I think we need a new terms in our hobby for three different goals. "Audiophile" is not a good word. Once upon a time, maybe we could say it was someone who appreciates music reproduction enough to sit and listen, and the hobby that represents. Not sure we are still there.
Kind of like the early computer days. "Hacker" was someone who dug into the OS and figured how it worked, made it better and learned. I was a proud hacker in disassembling the BIOS and changing the CAS/RAS timing to run a Z80B in my Kaypro. I wrote a Greek character PROM to match a Diablo daisy wheel. That was hacking. Then it became a bad word for people doing bad things to other peoples computers. The term "cracker" never took off. We do have a problem with words being stolen. Female dog, Person in a happy mood, etc. Context seems to not matter, just the word.
One term would be for the pure measurement objective only who thinks traditional static measurements are perfect and everyone else is wrong. All DACs are the same. All amps the same as they are below the "scientific .1% level. Their pursuit is for some level of perfection if it passes by our limited set of measurements, it must be right. And yes, ALL cables, analog and digital, are the same.
The opposite far end are the ones with unlimited funds and who believe in magic if it costs enough. To them, any system not costing as much as a house is "not resolving enough" and science is wrong. Somehow a power plug can unmask spatial details that were not recorded in the first place and believe only their hearing is 100% objective and if they hear it it must be real as they are immune to the placebo effect.
Then the rest who just want the best musical experience we can afford. Objective measures are only one data point as we understand they are limited. We also use our hearing. It is not objective, but it is what we think and our experience is what matters. Price is a matter of if it is worth it, some having a higher threshold than others, not what our friends think or a justification for being right because you paid more. It's about if the music is enjoyable to us. Even if we fall for placebo effects.
Three different goals.
Computer Science comment: AI is based on data sets making an average assumption based on history training. Then newest technologies are "learning systems" in that good and bad guesses continually get logged to improve the data set. By the current technology, it may mimic a population, but not an individual. I prefer Turner to Rembrandt, Picasso to Warhol. What would some AI engine think? AI is a bad phrase. The earlier pre-press coined to be dramatic for headlines catch phrase" is "Expert System" and that is a far more accurate term. If anyone thinks AI is super advanced, they should look into the effort Kodak did to determine which way was up in a digital photograph. Hilarious actually.
