Why Some Audiophiles Fear Measurements

[Gregadd]

LOL, room treatment is still ignored or at least misunderstood by the vast majority of people who play music through loudspeakers. There is very little public "current emphasis" other than by me and Floyd Toole and, I suppose, some of our followers. Excluding loudspeakers, the room one listens in has fifty times more effect on the sound than any audio gear. Yet look at the "associated equipment" list that accompanies hi-fi type reviews and I bet less than ten percent of them list any acoustic treatment at all. But most include tweaks that cannot possibly affect the sound, such as cable elevators and magic AC power cords. My efforts to explain the importance of room treatment over the past 10+ years are definitely having an effect, but there's still a very long way to go! So over-emphasis? No way.

--Ethan

That quote, taken out of context I might add, has not caused me so much flak since I suggested one of my girlfiends could stand to lose a few pounds. As you might expect she is one of my ex-girlfiriends. Keep up the good work. Somebody is getting the message. BTW when you make an incomplete quote it helps the reader when you do this ...quote... That lets them know you omitted soemthing.

 

[Gregadd]

Here's a simplistic way to assign a percentage value: We can ignore electronic gear and cabling etc because anything decent will be flat within 1 dB over the audible range. Good loudspeakers are flat within 10 dB if not less. But most rooms vary by at least 30 dB, especially in the bass range.

A 20 dB difference is a 10:1 ratio. So loudspeakers have more affect than electronics by 90/10, and the room is more important than speakers by 90/10. Therefore:

Room = 90 percent
Speakers = 9 percent
Everything else = 1 percent.



--Ethan

99%? Yeah that is a tough sale. Right up there with the zip cord arguemnt, $1k amp argument etc. You've got your work cut out for you. Good luck with that.

 

[kareface]

Here's a simplistic way to assign a percentage value: We can ignore electronic gear and cabling etc because anything decent will be flat within 1 dB over the audible range. Good loudspeakers are flat within 10 dB if not less. But most rooms vary by at least 30 dB, especially in the bass range.

A 20 dB difference is a 10:1 ratio. So loudspeakers have more affect than electronics by 90/10, and the room is more important than speakers by 90/10. Therefore:

Room = 90 percent
Speakers = 9 percent
Everything else = 1 percent.



--Ethan

Interesting way of thinking about it.

Nothinhg is infallible and no satandard is absolute. I don't beleive in anything mystcal except Christianity. That is a self proclaimed act of fatih.

From somone who argues for a living: on every debate from every field: you can argue on the merits,you can attack the procedure,you can attack the field of endeavor, or the person making the argument. Finally you can descend into name calling or unfortunately outright physical violence. Personnaly I prefer it when they attack me. It stings a little,but it means they have nothing on the merits.

Did not mean to offend. I'll make a better choice of metaphors next time.

For someone that debates a lot you sure commit a lot of logical fallacies, including the above strawman argument. I dare you to cite someone who's involved in scientific research suggesting anything in science is infallible. Or for that matter anyone who's promoted objective verification in this thread. Just because something isn't infallible doesn't make it unreliable. There is a huge gap between not being perfect and not being functional. I hate it when people try and suggest just because science doesn't operate in absolutes that anything can be dismissed when it suites them. There is a greater degree of fallibility in many of thing things you operate on a day to day basis, but you don't dismiss them outright. This is a non-argument, everything is fallible so everything can be dismissed just as easily.

It's obvious that you have to look at the degree of understanding. On the far end we have things like abiogenesis, which is a long way from producing a functional theory. On the other side we have things like QED, where the mathematics perfectly describes the manifestations of reality and is considered to be one of the only complete fields in physics (and yet still not considered to be infallible). The underlying physics behind audio reproduction isn't infallible, but it is a far cry from warranting dismissal from people who don't understand it to begin with. My point can be summed up as, nothing in science is infallible, but the likelihood that the snake oil products out there have some great undiscovered truth behind their seeming worthlessness that defies the established understanding is about as close to 0 as you can get. There is a mountain of evidence on one side and in almost every case even the manufacture doesn't provide usable test data on the magic products they tout. The reason no one buys their arguments is no one has managed to meet the burden of proof. If it really works, find the measurements that validate it.

99%? Yeah that is a tough sale. Right up there with the zip cord arguemnt, $1k amp argument etc. You've got your work cut out for you. Good luck with that.

Are you saying that there isn't the likely potential for a 30db variability created from room interaction? Are you saying that most loudspeakers aren't flat within 10db? I have a hard time accepting that someone who dismisses an argument with out addressing it's merit is someone who, "argues for a living".

 

[The Smokester]

Here's a simplistic way to assign a percentage value: We can ignore electronic gear and cabling etc because anything decent will be flat within 1 dB over the audible range. Good loudspeakers are flat within 10 dB if not less. But most rooms vary by at least 30 dB, especially in the bass range.

A 20 dB difference is a 10:1 ratio. So loudspeakers have more affect than electronics by 90/10, and the room is more important than speakers by 90/10. Therefore:

Room = 90 percent
Speakers = 9 percent
Everything else = 1 percent.



--Ethan

I like this approach. The reasoning is clear. We could test it to see if people became satisfied with this way of looking at things. We could discuss a path to further refinement if necessary. That's how progress is made. It clearly argues why hi-fi listeners should spend a dominant amount of money, time and effort on the listening room. And it's provocative, since most listeners don't proportion their resources in this way.

I really like it.

 

[kareface]

Once caveat, I would say his method would describe the % of sound we don't want to hear vs. the % of sound we hear. I would agree that 90% of unwanted distortion results from the acoustic environment.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Therefore:

Room = 90 percent
Speakers = 9 percent
Everything else = 1 percent.

Factor in my mortgage and that sounds reasonable.

Kal

 

[FrantzM]

Here's a simplistic way to assign a percentage value: We can ignore electronic gear and cabling etc because anything decent will be flat within 1 dB over the audible range. Good loudspeakers are flat within 10 dB if not less. But most rooms vary by at least 30 dB, especially in the bass range.

A 20 dB difference is a 10:1 ratio. So loudspeakers have more affect than electronics by 90/10, and the room is more important than speakers by 90/10. Therefore:

Room = 90 percent
Speakers = 9 percent
Everything else = 1 percent.



--Ethan

 

[amirm]

Room distortion is linear (unless something is rattling). Equipment distortion is non-linear.

 

[kareface]

Even linear FR distortion will be audible in excess of 20db. This is also only considering FR (peaks, nulls, room gain), not taking into account other factors like masking, ringing, ect, which will negetivly influence the reproduction.

 

[Robh3606]

I would agree that 90% of unwanted distortion results from the acoustic environment.

Wouldn't that be mostly below 300hz or so or where the room has the dominant effect on what we hear??


Rob

 

[silviajulieta]

Here's a simplistic way to assign a percentage value: We can ignore electronic gear and cabling etc because anything decent will be flat within 1 dB over the audible range. Good loudspeakers are flat within 10 dB if not less. But most rooms vary by at least 30 dB, especially in the bass range.

A 20 dB difference is a 10:1 ratio. So loudspeakers have more affect than electronics by 90/10, and the room is more important than speakers by 90/10. Therefore:

Room = 90 percent
Speakers = 9 percent
Everything else = 1 percent.



--Ethan

Dear Ethan: Maybe to much simplistic to take a whole complex overall subject under % figure that means almost nothing about specific audio problems other than deviations in frequency response, at least is what I read/understand from your post.

There are examples that could be more important that only frequency response: a speaker can has a good IMD spec at 75db-80db SPL and that same speaker could has a terrible IMD at 85db-90db or higher SPL. IMD in speakers is an audible distortion where IMHO room treatment can't disappear because that IMD " born "/ is part of the speaker behavior. A preamp or an amplifier could has problems with fifth/seventh and higher order harmonics that are really agressive to the ears. There are many of different kind of distortions that affect the quality performance, distortions that are part of the electronics/speakers designs where the room treatment can't ( many times ) help about.

Room treatment is very very important but it is not the " cure " for all: bad designs, bad distortions stay there even with room treatment. Many times those different kind of distortions are more important that even frequency response in an audio room. Our ears are truly sensitive to many of those kind of distortions more than a frequency deviation at 20khz or at 25hz.

IMHO the first characteristic that we have to look in each audio link on the audio chain ( before room ) is that each audio link be accurate, well designed, with the lowest distortions, electrical impedance matched and obviously that sounds good per se. With this in mind what the room treatment help is to preserve with no degradation the final quality of the audio signal: this is what we expect from a " perfect room treatment " . I'm not saying that the " room " is not important, I'm saying that are many other links that are important too and are way before the room.

The room treatment is a tool just like mesurements and the objective of that room treatment IMHO is just that: Help to the audio room to not degrade the audio signal that comes out the speakers when that signal comes in our ears and that's it.
As you and me said it: % is very simplistic way to put things in the right perspective.



Btw, as he already stated several times in the thread Gregadd is not a measurements oriented audiophile but he like almost all of us is using measurements to mate/match his system/speakers in his audio room, those measurements he are taking through his ears that are very good tools to do it: that's why his speakers are placed where are placed and in no other position. Can he improve the quality performance of what he has?, probably yes: there is no perfect system and maybe that " probably yes " could be trough measurements and professional room treatment that comes with that room measurements.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.

In this context that room treatment

 

[Orb]

Ethan,
that was my point about cabinet resonance, driver issues,etc.
You mention Frequency response, Distortion, Noise, Time-based errors.
However I have now pointed out a fundamental requirement relating to time domain, this means your Frequency response is just data collected that has no meaning unless integral to a specific test, in this instance such as a more complex test that provides waterfall plot measurement-data, on top of this speaker sound is also compounded by impedance/phase of the speaker and the output impedence (a critical factor)-power supply stage and output stage-design of the power amp.
Again this affects Frequency response.
The problem IMO is that you can say frequency response covers the majority of measurements, but it has absolutely no meaning outside of its test scope, because a lot of what I mention above are frequency related but tested in different ways and have different implications.
It may seem I am being picky but this is critical as I see often many assume that its the simple single frequency response that tells us everything for speakers-preamps-DACs (they do sound different when you consider the various reconstruction filters) and possibly quantisation/aliasing that can throw ultrasonics into the respecting pre-power amp.

Relating to driver breakup, again IMO the problem is that a waterfall plot will show implications of cabinet and driver than distortion measurement.
Why?
Look at a speaker's measurements at 90db at 1 metre for distortion, and then look at the waterfall plot, the only one that tells you there is a potential problem is the waterfall plot.
And again distortion does not tell us what is occurring in the time domain, where we can see that it acutally fluctuates in the time domain and not all are equal in behaviour.

The big question though Ethan, is how do you prove your hypothesis if you do not find several reviews that reach the same conclusion or perception of a speakers sound and then compare it to the detailed speaker's measurement?
Even HK have to correlate measurements to a listener's perception in their testing.
You could be right, but it really is important to try and match that hypothesis (because it is not proven just yet) to measurements and how it matches a listeners perception.

Relating to the Nad and ARC Ref 5, I am tempted to be very cheeky
Heck yeah why not hahaha, if we go with your point about 60k load and even say sensitivity-impedance matching-etc, then this suggests all source-preamps-poweramps will sound different even when measuring well and this has nothing to do with frequency range/distortion/errors and yet you argue all preamps and power amps that have flat FR-noise are sonically transparent
More seriously, the measurements done by Paul stopped at 4th harmonics because the dominant ones (2nd) were before that and beyond 4th they were insignificant (even 3rd and 4th were very low)
Also I agree to a certain point about the 60k load, but then frequency response related measurements are not exactly accurate as it takes a single sinewave usually at 1khz.
Also I am yet to see any test procedure that uses sine sweeps anywhere comparable to say a musical chord from one instrument that is vastly more complex.

That said, the 60k load as I mentioned before is a long stretch for why a zero feedback tube design and a cheap implemented feedback design different using Jeff's descriptions.
Especially when the distortion and FR measurements are negligle in terms of difference, unless you think changing the load will dramatically alter this over 20-20khz?
If so would be interested to know how, and thats the important part of the debate.
If 60k load is an issue, how will it affect the negligible measurements relating to distortion-FR-Noise that you mention, bearing in mind as we see in the two preamps they have significantly stable measurements?
This does not square with your statement:

Regardless, if two amplifiers have a response flat to within 0.1 dB from 20 Hz to 20 KHz, and the sum of all distortion is at least 80 dB down, then both amps will be audibly transparent and thus sound the same..

The measurements ARE comparable in terms of audibility, unless your now using the subjectivist argument and saying we are not measuring everything between the Nad and ARC to show differences
And then this would be skewing the argument possibly towards a bias/favour because ALL measurments done historically by Soundstage/SP/Hifi news/etc take a specific load/sinewave/etc and are better than anything I have seen users or manufacturers do.
This is important because your arguing the measurements I provided may not have meaning while also saying well designed amps-preamps are sonically transparent, when I doubt no-one will state a cheap solid state feedback designed preamp sounds the same as a tube preamp with zero feedback as shown in my example that IMO are comparable enough with their measurements to be used for this debate.

I could expand the debate to flat 20-20khz DACs but they can subtly sound different due to different filter implementations, or the engineering debate relating to negative feedback where two opposing well regarded engineers can show how negative feedback does have a behaviour on the amp and one goes states position for none (Nelson), while the supporter argues that it should be heavily implemented (however Bruno also goes on to say well implemented negative feedback is not cheap).

I could go on, for me its an interesting debate and hope you continue discussing this Ethan along with maybe Jeff/Myles/Amir/Don/etc piping in as it would make sense for them to correct me where I made some mistakes or add their views to the specifics we are talking about.

But, at some point we do need to correlate the good listeners' perceptions-reviews to those of their real measurements and show how they fit in with either hypothesis (I agree even the data-measurements I am showing do not go that far to answer those outlined by Jeff).

Thanks
Orb

 

[Robh3606]

The big question though Ethan, is how do you prove your hypothesis if you do not find several reviews that reach the same conclusion or perception of a speakers sound and then compare it to the detailed speaker's measurement?
Even HK have to correlate measurements to a listener's perception in their testing.
You could be right, but it really is important to try and match that hypothesis (because it is not proven just yet) to measurements and how it matches a listeners perception.

It's all in Tooles book. When they correlated the FR measurements to peoples perceptions and preferences this is how it panned out in order of importance. There is a more detailed explanation in the book with each category subdivided which I won't quote here.

"Smoothness and Flatness of the on axis response 45%"

"Smoothness of the sound power 30%"

"Bass Performance 25%"

Chapter 20 pgs 462,463

Look at a speaker's measurements at 90db at 1 metre for distortion, and then look at the waterfall plot, the only one that tells you there is a potential problem is the waterfall plot.

So all those who say that on axis response is not important should realize that the current research doesn't support their position.

Rob

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It's all in Tooles book. When they correlated the FR measurements to peoples perceptions and preferences this is how it panned out in order of importance. There is a more detailed explanation in the book with each category subdivided which I won't quote here.

"Smoothness and Flatness of the on axis response 45%"

"Smoothness of the sound power 30%"

"Bass Performance 25%"

Chapter 20 pgs 462,463



So all those who say that on axis response is not important should realize that the current research doesn't support their position.

Rob

Is someone saying on axis response is not important? I think what they're saying is that off-axis response is not unimportant.

P

 

[Gregadd]

"...Btw, as he already stated several times in the thread Gregadd is not a measurements oriented audiophile but he like almost all of us is using measurements to mate/match his system/speakers in his audio room, those measurements he are taking through his ears that are very good tools to do it: that's why his speakers are placed where are placed and in no other position. Can he improve the quality performance of what he has?, probably yes: there is no perfect system and maybe that " probably yes " could be trough measurements and professional room treatment that comes with that room measurements...." Raul

Thanks Raul. One would think that I would just push my speakers against the wall and sit in the corner. If you transfer that 99% figure into dollars that means for every 100 dollars, 1 dollar would be spent on the front end. 10 dollars for a 1000 and and a 100 dollars for 10000 dollars. When one adopts an extreme position it really does not require rebuttal.
It is not that I am, anti measurement. Listening is my primary tool because that is what the hobby is all about. Just if I were a race car driver. measurements would be extremely important. The ultimate test is how the car bpforms on the track. Again measurements would still be important. Formula I cars broadcast a telemetry back to the crew. Ultimately the final metric is where is my car when the checkered flag is waved. Anybody with a working set of eyes can judge that.

When choosing a car I am probably one of the few people who look at a spec sheet. I confess I am not entirely sure what it all means. but I look. When I purchased my Mazxda RX-7 sports car( Regrettably I sold it) I knew its' performance on a skid pad, its' power to weight ratio, its' fuel economy, and the breaking distances. All of that does not tell me how it feels when I go into a tight curve at eighty mph in the rain and have to break heard because there is a slower car blocking my path. I suppose there are people who can figure that out. Whatever the result of my hard breaking in the curve, I am not going to allow someone to tell me that it can't be based on numbers or measurements. It's my but in that seat and my body in the cemetery, if I get it wrong.

I let measurements take me as far as they can. based on what the manufacturer ior reviewer is willing to provide and my ability to understand. I might add there are a few like Martin Collums who can dissect measuremnts with ease. The problem is there is a limited amount of equipment he can review. At this point in my audio career I can pass "Go and collect my 200." I can look at the spec sheet and say OK nothing really new here. Let's go directly to listening.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Here's a simplistic way to assign a percentage value: We can ignore electronic gear and cabling etc because anything decent will be flat within 1 dB over the audible range. Good loudspeakers are flat within 10 dB if not less. But most rooms vary by at least 30 dB, especially in the bass range.

A 20 dB difference is a 10:1 ratio. So loudspeakers have more affect than electronics by 90/10, and the room is more important than speakers by 90/10. Therefore:

Room = 90 percent
Speakers = 9 percent
Everything else = 1 percent.



--Ethan

as a person who has expended as many resources as anyone on room design and acoustics, i find that absurd (the idea, not the person).

 

[Robh3606]

Is someone saying on axis response is not important? I think what they're saying is that off-axis response is not unimportant.

P

Did you read the second quoted post in mine?? As far as off axis that was a meager 30% of the overall importance so I would again say that current research doesn't support the position that the off axis response is not important as well.

Here is another quote from the same post

However I have now pointed out a fundamental requirement relating to time domain, this means your Frequency response is just data collected that has no meaning unless integral to a specific test, in this instance such as a more complex test that provides waterfall plot measurement-data,

If you will note that CSD's or any other time domain issues were used to determine the prefrences it was Frequency Response only that mattered. Both On and Off Axis Frequency response are important factors effecting user preference and therfore are not meaningless measurements. They are important in their own right and don't require a link to a more complex test to be meaningful.

I am just pointing out what's there for anyone to read. If you feel I misquoted or missrepresented the references to the content in Tooles book please feel free to correct my post. If I missunderstood your post can you please clarify it.

Rob

 

[Orb]

It's all in Tooles book. When they correlated the FR measurements to peoples perceptions and preferences this is how it panned out in order of importance. There is a more detailed explanation in the book with each category subdivided which I won't quote here.

"Smoothness and Flatness of the on axis response 45%"

"Smoothness of the sound power 30%"

"Bass Performance 25%"

Chapter 20 pgs 462,463



So all those who say that on axis response is not important should realize that the current research doesn't support their position.

Rob

Thats a good point Rob and I have his book somewhere, but my point was relating to the parameters outlined by Jeff in his article I also linked in the previous post
Look back and you can see smoothness and bass as you mention were not parameters
More seriously though please continue to join in on this as I feel there is a lot I do not know myself and this is a subject that I do find interesting.

While I was following this thread and with my recent posts, I have wondered if there is any and critically how many of those aspects in the article: "resolution, transparency, soundstaging, imaging, etc" are universal between different audio categories such as speaker/power amp/preamp/source.
However as it is subjective reviews and also subjective perception, trying to correlate a set of reviews across those categories using specific paramaters from one reviewer and compare the measurements would probably be a right pig of a thing to do.
http://www.ultraaudio.com/opinion/20100501.htm

BTW Jeff's article does reflects what your saying so I do not disagree with ya
Any thoughts though on the perception differences between such products as the Nad/ARC preamps where the measurements to me seem comparable in FR and distortion, and with both products also seeming to be very stable.
I just used the NAD/ARC as they are vastly different in approach and specification/budget/build/critically design.
If required I could try find other examples but it requires where there is a perception difference by the reviewer/s and IMO a different spec-topology design with measurements available for comparison.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

Did you read the second quoted post in mine?? As far as off axis that was a meager 30% of the overall importance so I would again say that current research doesn't support the position that the off axis response is not important as well.

Here is another quote from the same post



If you will note that CSD's or any other time domain issues were used to determine the prefrences it was Frequency Response only that mattered. Both On and Off Axis Frequency response are important factors effecting user preference and therfore are not meaningless measurements. They are important in their own right and don't require a link to a more complex test to be meaningful.

I am just pointing out what's there for anyone to read. If you feel I misquoted or missrepresented the references to the content in Tooles book please feel free to correct my post. If I missunderstood your post can you please clarify it.

Rob

Heh your responding to P but using my part of my post, and yeah I think what I am trying to say may be getting a bit crossed here.
You took from one of my posts:

However I have now pointed out a fundamental requirement relating to time domain, this means your Frequency response is just data collected that has no meaning unless integral to a specific test, in this instance such as a more complex test that provides waterfall plot measurement-data,

My point goes back to one of my earlier posts I think (maybe a page earlier) where I said a possible issue and why this becomes argumentative in general between those arguing for/against measurements is the actual definition of measurements.
I think it was one where I was just analysing what I felt I was seeing and then the debate between myself and Ethan started.
Look back to post #417 for a complete understanding how this started and my actual take on importance of testing

This is my take on the wording of measurements in this debate:

To me, measurements are just collected data generated from specific test setups-mechanisms-protocols using the correct tools.
Nothing more.
I think in most cases from what I read when measurements are debated it never revolves around this.

The problem is that the focus is all on the data collected while ignoring that it is derived from a particular test.
Hence when Ethan mentions specifically a flat 20-20khz tells us all we need on how a product sounds (taking room and distortion measurements out of this for now as we are discussing fr on-off axis) I countered with asking him how does a simple frequency response show cabinet resonance-driver distortion-amongst other things a listener may hear (which I also expanded upon in a post in this thread).
Hence my point that a measurement is meaningless unless used in its correct context and that MUST be applied to a specific test, and critically was also ignoring temporal importance.
My take may be a bit different to most as I spent years as an engineer trouble shooting problems that required many different test protocols-procedures and importantly tools.

I feel its best to go back to post 417 and start from there carefully reading what I posted (appreciate they are lengthy and quite boring hah) if you feel I was arguing that on and off axis measurements are meaningless, they are important IF used correctly.
Bah now we are sooo off topic to what I was hoping to discuss relating to the NAD/ARC, serves me right I guess for raising multiple topics in same thread
Maybe a different thread would had been a good idea by me ah well
Cheers
Orb

Edit:
Sheesh now I find the discrepency.
When Ethan quoted me, he bloody missed off the other half of my sentence hahaha
OK THIS is what I said, still if you read my post as well as Ethans you guys would had noticed

Heya Ethan,
Regarding frequency response, sure but bear in mind on its own it is pretty meaningless, it depends upon the test focus and other test protocols-procedures.
Hehe yeah I did consider commenting about dispersion when I spoke about FR, I personally felt though off-axis response falls under the same basic FR measurement just at different angles.

Of course the 1st sentence could had been expanded a bit more explaining that it is always more than one test and single measurement that tells us how something sounds, and correct the sentence with it *also* depends......
But this was not queried like 7 pages ago

Hope this helps to... OMG I hope anyway clarify what I meant, clear as mud to me now as well

Cheers
Orb

 

[silviajulieta]

Hi Raul,

But, for the purposes of this idea, given that the front of the chain is well designed, what do you think of the perecentages? I think they are pretty good. The idea here is the room, by not being well designed, and all the rest by being well designed, must be a large percent of the remaining error I would think.

Tom

Dear Tomelex: No, I don't agree on those %%. IMHO the room has to be the wrongest one ever to has that 90% of importance and I think that are more " good/acceptable " rooms that wrong/bad ones especially with no dedicated audio rooms.

Every room needs some kind of room treatment but through many years hearing other than my system I never found a system where the room ( with out treatment ) was so bad that the system were unlistenable.

The room has and deserve attention like any other audio link in the audio system chain. Could be more important than the signal source? could be more important than the speakers?.

Could be for some people not me. I'm not trying to diminish in any way the room importance but 90% is has no meaning for me.

If Gregadd referred to this kind of statements that the room subject is overrated then I agree with him. IMHO I think we have to give the right perspective to the room in the audio chain with no high biased opinions to one or other extreme sides of the subject.

Some people think that the best about room treatment is to try the room " disappear " and I don't think in that way.

For me the room must put his " color " in the whole audio " picture " just like a phono cartridge or speaker does because the music, at least the music I heard/hear live, does not comes in a " free space " but within/inside a room: music hall, jazz club and in home. The " color " that the room impart at the music/sound reproduction in a home system is really important and I'm not to sure if we have to look for absolute neutrality when even on musical instruments there is no " neutral " sounds, each instrument has its own " color ".

I always try to look for that music natural " color " trying to avoid errors/exaggerate " colorations ".

Anyway, try to put in %% the importance on any audio link is almost useless and extremely subjective and in this case as M.Lavigne posted: almost absurd.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.