I do think you're both right:
--> The audio world is *far* from 'you get what you pay for'. Assuming that there are very subtle audio things produced or allowed by expensive components is not something we want to make into a habit (and have it taint all of our listening tests), if we can get the same sound from less expensive equipment. Spreading myths such as this (especially if there's evidence to the contrary) is something that does the opposite of help people.
However,
-->I liked how 2x said that isn't not that science is weak, it's that the rather simple science of measuring frequency response simply and with simple equipment could be weak (paraphase). I mean, I'm a total fan of double-blind tests of speakers, but is 'playing simple one-frequency test-tones and measuring it with theory-laden electronics' *necessarily* a complete judge of a speaker?
Frankly, I'll still rely on those frequency response graphs because they're the best available to me. They're the best we've got. But who knows if they're perfect.
I think there's a good middle ground somewhere around here.
edit: Or at least there's an opening into discussing the testing methodology for speakers, amps, and such, and what such tests can and cannot say. I have to plead my ignorance on this.
RD
