Are your speakers designed for your listening taste and hearing ability?

@geoffkait ....*G* Well, so far....*knocks on head, standing in for wood*....that 'air' is still There....*pointing around*...

The 'sweetness' varies with what's playing...but that's kinda normal. ;)

@gosta....MHO is 'perfection' is our daily reality, walking about this sea of air. *S*  Anything coming through a mass of electronics and wires, exciting various membrane types is and always will be a depiction of it.

We strive to get as close to It...but, it's still a simulation.

I love to hear pianos, violins, guitars, 'synths', drums, all that....

...but it's always better In Real Life...Up Close. *S*

Reproduction is always someone else's memory. ;)

First post. Agree with duckworp and others that old ears can be irritated by very bright speakers (and especially headphones). I'm busy reconstituting my stereo system after years of attrition. I just had my New Advent speakers re-coned and the 3-position crossover switches replaced with continuously-variable pots, but I'll likely run them around the middle settings as I always have.
I listened to some speakers in a stereo store (remember them?) and observed that they were lacking in midrange. The salesman checked and sure enough, the bass and treble controls on the crossovers were turned all the way up. That was 48 years ago, so I don't think I've changed much in my listening and would still shop for speakers with balanced delivery were I in the market.
Having said all that, those speakers in the shop were set to somebody's taste, so it wouldn't surprise me if some manufacturers are pushing the ends of the aural spectrum at the expense of balance.

One of the posts above says, " So now there is no objective reality, only subjective preferences?"

Actually, there is an objective reality--it's called music performed in real space. And since no audio system, either high $$ audiophile type or mass-market type, can accurately convey all that information, yes, we're down to subjective preferences concerning the inevitable compromises made by each speaker designer.

It's depressing how quickly this thread degenerated into a variant of the very old & tired accuracy vs musicality debate. I may be an old dude now w/the inevitable hearing dings, but 35+ years ago, when I first got into high end audio, I ran into this debate like a very scary buzz-saw. Some dealers were pushing reviewer-praised & pricey gear that emphasized accuracy/detail (and razored my ears off). Others were pushing stuff that sounded way better to me: more natural, life-like, and yes, musical. Richard Vandersteen's stuff was in the latter camp. Clearly heard it from the 1st minute.

But it's a big audio universe and people can buy whatever designs sound best to them. But pls stop beating those of us who do that over the head with graphs & reviews to prove that your choice is the only rational choice.

Is "music performed in a real space" always acoustic? And if so, what are the acoustics? Tall feathered hats and corrugated steel walls? Outdoors with actual bird sounds (back when there were birds). Carnegie Hall? What seats? Can you sit under the Steinway? I'm a decades long (and 6' tall) successful musician and frequently over paid live concert sound producer/mixer (as well as a coconut margarita mixer), and I can say with confidence and a slight lisp that there is no bottom line regarding live anything. Or maybe there is. I've recorded an acoustic guitar on state of the art (maybe) recording gear and played it back on my hifi rig while sitting there playing the same thing on the same guitar as a demonstration for a friend or two. My hifi rig replicates the guitar tone very well, thus proving something I already knew that I don't care much about. If a recording sounds great to me, it just does...if it doesn't sound great it doesn't. How do I test that? I don't need to. Except where previously noted.