exactly! why not ruse with our biased brain to make the best experience possible?
Do you believe you can benefit from learning about the biased experiences of others? I'm not sure what would be more individual than our personal set of biases, so does my homeopathy experience where it cured my hangnail issues make you want to try it? Maybe if I turn it into a really good story? Should I go to a medical convention and work to convince those there that they need to add homeopathy to their practice because it works for some people?
How about Peter Popoff's miracle spring water? There will be many who tell you their problems disappeared after they took a swig. If you want to make your life better, like theirs obviously is, why not try it to see if the placebo works for you too?
For most here, objective just means evidence based, rather than anecdote/story based.
Audio gear can be objectively characterized quite thoroughly, with transducers occupying a somewhat more nebulous space, as their performance will always include the room they are in, the head they are on, or the turntable they are attached to. In those cases, there is a lot more room for there to be real differences that won't show up in a suite of measurements, but that doesn't mean there is no correlation between measurements and end use results.
If you know that two shops are each selling a DAC which are identical in every way down to the thread of the screws on the case, except one has a faux tube sticking out, not connected to the internal circuit, but that lights up with the power switch, would you be swayed by those who tell you the tube DAC is more mellow yet more detailed, with a forward midrange but a recessed treble, and whatever other prose may follow, how likely are you to give it a whirl, or even give it any credence at all in terms of making your own buying decision? How about if this helpful person just won't stop promoting how wonderful it is, and that if you aren't hearing the difference that you are either deaf, or don't have a resolving enough system to appreciate the special nuance? Would you entertain that endlessly, or maybe ask them to provide actual evidence that this improvement was one based on the sound waves and not based on the brain just doing what it does and filling in blanks based on expectations?
How about things like shakti stones, or quantum field alignment devices, or any of the other crazy things that people will give amazing testimonials for. Do you have any interest in trying them out in your system? Probably not, no matter how well written the story is, because you just can't get yourself to be that dumb. The more people learn about how it all works, and the higher up the learning curve they go, the more they can use that knowledge to dismiss that which should be dismissed.
You believe ultra hi-res recordings just have to be better because stairsteps and all? Learn about sampling theory and the FOMO disappears because you understand what you would be missing. Would someone making claims that counter that make you feel differently about it? The same is true all through this industry that has no interest in educating their consumers, but are motivated to promote that ignorance. If you KNOW that something can't impact what hits your ears, how likely are you to give it a try because someone else wrote a story about how it impacted them?
All we are trying to do is show, with actual evidence (as opposed to unsupported claims) what people should be able to expect. From there, people can make whatever choice they want to.
You said earlier that the issue of cables can make you cringe...why? If people believe they have had veils removed, why shouldn't that be valid for you? Why shouldn't everyone try it , because maybe you'll experience it too?
You say we aren't dealing with life or death, so it doesn't really matter that much, but that's not really the point. We are more of a 'show me the evidence' kind of place than a strictly 'science' place.
but why be absolutely objectivists when conversing with objectivists who happen to be okay with a little subjectivism?
Subjectivism meaning willing to suspend disbelief and ignore evidence based on uncontrolled perception? Because we are an evidence based place, and most people come here to get away from all the storytelling to cut through the silly nonsense. If people can allocate their resources towards what has a chance of improving the sound quality (based on signal fidelity) of the waves that actually hit their ears, vs what happens after that, most here believe that is a more effective use of those resources if the goal is to actually improve the sound, rather than adding to the morass of confusion that too many count on. If the argument is that improving the signal fidelity doesn't lead to better sound (Generally speaking. Beyond some point, that won't be audible either.) then I'd like to see evidence, not stories.
I'm trying to figure out what you are trying to convince us of...
