[1] Summary of Objective versus Subjective Audiophiles, in general: Objectivists believe that audio components and systems must pass rigorously conducted double-blind tests and meet specified performance requirements in order to validate the claims made by their proponents.
British audio equipment designer Peter Baxandall, who is often considered an objectivist, has written, "I ... confidently maintain that all first-class, competently designed amplifiers, tested under completely fair and carefully controlled conditions, including the avoidance of overloading, sound absolutely indistinguishable on normal programme material no matter how refined the listening tests, or the listeners, may be; and that when an inferior amplifier is compared with a very good one and a subjective quality difference is genuinely and reliably established, it is always possible, by straightforward scientific investigation, to find a rational explanation for this difference."
British Hi-fi critic, Martin Colloms, writes that "the ability to assess sound quality is not a gift, nor is it the feature of a hyperactive imagination; it is simply a learned skill", which can be acquired by example, education and practice.
[8] In any event, the eventual purchase decision will be made by the end-user, whose "perception is reality" and can be influenced by factors other than the equipment's actual performance.
Objectivists argue that vacuum-tube amplifiers often exhibit lower-fidelity than solid-state designs, and that in addition to their substantially higher total harmonic distortion level, they require rebiasing, tend to be less reliable, less powerful, generate more heat, and are usually more expensive.
A more literally subjectivist argument is that listeners may be able to discern pleasurable benefits from tube equipment that would escape any attempt at objective measurement.
Thomas Edison, for example, showed that large audiences responded favorably when presented both live performances by artists and reproductions by his recording system,[13] which today would be regarded as primitive in quality.
Skepticism advocate James Randi has offered a $1 million prize to subjectivists who can prove their most dubious claims through scientific blind testing.