Now there is a slight possibility that someone in the hifi community may have worked with a scientific approach, read about the research in the area and, in addition, experimented like any other enthusiast for many years.
Joe D'Appolito tireless work through 30 years led him to provide the strongest predictors of loudspeaker preferences.
• On-axis frequency response
• Impulse response
• Cumulative spectral decay
• Polar response
• Step response
• Impedance
• Efficiency/Sensitivity
• Distortion
• Dynamics
This lines up very well with what Harman also found out in their many blind listening tests, namely that on axis FR and polar response (dispersion pattern) are the two most critical parts of sound quality.
Many loudspeakers have obvious defects in the dispersion pattern, so they will never be really good, but it gets an awful lot better when you can adjust the direct sound, with EQ, to have a fairly neutral sound balance.
The paradox is that many people who prefer a certain "coloring" of the sound stubbornly claim that they are looking for the most "transparent" sound possible, and then the argument collapse and the misunderstanding become complete.
What I would like to see is a reckoning with classic hifi thinking where, among other things, trial and error with components for "matching" is an important part. And then turn the focus to more, let’s say, reality based solutions with roots in what we actually know.
A quick and dirty list of important points will then be:
- Active speakers that measure well in the essential areas (good power response and dispersion pattern that suits the area)
- Optimizing the placement of both the seating position and speakers
- Use a separate subwoofer/bass solution with time adjustment.
- Treat the room acoustically as much as possible. Broadband treatment and preferably use some diffusion if the dimensions of the room allows it.
- Use EQ to fine-tune the frequency response and the tonal balance to the listening position.
- Use good electronics that measures well and have impedance matching and sufficient power reserves.
Such an approach gives a completely different result and is much closer to reality IMO, than the classic approach. Moreover, you do not get random results that vary; you have a completely different control over the whole setup. However, it is obvious that not everyone can follow all of these points, but as a general rule, you can do some. It is, for example, difficult to see why there should be any reasonable reason to choose something other, than a loudspeaker with good dispersion pattern.
Classic hifi thinking has very little to do with high-end sound IMO. Good PA, for example expensive JBL solutions, will knock your socks off in comparison. Others probably think otherwise.