So is taking Prozac.

We aren't currently in a recession. GDP Now has Q4 still growing at 2.7%, and the consensus estimates for Q4 are over 1%.

We also really weren't in one earlier this year, by NBER standards. Two quarters of negative GDP is a popular colloquial metric, but not the definition used by experts who study business cycles, for whom a recession is defined as a significant decline in economic activity that is widespread, and lasts more than a few months.

That said, without quibbling over definitions, it is clear that growth in the first half of 2022 had at least slowed to a crawl. In Q2, the weakest quarter, most every metric NBER deems important was within about +/- 1%. That may not meet NBER's definition of a significant decline in activity, but it was a significant slowdown from the overheating economy of Q4 of 2021.

And while the economy may not be in a recession yet now, the declining stock market, falling new home sales, falling corporate profits, and the inverted yield curve are all leading indicators suggesting a potential recession in 2023.

I believe it's mainly the Elear, Elex, and Utopia. See here.

The other big piece of this though, is PCE inflation came in at 4.2% for Q3. And Core PCE, excluding food and energy, the main measure the Fed actually uses for their target, was at 4.5%. That's down from 4.7% in Q2, and 5.6% in Q1.

So if core inflation continued to fall, even as unemployment remained 3.5% and real GDP grew at 2.6%, then maybe there's not a need to cause too much more pain.

And Personal Consumption Expenditures grew at a 5.7% annualized rate in the quarter. So if you are worried about inflation driven by excess consumption demand, well with 2.6% real GDP growth, that consumption growth would still be roughly consistent with only a 3.1% inflation (5.7-2.6) rate.

But overall, I don't think this alters the Fed's course any. These numbers are roughly consistent with their projections from the September meeting, so their median forecast for the Fed Funds rate peak of 4.6% in 2023 still seems applicable.

So yes, still more pain ahead. And no pivot. They'll likely still need to get to 4.2%-4.9% or so and then hold it there a couple of years. But if you got those rates to 4.5%, while that core PCE inflation rate fell to ~3%, that would also still only be a moderately contractionary policy.

Yes, the ideal headphone would be a minimum phase system. But manufactures go to a lot of trouble to design them to be as close as possible to minimum phase, and still come up short. For one, minimum phase systems don't have nonlinear distortion. Headphones do.

The "headphones are minimum phase systems" arguments tend to remind me of the old joke about the theoretical physicist hired to consult on how to improve milk production efficiency on a dairy farm. When time to report his solution to the farmer, he begins "First, we assume a spherical cow...."

Frequency response is far and away the most important thing.

But frequency response curves are highly smoothed graphical representations of the response to a sine wave sweep, intended to give information about tonality. They aren't designed to measure everything.

And there are other things that can be measured, including some of the things you mentioned. To some degree we can measure distortion, speed (or delay), and also things like mismatches between L/R drivers in phase response, frequency response, and amplitude. All of which are above audibility thresholds in at least some headphones.

Qualities like soundstage and imaging on the other hand may have no one direct measure, but are impacted by both frequency response and some of these other measurable factors, in ways that can be difficult to precisely define.

Going further, it could also be said that any deviation from the original frequency response is really some form of distortion. But there are many types of distortion, and we really don't have one good measure that can reliably account for all distortion and differentiate between what distortion is or isn't audible in different cases. It ends up being very difficult to define meaningful audibility thresholds for some of these measurements.

But there does seem to be a significant correlation between price and measurements of non-linear distortion. On the other hand, there is very little relationship between price and frequency response, which is still more important.

And even if higher priced headphones do tend to be better on technicalities, it still becomes very difficult to say at what point these differences should be inaudible. It's very easy to find things clearly above audibility thresholds in many headphones < $100, for example. But once you get to ~$300-$500 range, I think it really become debatable. And then when you are comparing Elex vs. Utopia, I have no idea whether there are any measurable differences which could even be audible.

So for now, I would say that if there is a strong consensus amongst listeners who have actually used these headphones, then likely there are differences, whether we have fully figured out how to measure them or not.

I do recommend playing around with it, dragging handles and seeing if you notice the changes. There's a simple logic to it, they are laid out from the lowest frequencies to the highest.

If you know anything about music, if you ever played an instrument like piano or guitar, it might also be helpful to compare to the frequencies of notes. The lowest note on a standard 88-key piano is 27.5 Hz, and the highest ~ 4 kHz. Middle C is ~ 260 Hz. An octave above that, 520 Hz is in the range of a male tenor, and two octaves above middle C is ~ 1kHz, which might be important for female vocals. Over 2kHz and you start getting to frequencies that are more important for harmonics, and things like cymbals. You probably can't hear over ~ 15 kHz.

So it probably won't sound good to randomly swing one slider up and the next down. But if you think the bass end is a little weak, you might want to boost 30Hz-80Hz by a few decibels, and then taper down to 0 boost by ~ 120 Hz. Or if you think vocals sound a little recessed on your headphone, you might try boosting somewhere in the midrange (200Hz to 2kHz). It might be best not to adjust anything by more than around 5 decibels to start (well other than to play around). That should be enough to hear some changes.

In any case, once you understand how these curves work with EQ, you will then have a better understanding of headphone frequency response curves. They are measuring the same thing.

If there are presets available, they can be a good place to start. If someone has made a tuning intended to fit the Harman curve, that should sound good to nearly 2/3 of people. But to me, using someone else's EQ settings can be a bit like using someone else's eyeglasses. Your ears aren't the same size and shape as everyone else, so you may hear a different frequency response then someone else's measurement suggests.

You might not notice quite as much the resolution difference between a $1000 vs $200 headphone, but certainly you will still hear the improvement in headphones in the $200-$300 range (like Sundara, HD6xx, R70x) compared to < $100 headphones.

With that said, getting a tuning you like will be more important than resolution, anyway. So starting in the ~$100 range, and learning to use EQ, can be a good idea too. You will know better where to spend your money once you have a clear idea what your own preferences are. And finding a place where you can actually try some things for yourself before buying might also help. Trust your own ears.