Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya
I find all this conjecture and false equivalence examples disheartening.
The discussion is a bit out of hand.
One's playback system should aim for accuracy first, because it provides consistency. Afterwards if one prefers to tweak somethings to preference within a certain degree, then enjoy.
This has always been my position. But Sanjay questioned what accuracy is and hence all these discussion.
A proper studio system does its best minimize variation and to conform to a standard of accuracy. If this does not happen it will result in significant inconsistencies and variances in the final product.
Not just studio. NHT signed off their speakers by listening in two rooms: one large and one small.
An example that actually has bearing on this would be if a studio used speakers that cannot accurately and dynamically reproduce high frequencies. The engineer's response will be to compensate for the recessed highs but the final release will have excessive HFs which will sound terrible and fatiguing on any system that is even close to being accurate. That is completely different from an auditorial decision to emphasis say clapping with a boost in EQ or adding some compression to best compliment the recording.
I already made that point in one of the earlier post that the recording result can be inverse in characteristic of the studio speakers.
The best engineering and mastering studios strive for flat accurate systems because it reduces unintended variances. Many have used or still use the NSM10 as a baseline to gauge how their mixes will sound in the real world. Clearly some studios do not follow good practices and engineers in both the recording studio and mastering are far too often asked to compress any semblance of dynamics but to argue that standards and accuracy are subjective and unnecessary is absurd.
I think we all assume this is already done. The discussion goes beyond flat frequency response. We all know how to make it flat. The underlying assumption is it is already flat and yet it still makes a difference in terms of details. Then which one is more accurate. It is like trying to guess what a recording made 30 years ago how it sound like in studio 30 years ago.
Pandering to the subjective snake oil arguments of pseudo-audiophiles leaves me cold. In fact it causes me to be disinclined to follow up on purchasing and assembling another DIY kit.
The primary reason I even decided to spend my money with Rythmik was the review by Audioholics that extolled the performance and value of the FV15HP with provided verifiable measurements. Also the supposed company mantra of being accurate but more efficient also appealed to my expectations.
The entire product line is based on a patent. If you read the patent, you will find it one of the most rigorous modelling of the servo. I have an advanced degree. The training I had for solving problem is always assumption -> modelling -> problem solving -> confirm results. I later also filed a patent for reducing distortion. All of them based on rigorous modelling, mathmatics and same formal problem solving procedure. I don't sell snake oil if that is what you perceive. I can only hand waving on some of the selling points because any detail explanation beyond the scope of patent is considered "trade secret". I cannot fully disclose that.
I do applaud that Brian is an active participant in the thread and seems to genuinely provide a solid product yet casting the virtues of accuracy as unattainable and unnecessary with goal post moving arguments does not imbue concrete objective confidence.
If it sounded that way, that was not my intent.