1. Audio preference is inherently subjective
Many commenters stress that what sounds “good” varies from person to person, making a universally flat response undesirable for some.
- “Third, audio quality is deeply subjective, and what sounds good to my ears may sound like total garbage to yours.” — jurf
- “The definition of sound quality tends to change between people.” — doubled112
- “Why would speakers be any different than earphones? … I personally hate flat eq.” — SomeoneOnTheWeb
2. Software EQ/enhancements can salvaging poor‑quality speakers
Several users report that tools like EasyEffects, Dolby Atmos presets, or similar DSP dramatically improve laptop or small‑speaker sound, turning “trash” into usable audio.
- “Last night I went through their guide on how to improve the sound of laptop speakers on my Framework. It's night and day, highly recommended.” — cassianoleal
- “The speakers on my 13" are pretty bad, but using easy effects made them plenty 'fine’.” — brewtide
- “Most windows laptops will do something like this by default to enhance the sound … to make those tiny laptop speakers sound half decent.” — pyrophane
3. Flat response is a reference target, but real‑world listening diverges
Discussion centers on whether speakers should aim for a flat frequency response, noting that mastering often assumes non‑flat listening environments and that no speaker is truly flat.
- “Speakers were never subjective (unlike earphones), they’re supposed to be flat – ‘equalised’.” — jurf
- “No speakers have flat frequency response. If that's the target (it usually isn't …) then they all miss.” — ssl-3
- “I have heard that audio engineer's don't necessarily master to a flat EQ because such a small section of listeners are listening with a flat EQ.” — redhed