But seriously, set aside the serial straw man arguments, the fact is its not being sure of hearing- quite the opposite. Its second-guessing, doubting, discounting and explaining away what you’re hearing.
This is where I find your use of the term "audiophiles" to be strange.
Audiophiles are generally speaking "A person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction."
This comprises people of a spectrum of attitudes, from engineer/science-minded individuals to totally technically ignorant, "whatever I think I hear I hear" individuals, and everything in between.
That said, if the term "audiophile" has a more popular association, it is with the type of audiophiles who generally fill subjective-oriented sites like this one. That is, those who believe that one determines the sonic performance of any gear by listening, and this overrides the importance of, or claims about, objective measurements. That is the overriding attitude in this forum, and it’s the overriding attitude in most audiophile magazines.
Therefore, to keep reading you refer to "audiophiles" as being the ones who refuse to believe their ears and attempt to ’explain away’ their experience is very strange. It’s such an idiosyncratic use of the term "audiophile" I’m left wondering who you are actually referring to.
It would seem you are describing "objectivist" audiophiles vs the more predominant "subjectivist." That would make your point more clearly.
But even then, your rant contains strawmen. I don’t know what you even mean by "audiophiles" belligerently stating soundstaging is "all in your head." as if to dismiss it. It’s not merely "all in your head" - there really is sound emanating in the room - but it is of course a form of audio illusion. Every audiophile I’ve ever known understands that soundstaging is an audio illusion - that is for instance a center-panned singer will seem to be emanating from the space in between the speakers, when the sound it is actually coming from the speakers (and with some room reflection). That’s just a statement of descriptive fact. I would say the singer seems to be in between the speakers, so would my non-audiophile guests. That’s how the illusion works for human brains. Is this something you actually deny? If not...what is your point????
And then you seem to disparage the fact that audiophiles have a descriptive language concerning sound reproduction - dynamics, presence, extension, grain, etc. Where the "normal" person wouldn’t use those descriptions. Well...OF COURSE. Most disciplines or hobbies develop, of necessity, it’s own descriptors to communicate about the phenomenon in question. It’s very helpful. And someone who is not an enthusiast, or in the hobby, won’t use terms they aren’t familiar with. SO WHAT??? There’s nothing "wrong" with enthusiasts using more specific descriptive language to be able to communicate about a complex experience. It’s what you can expect of rational, normal people.
You say a "normal person" would say something like "I could listen to this all night!" Well, fine. But that type of language is bereft of some useful descriptive detail that one enthusiast could communicate to another. Saying "I could listen to this all night" doesn’t tell me a THING about the sonic qualities. The person could be entranced at hearing super detailed sound she has never experienced before, but which comes in part from the speaker actually having a peaky frequency profile that I and many would term "bright" or tipped up in the upper frequencies (or with some etch or edge to sibilance etc). I have certainly seen folks enraptured by such sound. Or it could mean a dull, rolled off sound. Or a neutral sound. It could be describing a system that has little depth or precision of imaging, or one that does the opposite. It could be describing a system with big, loose, slightly bloated bass (which impresses many non-audiophiles) or a system with the tightest bass around. It leaves virtually every characteristic one could detail off the table.
So sure, a "normal person" may say something vague like that. But...SO WHAT? Such language would be insufficient for communicating in the type of depth and richness one would normally want and need as an enthusiast in a technical hobby.
As to your experience of audiophiles vs non audiophiles, again it seems idiosyncratic. I’ve had many audiophiles and non-audiophiles listen to my systems, and all have been entranced and we have spun many tunes. The audiophiles can simply put in to more precise, detailed terms what they are hearing. Though sometimes the non-audiophiles can surprise me with similar language conjured by the experience.
