@cindyment
"So since this is a free marketing posing as a question, I will respond with a
Do you have a suite of measurements that removes all shadow of a doubt that you are getting good sound, sound that you enjoy?
The answer is yes, yes I do"
For the record, I don't have a clue who "Ted" is, and being an old curmudgeon, this is as close as I get to social media, thus I'm more likely to invent time travel than get into FB.
BUT, here I would have to disagree with you. I would submit that don't know *that* the sound is good, nor that it *is* the sound you enjoy (although closer on this one) because of measurements. You've identified a number of the *whys* you find you're subjectively enjoying good sound. An example, say you tilt your system response to accommodate a loss of HF hearing on my part; that tilt makes your system sound wonderful to me, and shrill and unlistenable to you. That's why I make the distinction - measurements can control, they can distinguish, they can provide for reproduciblity and repeatablity of particular setups, identify room modes, etc. They identify the "whys" for an individual, not as a general principle, because individual preferences are not determined (measured by, or identifiable by, are not the same IMO) by objective criteria. This may sound like a quibble, but believe it's fundamental to understanding the issue. You need no understanding of acoustics or physics to determine what sounds good to you. Serendipity can work, like the lottery. But you do need them to understand the parameters that combine to create the sound you prefer. Audiophiles that poo-poo DSP will nonetheless experiment with all manner of pathological cable designs to achieve, less reliably, less predictably, and more expensively, what DSP easily achieves - i.e. what it is designed for.
And of course, when one makes an extraordinary claim that has no known support in either acoustics, electronics, or physics, one needs measurements to support the claim. Yes, rocks, plates, firehoses, I'm looking at you...
@mahgister
"Is my system better than the system of Ted or cindyment ? No
But it is so good i dont give a dam about upgrade... My system is under 500 bucks... All my device are homemade..."
This I would wholly agree with, it's where I am as well albeit more expensively, but to my thinking, you have made a diametrically opposing comment below:
"Feel free to contradict me...
A system does not sound good because we feel it is good.... A system sound good with minimal acoustical settings... If not it is an happy illusion... All my system were bad all my life and i always tought that they sounded good..."
OK, so please explain how is "because we feel it is good" qualitatively different than "But it is so good i dont give a dam about upgrade"? You seem to be using "good" extremely liberally, meaning anything from "meh, sort of ok" to "so wonderful improvement is irrelevant". So not sure exactly what you mean (I know English is not your mother tongue, and I'm not trying to quibble grammar or syntax, just not sure the distinction you are trying to draw).
I would also say that "If not it is an happy illusion" applies to all stereos at all times. Stereo *is* an illusion, is just the realism provided by the illusion that we are discussing. There is no one "True Path" to enjoyment, there are a great many, and they are far from universally shared.