I need a psychologist to weigh in here. (I am not one). The central fallacy as I see it is; assuming one can hear a difference in presentation between two similar components, is one better? Chocolate and vanilla are both ice creams, both cold and sweet, but decidedly different; so which is "better"? Can't they just be different? I prefer vanilla, so to ME it is "better."
This is the tyrrany of choice; we assume that because two things are demonstrably different one has to be better. Take tubes and transistors. They both distort, but in different ways. This is what gives them their characteristic "sounds." But as they improve in quality their distortions minimize and their sounds become more similar. Still, each has a distinctive "sound" of its own; perhaps a vanishingly small difference but since there are two different pieces being compared then at least a theoretical difference. Which is better? The one I prefer may not be what you prefer, but for me the better component is the one I prefer, and I don't really care what YOU like best.
I find audiophiles divide into two groups; those that listen to music with components vs. those that listen to components with music.
This is the tyrrany of choice; we assume that because two things are demonstrably different one has to be better. Take tubes and transistors. They both distort, but in different ways. This is what gives them their characteristic "sounds." But as they improve in quality their distortions minimize and their sounds become more similar. Still, each has a distinctive "sound" of its own; perhaps a vanishingly small difference but since there are two different pieces being compared then at least a theoretical difference. Which is better? The one I prefer may not be what you prefer, but for me the better component is the one I prefer, and I don't really care what YOU like best.
I find audiophiles divide into two groups; those that listen to music with components vs. those that listen to components with music.