my post was about the only system you can improve at no monetary cost, your listening ability - it wasn’t about the money one chooses to spend on cables, a silly issue that imposes your limits, or lack of, upon someone else.
We summarily accept at face value whenever someone says their sense of sight is better than their hearing, or that one has a more developed sense of taste than touch. It is, consequently, very amusing whenever someone makes a claim of snake oil based on their belief that the hearing of others must certainly be as underdeveloped as theirs : )
squared80, differences in human beings exist - seeing, smelling, tasting, touching, and listening/hearing ability is different for different people. The good news is that these differences are not usually biological, they’re psycho-acoustic. This means that one can learn to develop one’s abilities to listen, and thus ‘hear’ better, in much the same way one can learn to observe, or ‘see’ better, in order to depend less on a confirmation biased mind so as to critically ‘think’ better. The bad news is that it means more effort for some of us to develop better listening ability.
For those truly biologically hard of hearing, I would say what a blessing, not needing to make all that effort to able to listen better, in building their systems. The effort and discipline to create a listening space where only one thing at a time is changed is far more difficult than bringing in that hard earned money to do it. I feel nothing but admiration for those who are more capable and skilled in ways I am not, be it with listening or modifying and building their own equipment and listening rooms that I try to learn from, instead ignorantly criticising others further along in their journey of listening ability in the same hobby we all share.- how idiomatically lazy and unkind your words are.
Please read my additional post to smurfstain ahead, if you believe that there is always something new to learn. Do ignore me otherwise ; )
Alex, tonywinga’s comment notwithstanding, my post was about sound realism, not natural or unnatural sound. It may simply be a matter of terminology, but I suspect it isn’t. The sound quality of your speakers for their given electronic chain as evident in all your previously posted videos tell me you have created good and decent speakers for their value, but they are still quite far down the scale in relation to realistic sound. By realistic, I mean the same sound waves we all may hear differently internally as individuals, but that we can all identify as realistic, as they all emanate from the same external objective sources. Piano or guitar sound waves don’t change what they are just because we hear differently - realism sounds differently to different people but we will use the same term to describe it. Natural sound, on the other hand, is subject to what your definition of natural is. I suspect you actually mean to use the word ‘realistic’, in which case, your speaker still has some ways to go, however good a value it may be.
In friendship - kevin