Great question! Why don't audiophiles use VST's? I think it is because both types of audiophiles, subjectivists and objectivists, are purists.
Subjectivists don't like anything interfering with the sound. Some are even horrified by the idea of music being digitized because they believe it can not be reconstructed the same way again. Some go to the extent of eschewing digital altogether and maintaining a completely analog signal chain. Never mind that their LP might have been processed digitally, it is ignored just as anything upstream of their expensive power cable is ignored, or all the logical flaws. To them, VST is an unimaginable horror, almost like a swear word.
Objectivists don't like anything interfering with the sound either. You see that all over ASR - pursuit of ever lower distortion figures, more perfect SINAD, compliance with the Harman curve, pursuit of perfect spinoramas, and so on. Anything that might colour the sound, e.g. vinyl playback or valve amps, gets forcefully derided by many here on ASR. Do you think someone who spends time on ASR sneering at DAC's and amplifiers based on Amir's measurements is going to deliberately add distortion (i.e. anything that changes the digital signal) to their music? I don't think so, because if they did, they would be listening to those DAC's and amps which might produce euphonic distortion and asking themselves if they like the sound or not, and whether they should try to implement it. Rather, anything that is a headless panther is jeered for being snake oil, regardless of whether it actually sounds good.
I know I am opening myself to attack from all camps here, but I think both approaches are mistaken. This is because the sound engineer in charge of mastering your music is neither objectivist nor subjectivist (apart from some who work for audiophile labels who might be subjectivists, but even then probably not much and only for marketing purposes). Rather, they are a type which I would like to call "subjective objectivist". In that, they mix the music to their subjective taste, while using an objective approach. If they think an artistic purpose is better suited by boosting something and suppressing something else, they do it. And what's more, they do it on their headphones or studio monitors which ideally are designed to produce accurate response but are probably very different to what you are using to listen. And then there are all those legacy recordings using old mixers, valve amplifiers, studio monitors that sound like tin boxes (like the BBC LS3/5a), not to mention limitations of recording and playback equipment that those recordings were mastered for.
So ... in my very humble opinion ... the only reasonable approach is to be a "subjective objectivist" yourself. Sure, I design my system with active crossovers, driver and room correction in order to create the most linear, distortion free, and corrected system that I possibly can. But after I do that, I am quite happy to choose a different (non-Harman) target curve, or to add effects via VST to create a sound that I find pleasing. I have different sound profiles that have been saved in my convolver that I can switch with the click of a mouse. Depending on what I add (or not add) I can make my system sound anything from dry and clinical all the way to 1950's AM radio. Not that I do the latter by any means, but it is an interesting demonstration of what is possible. My system is not here to reproduce perfect square waves and impulse responses, although it can certainly come close. I created it to enjoy music.
I do not think that sound engineers who mastered the recordings are necessarily the best people to decide how I should listen to my music. I have certainly come across recordings which sound strange - maybe too much treble, or not enough. In my house, and with my music, it is me who is best placed to judge what I like. I know full well that my taste and preference in sound is not universal, which is why I don't lecture others on what their tastes should be like.
$500 for a VST plugin is not really an issue for me. What is an issue is that quite often those VST plugins require a DAW and do not have the ease of use of a free VST plugin with limited functionality that you can host on JRiver or any decent convolver. The last time I tried a demo version of an "advanced" VST plugin, there was no way, within the limits of my ability, to understand enough to route sound from my playback program through the DAW and into the convolver in order to listen to music. When I want to listen to music, it should be "load file, press play, listen and enjoy". NOT open multiple programs, figure out the complexities of Windows routing and DAW's, fiddle with VST, and then listen to music. So the only type of VST I use are the free ones that can be hosted on JRiver. Those tend to be rather limited in functionality, but even then it does enough for me.
If I ever figure out a way to "set and forget" a DAW so that it can host VST plugins, I will do so. But right now I am unable to figure it out. DAW's are intimidating, in the same way that I find CAD, Photoshop, C++, and any unfamiliar software to be intimidating. To acquire understanding, let alone mastery requires an investment of time beyond what I am willing to commit at this point in my life.
I know that ASR is host to quite a few people who know a lot more about VST plugins and DAW's than I do, so I hope that this thread draws a few of them to reply. I don't mind being wrong if I can learn from the experience.
