-- Second I called minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold a minimum threshold with enough balance between all factors implicated to be able to make possible a minimal satisfaction level relative to the gear designs used
Yeah, whatever, your so called "minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold" is a moving threshold/target. It is not static depending on how many points of reference and exposure to higher performance gear, one may accrue over the years. Once you’ve lived with/tasted the latter, satisfaction with the junk one may have started with in their journey begins to dissipate.
You are so ignorant that it would be comical if it was not sad...😁
Let me explain for the benefit of all others here...
You wrote that my minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold is a "moving target" because what define audiophile experience for you is mainly and only "exposure to higher performances gears"...
You dont realize that you yourself linked your target to imperative upgrading in a race toward a costly alleged perfection as in high end publicity...Then you are yourself moving the target linking it to a chain of improving purchases... 😁
Me i use acoustics to define my stable targets , you you use high end gear price tags publicity for your moveable goal about gear perfection ...
You are so market conditioned that you did not know that all acoustic factors implied in any musical reproduction are defined first and last by acoustics concepts and the balance we can achieve( a relative balance for sure, but a balance) with all these acoustics parameters with a system room ... Not only and mainly by buying gear more and more pricier...
You dont know that because you confuse and conflate the word acoustics in the plural with the expression room acoustic in the singular mode as an adjective...
You ignore we can achieve a relative but real balance between the 5 parameters defining "timbre" for example with any system at any price for a relatively satisfying experience which will be minimal or maximal or in between ...
For sure all these systems we can buy will perform , under equal or slightly over the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold... because to reach the maximal threshold we will need a completely dedicated room but it will not be enough we will need the best design existing then at high price...Mikelavigne system is in the maximal acoustical experience threshold window... Not because he bought the costlier gear there is to buy, but because he designed a dedicated acoustic room for them and learn how to embed his system in the three working dimensions.
What you do not understand is that the concept of balance between the many acoustics concepts and parameters implied and with which we could play and improve will stay the same notions at work NEVERMIND THE PRICE OR THE DESIGN...
Do you catch what i spoke about ?
Take less times reading reviews of high end gear , less times attacking audiophile ad hominem just because you dont like that they pretend to be happy with their present low cost gear system because it is well installed....
And read more articles and papers on acoustical embeddings controls ( timbre and Immersinenes, listener envelopment and sound source dimensions ratio , spatial qualities and crosstalk etc ) more papers about the mechanical controls of vibrations and resonance, more papers about the electrical noise floor of the house-room-gear...
If you do that you will learn how to do more with less... And for sure, do i need to state that my low cost system will not beat the potential of your high end costlier own system especially if you had learn how to embed it well in his 3 working dimensions... ...
As you see now to explain that my words count must be minimally longer than the usual average poster ... 😊
As you said so amically , Bye now...