You are correct - to a point, so let me amend that, then.
Room INFLUENCES EVERYTHING.
Even HP, if you read his TAS review of the WATT/Puppies in issue 65, seems not to have gotten the best out of the WATTS, as contradicted by Dave Wilson's comment provides (I had WATT/Puppies since 1987, and owned 4 generations of them. My room in California was 10x13x27. Dave's room for the WATTS was…well, huge, since he had them in his warehouse. With MY Goldmund Studio (which Dave had set up) on the WATTS, the sound was vastly more open in his warehouse. This was back in 1988, when he was still in Novato, California.
Now, you're free to disagree, but I have found, in my Connecticut home, in my two ASC- Wall Damp treated listening rooms, the exact same equipment sounds different in the 13x20 room than it sounds in the 23x45 room.
As Anna Russell once said, I'm not making this up, you know.
Room INFLUENCES EVERYTHING.
Even HP, if you read his TAS review of the WATT/Puppies in issue 65, seems not to have gotten the best out of the WATTS, as contradicted by Dave Wilson's comment provides (I had WATT/Puppies since 1987, and owned 4 generations of them. My room in California was 10x13x27. Dave's room for the WATTS was…well, huge, since he had them in his warehouse. With MY Goldmund Studio (which Dave had set up) on the WATTS, the sound was vastly more open in his warehouse. This was back in 1988, when he was still in Novato, California.
Now, you're free to disagree, but I have found, in my Connecticut home, in my two ASC- Wall Damp treated listening rooms, the exact same equipment sounds different in the 13x20 room than it sounds in the 23x45 room.
As Anna Russell once said, I'm not making this up, you know.