An interesting point and one I have some sympathy with.
I've got to the point where if it doesn't sound better in a DBT then I question the point of buying it. This doesn't necessarily mean I won't buy because like many, I like what I consider to be 'nice' things. However, I'm an engineer and in the end I'm mostly interested in performance in preference to looks. I buy art because the looks appeal to me. I buy tools because they perform well. This is what I find interesting about 'High Fidelity' sound reproduction. Many say they are interested in High Fidelity as the sole criteria in choosing their equipment. But, it seems to me that there are many other factors involved. This shouldn't be a problem but in audio circles often those other factors overshadow the intended and stated aims of the purchase. In some aspects it has as mentioned above got to the point where if it looks good and costs a lot of money it is necessarily better than an item that doesn't.
Well, audio largely moved away from "high fidelity" quite some time ago. Probably the mid-1980s, barring a few stalwarts like NAD.
As soon as we hit around 20Hz to 20kHz .002% THD+N in the source electronics, and probably .01% in the final amplification device, the problem of nearly absolute fidelity to anything 99.99% of the listeners could possibly hear on 99% of source material was an entirely solved problem, assuming nothing else is drastically amiss. Arguably, the problem of audible problems using the standard set of measurements is solved well before that metric.
Audio is sort of like a charity that is formed to solve a particular problem, and does. Now what? No one wants to fold up the tent, go home, and admit the thing is solved, so mission creep sets in. Stereo Review and Audio couldn't keep the doors open declaring that pretty much everything they tested didn't have any audible defects, even if they were probably right. So then you got a decent chunk of technophiles who demanded the best performance, period, even if they couldn't possibly hear it (for years, they bought Brystons and now they buy Benchmarks), and a vast number of audiophiles who just want it to subjectively sound "good"--whatever that means to them. They buy whatever the
snake oil audio equipment and high resolution cable salesman convinces them is the hot flavor of the moment. Then, you have a fairly small sliver of people in the middle who have a degree of knowledge and reasonable beliefs about what they can and cannot hear. (Well, I suppose since most people fall into this camp, they probably are the vast majority--but we're talking "enthusiasts" and "audiophiles" here.)
As the magazines which held the torch for reasonable, objective based performance measures all folded up, the "golden ears" came out. Those who think they can hear every thing that is measurable, and those who think the measurements do not matter all and cannot possibly describe what they are hearing. Objectively speaking, both are probably "wrong", since 70% of them are probably listening to equipment which is completely indistinguishable from anything else by even the most highly trained listeners. Then you've got the tube guys and the zero feedback guys. Fidelity isn't their goal at all, and they'll admit that. They like the colorations their gear adds, and a lot of them will admit it. Good for them. At least they're honest, and perhaps they're right that the "fidelity" to what music sounds like
is better. But it isn't fidelity to what's on the disc. But at least they're getting something different for their money. The rest of the field is, by and large, people who are either being lied to or are lying to themselves.
Of course, I wouldn't want to discount the possibility I could be completely wrong. Time for an equipment upgrade!
Note: Including the final analog transducer in any of the above would be rather foolhardy. If a significant degree of mystery does still exist somewhere, it's in that miserable device called a speaker.
