Originally Posted by bedlam inside
No need for yet another subjectivist vs. objectivist debate.
Except when someone who calls themself a "subjectivist" (but who really isn't but is instead what I refer to as a "pseudo-objectivist") goes and makes an objective claim.
Otherwise, there is no legitimate debate between true subjectivists and objectivists. Sadly there aren't many true subjectivists out there. Instead what you have are a bunch of the pseudo-objectivists that I refer to above. Those who call themselves subjectivists, but operate from the premise that their subjective perceptions are an effectively unerring reflection of objective reality and make what are unquestionably objective claims as was the case here. True subjectivists don't operate from such a premise and don't go on making objective claims.
For the record, the "objectivist" audio jazz mags have all gone belly up. The others are still around.
Last I looked, Stereophile is still publishing. And while Stereophile can't be said to be wholly objectivist (nor can you really say that about the "objectivist" magazines you refer to), every full review, save for those of power devices, tweaks, cables, cartridges and turntables, is accompanied by a suite of objective measurements.
I guess that means the "subjectivists" have won and there is no need for guerrilla action.
But as I said, there is no legitimate debate between true subjectivists and objectivists. It's only when the so-called "subjectivists" attempt to cross the line into objectivism that there is debate.
The solution is to ultimately put to rest the inappropriately described "subjectivist vs. objectivist" meme.