I think that, when it comes to audiophiles, even terms like "subjectivist" and "objectivist" themselves mean different thins to different people (or perhaps it's just a matter of applying them differently.) According to the dictionary, something that is objective is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts", and the meaning of subjective is "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions".
When it comes to audiophiles I've actually seem this pair of terms used in several different contexts.
In the context of the dictionary meaning, an "objectivist" is someone who always considers the things that measures best to be best, while a "subjectivist" bases what's best at least somewhat on their personal opinion. So, for example, an objectivist would say "a good solid state amplifier is better than a triode amplifier because it has lower distortion" whereas a subjectivist might say "the triode amplifier is better because I think it sounds better". Note that there is no actual disagreement on the facts involved... but simply a different choice of priorities. (Of course, a subjectivist might point out that, since there is no objective measure for "sound quality", there can never be an objective claim about sound quality at all.)
However, in the audiophile community, I see a lot of disagreements labelled as being "subjective vs objective" that are really something different.... and a lot of that seems to originate from the fact that a lot of the subject matter itself is very complex and often doesn't lend itself to a simple objective analysis (which is itself a subject of disagreement). For example, someone stated in another post that "if we wanted to decide which amplifier was more accurate we could simply measure it" or "we could simply do a null and the amplifier that provided the best null would be the most accurate". However, in reality it's not so simle, because there are a long list of measurements we could make, and no set way to prioritize them.
Which would be the more accurate amplifier?....
- the one with a frequency response flat from 20 - 20k +/- 2 dB and 0.01% THD
- the one with a frequency response flat from 20 - 20k +/- 0.1 dB and 1% THD
Obviously neither is perfect.
And you can't simply say that "the one that nulls with a smaller resulting difference is more accurate"...
Because one or the other of those differences might turn out to be far more audible.
To make matters even more complex, even though both may be audible, different individuals may find one or the other more important to them.
(In that context, you might say that the decision about how to prioritize the objective differences was itself subjective.)
Another thing I find is that many arguments supposedly between "subjectivism" and "objectivism" really relate more to other distinctions....
For example, I find that many audiophiles, and most humans in general, really prefer to self-identify themselves as being objective.
For example, a true subjectivist would say: "I like tube equipment, even though it is less accurate, and has more distortion, because I just plain prefer the way it sounds".
However, in reality, many audiophiles instead adopt a pseudo-objective point of view (apparently "everybody likes to believe their opinion is based on facts").
Instead of that, they claim: "Even though the THD, IMD, and frequency response are worse, tube equipment is still OBJECTIVELY better in some other ways you aren't measuring."
Some may claim that "it provides a more holographic 3D soundstage" - as if that were simply a mesaurement we didn't bother to make.
Others will actually insist that there is an objective yet intangible difference - which can be easily heard but cannot ever be measured.
Note that neither of these is "true subjectivism" because they're claiming that the difference is a real physical thing and not a matter of personal opinion.
A "true subjectivist" would care only what they personally experienced and 'felt".
They would say: "I like it and that's all that counts" - and wouldn't bother to argue with others whose opinions disagree with theirs.
In the case of something like headphones it's impossible to say that "one is objectively better than the other".... because the differences are too complex.
Perhaps, to you, the one with the flattest frequency response is better...
While, to someone else, the one with the lowest THD is better...
And, to yet another person, both are of equal priority...
And, of course, to someone else, the one that is the most comfortable would be the best ("if you can't stand to wear it them it doesn't matter how good it sounds".)
Back when SONAR was being developed, the Navy chose to use electrostatic headphones for SONAR gear....
Presumably, based on the technology of the day, they found that electrostatic headphones were best for discerning the sorts of fine details SONAR operators need to listen for...
This agrees with my personal experience - that electrostatic headphones seem to do a very good job of making very fine details and textures stand out.
But I'm not sure if this means they're "accurate"... or just that they emphasize details...and it's certainly a matter of individual taste if you prefer to have details emphasized or not.
I personally DO prefer equipment that allows me to discern all of the finest detail as well as I possibly can.
(And, in return for that benefit, I'm willing to accept the cost that it might make some flaws more obvious that I might prefer to overlook.)
But, of course, that is a personal choice, and not some assertion of "objective superiority".