This discussion overlaps with the many about "objective" vs. "subjective" criteria, and is at the heart of the very existence of this forum, this website, and magazines that review equipment. "The bottom line" is the bottom line: most good stereo equipment is expensive and most audiophiles have limited budgets. (Let me add that "expensive" should be understood to include supposedly "free" tweaks, like those Mahgister employs, that have "costs" in terms of visual aesthetics, or WAF.)
When we want to make an improvement to our systems, we hope to spend our money wisely. To do that, we seek advice. The review magazines offer that advice with the aid of "science": not just observation, but quantified observation, done in controlled circumstances, aided by devices that measure what is being claimed. But we all know that measurements don't tell the whole story, so the magazine reviewers also add qualitative accounts of their listening experience with the equipment under revfiew: a "subjective" account. Such accounts have weight ("objectivity") to the extent that these reviewers spend a great deal of time listening critically to a lot of expensive equipment, and so are ideally positioned to evaluate what they're hearing with some insight.
The OP's apparent desire to silence anyone who refuses to believe a subjective acount that is neither supported with measurements nor convincingly supported by any other kind of evidence would appear to want this forum reduced to a playground show-and-tell fest. Speaking for myself, I expect more; I want this forum to provide well-informed opinions that are well-expressed and, when controversial for any reason, well-defended. Why? I've already explained: I have a limited audio budget, and I'd like advice about how to spend it wisely.
So it's not a matter of civility, or politics, or science denial, or conspiracy mongering. It's purely a matter of persuasion, in whatever form you can offer it.
For what its worth, I'm also an oenophile: I taste, and even make, wine with a group of friends. I often wonder if there is there any real objectivity in wine tasting. But then, I remember an early James Bond film in which 007 is offered a glass of French "claret" and correctly names the vineyard and the vintage after a single sip. There are people who can do that pretty reliably. So, yes, there is objectivity in wine tasting. But it's very difficult to tune one's pallette sufficiently in order to offer more than one's "mere opinion."
From this forum, I want more than mere opinion. If you like product X, try to do more here than to merely enthuse about it. WHY do you like it? What does it actually do? How does it do that, if you know, or even can speculate? In short: convince me that I'm likely to like product X as well. My money is at stake, and I would rather spend it wisely.
Of course, if you're persuasive, you may convince me to buy some snake oil. That, too, is OK; I'm not easy to convince, and snake oil may have healing properties—the old placebo effect at the very least. Most of us here are mature enough (that is, OLD enough, with enough experience in memory) to know that placebos can be highly effective. I'd even be inclined to defend the view that all "value" is a form of the placebo effect. But skeptics need to be convinced. So: convince me. Is that too much to ask?
