In a typical objective vs. subjective discussion, the objective side usually wins in terms of technicalities or data, but loses out so much of its potential audience/readership due to a lack of subjective or flowery descriptors that (let's face it), make reading subjective audio reviews more entertaining or accessible.
Realistically, most people are unable to correlate graphs, charts, or SINAD numbers to the experience of listening to music. This makes them more susceptible (or gullible?) to BS subjective views.
For example:
A common subjective trope is:
DACs or amps with good measurements = clinical, boring, or analytical
Tubes = warmer, more musical
So the question is, how would you describe gear with good measurements, a.k.a. audibly transparent gear, to a non-technical person, in a way that would make them understand why 'audible transparency' is a good thing?
Realistically, most people are unable to correlate graphs, charts, or SINAD numbers to the experience of listening to music. This makes them more susceptible (or gullible?) to BS subjective views.
For example:
A common subjective trope is:
DACs or amps with good measurements = clinical, boring, or analytical
Tubes = warmer, more musical
So the question is, how would you describe gear with good measurements, a.k.a. audibly transparent gear, to a non-technical person, in a way that would make them understand why 'audible transparency' is a good thing?