I think headphones are a bit instructive. They can show detail, distortion, noise etc better than speakers (generally).
Yes, for sure. It's blatantly simple logic that detail that can be heard with headphones, that can't be heard with speakers, is part of the recording.
I suppose one could find a remote outdoor location quiet enough, and try good speakers without a room. You'll need to sit closer and have plenty of power, but does this get one better detail retrieval than conventional speakers in a room? It would be one test of how much the room is a problem.
Ime, it doesn't take a quiet outdoor remote location to try speakers without a room, to hear the increase in detail.
It has been immediately apparent for me, even in pretty noisy environments.
By immediate, I mean almost instantly, certainly within a song or two.
Be warned though ....If the speakers have any balls, particularly bass, it may forever change one's idea of what good sound is
Wind is a bigger factor than noise in the outdoor test though. Wind doesn't work.
Interestingly, outdoor measurements have the same trouble with wind.
Whereas the effect of noise can be largely removed with temporal averaging. (one of the benefits of dual channel FFT)
Seems our ears do some of the same noise masking somehow.
So for me, the hierarchy of assessing available detail in a recording is very straightforward.
1. headphones
2. single speaker outdoors
3. single speaker indoors
4. stereo is always a complete jump ball, indoor or out
Oh, to repeat a test i posted earlier somewhere (maybe in this thread, if so sorry) that shows how much of a problem the room is ....
Play music on the speaker(s), but listen to it through closed back headphones getting their source from a measurement mic.
A measurement soundcard with a headphone out works fine. Can be quite ear/eye opening.