[mlyle]

> > objectively higher quality audiophile equipment

> Objectivity and audiophile in the same sentence always makes me suspicious

While we can't detect all the things that people talk about or rave about...

There's a whole lot of things we can measure pretty well; THD+N, intermodulation, frequency response, jitter & phase noise, etc. If something measures better on those simple measurements, and we're not deliberately looking for some warm distortion, etc-- we can know it's better.

His point is that cheaper equipment performs better on objective tests that Schiits. The "better" may not matter, but the point is that cheaper and better is a more desirable combo than more expensive and worse.

[atoav]

I mean human hearing is well known by now. We have a pretty good understanding what makes up certain sounds. Yet, given the nature of the subject on the fringes of perception people start to develope a lot of fantasy, like a child walking through the dark woods seeing monsters and mysterious creatures everywhere. You can surely measure everything, but you also have to do it.

Where audio stuff gets the hardest (and what makes the most impact) is room acoustics and the conversion from and to sound waves (so: microphones and speakers and their position within said rooms).

The power amplifiers, preamps etc. can then either be adequate or inadequate to drive those speakers or amplify those microphones neutrally. If you want everything else than high fidelity (e.g. the subtle crossover distortion and warm sound of a class AB tube amplifier) this is a different thing, but don't call it high fidelity.

[orangepurple]

More expensive and worse wins if it enhances your perceived social status. For example, Ferraris are not the best track cars, they're not the worst either, but they are a potent status symbol. In any case there exist much cheaper options which can outperform them.