Audiophiles should learn from people who created audio

Agreed. I find waterfall graphs incredibly useful for dealing with my room acoustics. As I’ve taken more and more measurements, it had surprised me how variable they are. There are obviously way more similarities between each measurement than differences, but there are enough differences to let me know that any differences in sound due to cabling would get lost in the noise of in-room measurements. I suppose you could do hundreds of measurements before and hundreds after, then try to average them and create a before/after waterfall plot, but, unfortunately REW doesn’t generate waterfall plots from averaged measurements.

@kosst-amojan
C'mon,speak your mind, lets not beat about the Bush now!

I would like to enthusiastically expand this topic with "audiophile labs" suggestion. We all should agree that any practitioner/pro training have a firm role in people’s education but, somehow (by some type of conspiracy by some kind of audio gremlins) we all are willing to battle opinions without experiencing facts. In short, Audio Shows (like the last NYC2017, I attended, which left my puzzled by an observation how is even possible somebody can present a system which reproduces tenor sax completely differently than the real life does) or Audiophile Groups (which, alone, reveal to us basic strong points but mainly nothing controllably comparable) are not sufficient. As long as so-called "social nets of audiophiles" (or, like some call them, blood-thirsty opinion tribes) are willing to curse each other but not to experience basics (such as that analog/digital wires or passive components or component matching or other well-established factors) MAY or MAY NOT affect the specific system’s audio reproduction, then we all will continue to willingly live in an audio lalaland but will be not willing to invest in exploring the human hearing sense. Let’s face it, audio industry can be also a fake news area if we allow it.