Okay, I may have flown off the handle there. I'll apologize upfront since you took it pretty well and offered up some constructive points.
The light analogy was just a spur of the moment thing I came up with. Sound and light obviously behave differently, so I'll give you that one.
As far as the original post, I went back afterward and reread some of it. No offense to Namek, but I think it's a bit long. As in, I could have taken about three paragraphs to explain the whole thing, not counting explaining where to get the tools or how they work. It's simple. Sine sweep. Find peaks. Mark down the center frequency of each. Load up parametric EQ. Make bands for each peak found. Play pink noise. Draw down each band until the sound energy at that point is even with everything else around it (here's the hokey bit since this is all by ear). Use the narrowest bandwidth possible.
There. That took me nine sentences.
Obviously we have differing philosophies, so there's no point in hashing out the discussion on substance. Where I took issue was when you blanket dismissed the whole concept of this thread from what I perceived as a knee jerk reaction, without having put any real thought into it. There's too much of that that goes on on Head-Fi. For instance, suggest that there's no such thing as burn in or that cables don't make a difference or that amps don't make as much of a difference as most people say, and you immediately get somebody coming after you. I just assumed it was more of that. Obviously you have put more thought into it than what you usually get around here, and I respect that.
I appreciate the response, at any rate. Hopefully you can see why I reacted the way I did, and hopefully we can smooth this out, maybe in another thread and about something we agree on (like those Tice Clocks ).
EDIT: I must confess I wasn't aware of that meme before. Weird how I missed that one.
Edited by Argyris - 10/29/12 at 10:36am