If someone is producing an argument in defense of their belief that doesn't make sense, then it's reasonable to be skeptical. And if they are also using a method known to be fallible in evaluating their own claim, that's double reason to be skeptical and want better arguments and evidence.
So for instance, in another thread Andy2 claimed that SS amps "always have a haze" over the sound.
Yet: most of the music audiophiles listen to, no doubt including Andy2, used solid state equipment/amplification in it's production. Yet nobody, including Andy2, reports a "haze" over all these recordings. The sheer internal logical contradiction shows this type of claim can not be true. He has clearly made an error somewhere in his reasoning.
Bolstering an already bad argument with personal anecdotes "I heard a haze with SS amps" hardly suffices to resolve that internal contradiction. And it relies on a form of anecdote we know to be open to bias and fallibility.
In regard to high end audio cables, there are similar red flags.
Audiophiles will get some new expensive high end audio cable and go on about all the new sonic information being revealed by these cables. This is supposed to justify the heroic, and expensive, efforts the cable maker went to creating cables that can "reveal" such sonic information.
But the internal contradiction arises: MOST of the recordings that audiophiles cream themselves over with their new cables were made using bog-standard studio grade cables...tons and tons of them. The inescapable logic is that WHATEVER details you hear on those recordings through your new cables, the ORIGINAL NON-AUDIOPHILE CABLES WERE SUFFICIENT TO TRANSMIT. Otherwise...there wouldn't be that detail there to hear in the first place.
It therefore makes little sense to say you "have to" go to the lengths many of these cable manufacturers claim in order to pass through or preserve such subtle sonic detail - non-audiophile cables were already perfectly capable of doing so.
And this is what most electrical and sound engineers have understood. It's why most of them understand they don't need audiophile cables in creating recordings.
Standard electrical theory suggests this. Practice suggests this. Logical reasoning like the above suggests this.
Are there SOME recording studios that go in for audiophile cabling? Yes, you can find some engineers who buy in to this idea. What's typically lacking is any rigorous evidence their beliefs are justified - either measurements or controlled listening tests.
So...am I open to audiophile cables making sonic differences? Yes. For one thing it is a fact that cables CAN, in the right conditions, audibly affect the sound (for instance too small awg for long runs, resistance/impedance/capacitance mismatches etc). But does that justify all the claims made by audiophile cable companies? Of course not. There are good reasons to be skeptical of their claims, and...for some of the reasons I've given...want stronger evidence than the usual "I heard it!" anecdotes.
Nobody HAS to be skeptical. You can do and buy whatever you want. But if you want to disparage someone for being skeptical, please don't just pretend there aren't good reasons for skepticism. As if it's only just a case of someone being "close minded." If you care to JUSTIFY your criticism...do so...explaining for instance why some of the arguments above are faulty.
