, as otherwise they would admit spending their lifetime and money on aberrations, they rather choose recordings where the problems of their systems aren't as much exposed, see the review of your friend.