Psychological &/or philosophical rejection of DSP

[Neuro]

It's simply about beliefs, power and gullible people who want to adapt to a certain group.

Give me one correct double-blind study where a good physically measured DSP is perceived as worse than an analog equivalent.

If it is not possible to demonstrate a scientific difference, then it is an unscientific belief.
There have always been people in history who have claimed that established physical science and psychology have missed certain important variables that only the chosen ones can experience.

Like the earth is flat.

Over the years, power-hungry people have claimed certain beliefs to give themselves power in society. We humans are gullible and ignorant in certain areas. If we lack knowledge, we are too prone to give these duping people power on unscientific grounds. '

If there was solid, generally accepted scientific knowledge, we would not be having this discussion.

Thus, it is ultimately a knowledge problem governed by ignorant psychological conformism.

 

[101geo]

I'm sure the answer is quite complicated but the simplest and quickest explanations, and one that many on here including me have been guilty in the past of are "Post‑purchase rationalisation" and "Cognitive dissonance"

 

[EJ3]

Even tone controls built around analog circuits are perceived as cheating with less purity, thus bringing one further from the performance.

I guess the teaching that tone controls (and by extension, EQ of any type) is inherently 'impure' started before I got into audio gear in 1974.
And this is Generational BS.
So it's seriously difficult to eradicate.

 

[ZolaIII]

I will do philosophical part. From beginning of known time people are known to fiddle with different things known or otherwise. Were not exactly either equal in it or very successful but kept bringing it anyway. Sound whosent different nor it's reproduction. Even in early 60's we have examples of pasive tube preamplifiers (adding just cuple mW to output) and having cuple of semi costume PEQ's integrated along with bandwidth limiter and so on. Today FP double accurate (scientific / 64 bit) precision is used both to unwind some of very fabric of existence like DNA sequencing and complex predictions like complex whether models and simulations.
Rene did skeptik argumentation very well and you should learn from him. The reality and lows of physics apply to everyone and everything. If you ain't dumd you will acknowledge reality not as the best posible and try to improve what you can (and avoid worse). Still you do want to keep what you can working in your favor and not against you or at least keep bitter compromises at minimum. Starting with placement, limited accustic treatment for what it's best at (autending highs and focusing them and partially the same for mids) and DSP for lows and up to shoulder frequency (actually lot more but out of opus of this post).
If you're lead is transiency of reproduction it makes much sense to invest in analog reproduction devices so they are relaxed low THD to how you might listen to them and with big DR freedom to where it counts and of course you will still want to be able to shape their response digital.
In the end it's about music.

 

[EJ3]

Help me understand. I've recently been browsing a bunch of "audiophile" forums in hope of learning something new about DSP, room treatment, noise reduction, etc. To my surprise most of what I found in the 2ch audio world was a widespread aversion to DSP, whether for EQ, room treatment or much of anything else. Lots of concern about preferring "signal purity" and stuff like that. And often (or mostly!) this goes hand in hand with the "digital noise" crowd that's concerned with some kind of distortion that can't be measured but still heard as "less blackness" and similar descriptors. And it seems measurements of anything are nowhere to be found. I had one guy advise me to abandon all DSP and instead undertake a tunable room treatment project that would have cost tens of thousands of $$$. ????

This all strikes me as snake oil adjacent at best. Can anybody comment or clarify this mindset? Or am I getting it all wrong? Thanks and cheers,

Have you ever tried to convince a person that believes the earth is flat that it is not?
Your chances of doing that, no matter the science (and even of they are well versed in radio signals) are slim to none.
It is the same issue: they will not listen to reason. Just because they do not have to.
So, live & let live. Their belief has ZERO effect on me. So, I ignore that they have this belief (and quit wasting my time, making our other interactions 'Just Fine').