objective vs. subjective rabbit hole

snilf, I understand your position and accept your logic.  But let me suggest that the situation isn’t as dire or impossible as you may believe, or have expressed.  However, it may be time consuming and as such, may be considered difficult.  Many posters here, post on other audio sites.  Find the ones you gel with sonically and equipment wise and go from there. 

Fortunately, I have managed to be around a lot longer than CD’s, the Internet, iPods, cell & bag phones, Walkman’s, cassette recorders and 8-tracks; coming from a time when audio shops and component sales were profuse, measurements were published, but reliable reporting, information and personal observations were scarce to non-existent. 

Thus, I can’t stress enough how beneficial the internet and forums such as this, have been to me and hobbyists in general and the audio hobby specifically.  And it wasn’t that way because someone published equipment measurements, discussed electrical theories, the pros and cons of individual parts etc.  Some of those discussions, may aid equipment designers, but individual parts are not the end all, be all, to we end users.  In fact, I have found designers and their designs to be far more important and relevant, than the mix of their parts.    

Over the decades, I have learned about and bought equipment after spending untold hours and then more, reading and researching.  If enough time is spent, it is possible to wade through the chaff to find the wheat.  By doing this, I've bought and enjoyed several wonderful, decently priced, boutique components.  Without forums such as this, I would never have found those.

I have met with people at their homes and audio stores and found individuals on forums with similar sonic preferences and equipment tastes like mine.  We have been able to share a glass of wine, observations, preferences and together, we have come to similar conclusions.  I have learned from those.  The learning was NOT quick or easy, but it was doable. 

There are many very high-quality components; who many will agree are just that.  But we each develop our own tastes and preferences with our own audio tastes that may be the same as others or not, as you suggested with your wine analogy.  Who is right, wrong or otherwise?  In total, no one.  It is a subjective personal hobby where minds can meet to agree, or disagree.  In the end, it is all about what pleases us, not others.  But we must learn just that, through trial, after trial.   

Once, a really good frequency response level is attained, especially a superb, nuanced and detailed midrange, incremental improvements can found be in the intangibles and mainly unmeasurable areas, such as soundstage and imaging.  These provide the ability to recreate the illusion of being in a recording room, a concert hall, or smoke-filled jazz and blues club – close your eyes and your there.  Well of course not really, but goosebumps and a feeling of being there are possible and important.  Until those so-called intangibles are heard, they are unknown.  Just as until a really good wine or whiskey is sampled, or varietals are tasted, their positives and differences are unknown.   

As much as some want to diss the golden ear premise, to learn what is good or what one prefers, one needs to sample many and varied audio systems, including for example, speaker types such boxed cones and domes, open baffles, panels/ribbons/eltrostats, horns etc.  But live instruments and music for points of reference, must also be sampled.  For example, I fondly recall the first time I took my percussionist son to an acoustically great performance hall, for a symphonic performance.  I leaned over and asked him what he thought?  He said it sounds like the audio room, dad.  Well of course it didn’t!  But it was a good approximation, in that instruments sounded like the instruments they were and music was equally enjoyable in both places.   

I do agree that jaw dropping hyperboles abound in reviews and forums when changes to our system's may be thought to produce same.  But you know when that new component is inserted (let alone a tweak is made), no one but us would generally know the difference.  We then become accustomed to the status quo, until a until another change is made. 

Suffice it to say, that I have heard many more good, or great systems than otherwise.  They might not have been my precise cup of tea, but the performances they recreated were entertaining and fun to listen to.  Isn't that what we're seeking?  Once a certain level is attained, sideways or incremental moves are possible, but difficult and the law of diminishing returns kicks-in.

I think there are those that want system builds to be quick and easy. They are not!  But objective measurements and parts are easy to prioritize and quantify.  Simply seek 1) the best measuring component; 2) with the parts that everyone agrees are good; 3) at the all-important best price; 4) voila you’re done!  You can then feel good about your choice(s), because the measurements said you should and they were the best, for the bucks spent!  So, I can see why some go in that direction and remain there.  But I would hypothesize that is only an impatient few and not the majority of us, or we wouldn’t be here.   

@mrmb  Thus, the goal of far too many objectivist posters, seems to be the need to save equipment buyers from themselves. The purpose of their posts is to cite how correct they are, because their measurements say they are.  (...) They seem to get the adrenalin rush of an activist naysayer and debunker, by deriding equipment manufacturers and owners, based on the measurements that seem to prove how bad their equipment is, or how bad their buying decisions are.

Interesting take on the matter! This is exactly my experience as well -- It is as if reviews of audiophile products are purposely used as a foundation for "audiophile bashing" discussions.

In many cases I refer to measurements -- especially when it comes to speakers, for example, where one can partly correlate the actual sonic result with certain real-time measurements.

Thus, the goal of far too many objectivist posters, seems to be the need to save equipment buyers from themselves.

Are you familiar with the term hypocrite? What were the last 25 or so paragraphs you posted? Who were you trying to save.

Once, a really good frequency response level is attained, especially a superb, nuanced and detailed midrange, incremental improvements can found be in the intangibles and mainly unmeasurable areas, such as soundstage and imaging.  

You should have a chat with the acoustics engineer who designed and tuned my room. I believe the term he would use is poppycock. He does not think soundstage and imaging is at all intangible and many others I talked to do not either. Perhaps that comes from your lack of knowledge that others do not lack?

If you start with the assumption that other people could not possibly have the knowledge you lack then you are destined to repeat the mistakes they have long overcome.

There is enough animosity on both sides but not accepting the knowledge or experience of either makes little sense.

On a side note, the most revered headphones, very very expensive Sennheisers ($30K) have very very low distortion. They measure about as perfect as possible. Everyone who hears them raves. What can we learn from that?

^^^^^^^^

the goal of far too many objectivist posters, seems to be the need to save equipment buyers from themselves. The purpose of their posts is to cite how correct they are, because their measurements say they are.  Perhaps they want to quantify their choice or purchase.  They seem to get the adrenalin rush of an activist naysayer and debunker

Yup! Well said again @mrmb !

This type of behavior is likely subject to several psychologic diagnosis and studies on mental health I suppose. Savior Complex, Hero Syndrome, etc. etc. I cannot explain it another way

@thyname and @mrmb , do you not see the irony and hypocrisy that you are doing the exact same thing, but just selling a different form of religion?  That should be obvious to you.

I was not exaggerating. MRMB wrote 22 full paragraphs to accuse others of proselytizing. If that is not trying to sell a particular way of thinking I don't know what is. That tweak comment, to me, is very revealing.

I find it gross exaggeration that people who use measurements are only interested in measurements as a determination of quality. Obviously those people exist, but they are the exception. Most people I have met who rely on measurements in this hobby, especially when I was working through our custom room, use measurements as a tool to understand what is happening, or what is not happening. They use it as a guide to achieve a particular sound, as opposed to buy and hope, or playing mind games on themselves with questionable devices as @mitch2 identified. The term he used, "subjective rhetoric" was overly kind. I much more appropriate term comes to mind.