Anyone asking strangers for opinions usually ends up with something seriously value challenged. But you are right, many that come to forums believe that everyone has two good ears, good equipment, good environment, good set up, some degree of expertise, and accepts their advice as gospel. Even when they are accompanied by all of the overly used, non-descriptive terms, such as killer, best, worst, etc!
IMHO, the only value of most opinions in forums is the value they contribute to a very broad consensus, except for those which are very explicit and fill in all the detail needed to understand their value. Even then they are still just personal views, not science or fact.
I recently posted on a thread involving an ARC SP10II, a pre-amp I have used (with others) for over 25 years. The accepted consensus was that the line stage was not well resolved, the phono stage was great, still approaching SOTA by some, and one poster went so far as to say the line stage was "horrible"! Another dissatisfied poster apparently doesn't like the tone, or lack of resolution, but happens to (disclosed in another thread) admit to a serious hearing disability in one ear which of course negates anything which might extend to something like 'stereo imaging', especially subtle differences.
The funny thing is that while the detractors are right, that the line stage is less than highly resolved, it is because its design enlarges the sound field at the expense of absolute pin point imaging. PPI was not so greatly appreciated in the 80's. So it is a choice, no different from many others, such as picking a pair of panel speakers over dynamic speakers, or omni speakers. Except the difference with speakers is more obvious, easily recognized, and the differences are still seen as valid.
Another thing that bugs me are the comments so many folks make about tube equipment without regard to the differences made by the tubes selected. It ain't subtle, yet it is hugely ignored. Much as you must get irritated by folks who praise or dismiss speakers with out reference to amplification and set up.
So it goes I guess. Good luck on developing a format for intelligent equipment assessment from folks looking more for ego enhancement than anything else. :-)
IMHO, the only value of most opinions in forums is the value they contribute to a very broad consensus, except for those which are very explicit and fill in all the detail needed to understand their value. Even then they are still just personal views, not science or fact.
I recently posted on a thread involving an ARC SP10II, a pre-amp I have used (with others) for over 25 years. The accepted consensus was that the line stage was not well resolved, the phono stage was great, still approaching SOTA by some, and one poster went so far as to say the line stage was "horrible"! Another dissatisfied poster apparently doesn't like the tone, or lack of resolution, but happens to (disclosed in another thread) admit to a serious hearing disability in one ear which of course negates anything which might extend to something like 'stereo imaging', especially subtle differences.
The funny thing is that while the detractors are right, that the line stage is less than highly resolved, it is because its design enlarges the sound field at the expense of absolute pin point imaging. PPI was not so greatly appreciated in the 80's. So it is a choice, no different from many others, such as picking a pair of panel speakers over dynamic speakers, or omni speakers. Except the difference with speakers is more obvious, easily recognized, and the differences are still seen as valid.
Another thing that bugs me are the comments so many folks make about tube equipment without regard to the differences made by the tubes selected. It ain't subtle, yet it is hugely ignored. Much as you must get irritated by folks who praise or dismiss speakers with out reference to amplification and set up.
So it goes I guess. Good luck on developing a format for intelligent equipment assessment from folks looking more for ego enhancement than anything else. :-)