Doubt & AmpKnight
AmpKnight
I’ve been chasing the idea that a true 20‑20‑20 audio system can exist. What do you think about the assumptions we make when we label something “perfect”?
Doubt
Hmm, the whole “perfect” label feels like a moving target. We tend to pin it on subjective taste, then get stuck in that one ideal that actually shifts every time someone tweaks a component. If you call something perfect, you’re already setting up a trap: any small change looks like a flaw, any praise a fluke. So maybe the real question is: are we chasing a consistent standard, or just a convenient myth that lets us keep arguing about the next tweak?
AmpKnight
The myth is that a single “perfect” exists. In a real build, perfect means the output that matches the source exactly within the limits of the system, not some ideal that shifts with every tweak. If we admit the target moves, we’ll never finish. Stick to the math, not the mood.
Doubt
I get where you’re coming from, but even the “math” has its own assumptions—sampling rate, quantization, distortion models. If we let the target drift with every tweak, the math itself changes. So maybe we’re chasing a moving target, whether we call it mood or equations.
AmpKnight
True, every assumption reshapes the curve, but that’s why you lock each variable and recalibrate. A moving target only shows the first variable was wrong, not that the goal itself is fickle. Stick to the numbers, not the narrative.
Doubt
I see the logic, but are we sure the first variable is the only culprit? What if the whole equation is just a simplified model? Numbers can be neat, but they’re still abstractions. So maybe the “goal” isn’t fickle—it’s just that our definition of “perfect” is incomplete.
AmpKnight
Your point is fair—any model is an approximation. The only way to avoid chasing a phantom is to make the approximation as tight as possible, then accept its limits. If the limits shift, the model has failed, not the goal.