No, remember, I said "by any objective metric." Sound is subjective. You can certainly prefer the sound of the average turntables at the dawn of consumer digital. Or you can prefer the sound of the mastering for vinyl of that era. Or both. Or you can not know which it is you're preferring. It's when folks get into believing that the table is quieter, has greater dynamic range, more accurate frequency response, better channel separation, better speed stability, that it becomes a bit delusional. This is what marginalized affordable high fidelity and replaced it with "high end." The stuff we preferred wasn't "better." So the hobby and the industry re-defined better.
Back to the music lovers, "most people" prefer to buy and live with stuff that is even more affordable than "mid fi" stereo. Audiophiles are exotic hardware aficionados of the music lover crowd. If that's the real test, even modest stereo systems have lost out.
We're going to have to agree to disagree as I see no evidence of this. On the contrary, I see audiophiles looking down their noses at SOTA performance when it is reasonably priced. The Benchmark DAC is a perfect example. Some of the Emotiva gear, which even makes the Benchmark look expensive, also comes to mine.
Both of them?
Not sure there's enough time. People hear what they believe in, what they expect to hear. One man's clarity is another's strident. One's "timbral weight" is the next's colored midrange. That's the point. The hobbyist's obsession with minutiae drives the "high end," not fidelity. The dead giveaway is that the gear itself is a "hobby," not a collection of tools for reproducing recording. Nothing wrong with that, but there it is.
Tim