Yes I'm well aware of the rich history and layers of meaning behind the word audiophile.
Then why not be more clear and say "what's wrong with some audiophiles?"
And I remain skeptical that any significant number of audiophiles hold the position at odds with the one I expressed on soundstaging.In fact, not once in my entire life (decades of on-line in audiophile forums) can I remember an audiophile who was truly at odds with the account I gave.
As to the quote you produced, given the context you started of complaining about "what's wrong with audiophiles?" that quote is just as reasonable a question. It's entirely valid to question the reasonableness of audiophiles paying tons of money thinking they are getting audible performance gains from an item that measures no different than the one they are replacing. In fact, it's fairly bizarre if you don't even recognize the validity of that type of question!
This one arrogant post does exactly what I've been saying: ridicules subjectivity (what people actually hear!)
And that's where you are conflating issues - equating people's subjective experience with what they "ACTUALLY" hear.
They are not one and the same. If I say "I heard a dog barking" that typically is a claim that there was actually a dog making that sound.Similarly, when audiophiles say "I heard tighter bass" from that cable, that typically is a claim that the cable actually REALLY did change the sound, not merely that the person imagined it.
But people's inferences from their subjective experience can be wrong.That's both obvious, and well established scientifically. And it's frankly weird as hell how strenuously many audiophiles want to deny this variable, particularly when it comes to their own perception.
And if you think simply speaking honestly that way about the fallibility of our perception and inferences entails that I promote some scientific dogmatism must control this hobby, please read my previous post on that subject.