It seems like when I see comments on high end gear there is a lot of negativity. I have been an audiophile for the last 20 years. Honestly, if you know how to choose gear and match gear a lot of the high end gear is just better. When it comes to price people can charge what they want for what they create. If you don’t want it. Don’t pay for it. Look if you are blessed to afford the best bear and you can get it. It can be very sonically pleasing. Then do it. Now if you are also smart and knowledgeable you can get high end sound at mid-fi prices then do it. It’s the beauty of our our hobby. To build a system that competes with the better more expensive sounding systems out there. THOUGHTS?

Post removed 

“ It’s expensive so it must be snake oil.

We don’t know better so we must be told our faults.

We are gullible.

They don’t have experience with high end low noise gear.

They are smarter than us and they are gonna show us what we did and are doing wrong.

They comment on how and why and the way we spend our Money.

They should tell companies what to charge”

To this which was in his opinion put in his mouth he replied :


Everything above that you attribute to me is complete fabrication on your part. where did I mention anything about the prices of equipment or tell anyone how much they should spend or tell any company how much they should charge? What do you know of my personal experience with any gear? Where did I call anyone gullible? Where did I say anything about being smarter than anyone? Why are you just making the crap up about me? I’ve called you out on this a few times now.

scottwheel is right about that, he never explicitly claim the above criticisms of audiophiles... He is right because alas! subjectivists crowd reacted emotionaly and assimilated him with an objectivist (because he seem to be one for sure even if he does not states it officially ) and then reacted accordingly ; but the objectivists crowd reacted generally no less emotionally but with an ideological stance conflated with sciences ...
For example Scottwheel stated :
I think that was the point. Human tendency to form opinions on sound quality that are not actually based on sound. I guess audiophiles can either learn from it or get angry at it.
If i translate this sentence above by analogy : a rainbow do not exist as colored because the colors are not in the water droplets in the air...They resulted from the way the brain filtered light though a particular medium ...They are then illusion waiting to be debunked ...A so simplistic reasoning is expressed by our scottwheel about sound qualities ...He forget the brain creative contribution in reading a sound source vibrating body qualities which are not mainly a deception and in all cases as his debunking use of the double blind test method is trying to prove ...
He forget the  non linear working brain filtering noise and working in his own time domain by some interpolative process   to perceive the recognized  symbolic form image coming through  the medium of the various physical invariants related to the specifically located  resonating source body ... In speech this is a person... In music this is an individual instrument speaking his language ...A violin or a person dont matter ... In sound audio  it can be a vibrating source as an amplifier which sound can be modified by a change around or in or on the amplifier  and perceived as a change in quality by a listener, audiophile or not  ...
Simple blind test is useful in a designing incremental process ...i used them myself with my embeddings controls design ... Double blind test has a value statistically only and in specific conditions ...
Using double blind test to debunk an individual claim in a short span of time in specific alien contextual hearing conditions is a debunking business as James Randi claimed to do ...Not science ...