"Most certainly. You were making an argument based on a misrepresentation of someone's position which is the very definition of a straw man fallacy." His position was that SINAD does not indicate poor performance in a device that specifically is meant to interpret digital data into analog, which is factually incorrect for any number of reasons. "...is pretty hard to dispute...objectively..." of course that's hard to dispute objectively, it's an opinion. Subjectivity varies from person to person, but what you're misunderstanding is that an opinion can be directly scrutinized with proper evidence. There is no evidence to back the veracity of his claim, it's simply a statement with no weight, which is counter to the (at least somewhat reasonably defined) evidence provided by the measurements. So while I objectively can't claim he's incorrect, I can provide evidence to the contrary.
"I get that you are offended when it is pointed out that the behavior of diehard objectivists is cult-like..." please don't make that assumption, I'm not at all offended.
"...that is what I was referring to by forwarding petty division with straw men...if your assertion is so, why are diehard objectivists who want to totally discredit subjective observation NOT a cult?" So this is obviously 2 parts, but I'm just going to address it as one. I was purposely dismissive here, because honestly the stance of most subjectivity tends to err on the side of avoiding objective reasoning altogether (but what I was doing wasn't actually to further my argument, it was to be combative, I'd already made my stance prior to what you're considering my straw-man). I don't mind subjectivity, so long as it's grounded and rational. Also, you are not entirely incorrect that the strict objectivists could be considered cult-like in their unwavering dedication to measurement, but here's the difference between the two: one of those sides can be, at the very least, verified through testing and reasoning, and the other largely cannot. Which begs the question, is it a cult if you're just being logical, or if it's simply adhering to something because you want to believe is true? Logic dictates, at least here, that the side with the most reasonable claims are the ones less professing of fanatical adherence to specific values. Both sides believe they are correct, to the point of absurdity, but I personally find it silly to consider objectivity the less reasonable of the two.
"The corollary is also true: You can state objective facts, but that does not necessarily make an opinion false." You and I agree here, but I will tell you that my line of work consistently deals with subjectivity almost as a standard. So that being what it is, the truth is that while you cannot always directly refute a person's opinion (mostly because people don't want to hear conflicting reports), if you can offer verifiable reasons as to why it might not be as accurate as they believe, that's relatively important. I have to do this a fair amount day-to-day. The problem for me is that in something like musical equipment, it either is or isn't, which is vastly different to me than, say, the perception of Art and Design at the subjective level.
"(seriously?)" Seriously. I was a teenager in the 90's, it slips out sometimes. I'm sorry, does that discredit me somehow?
"Links?" I'm on lunch, if you care to continue our conversation beyond this point I will look around, but I don't have the time to do my due diligence, sorry (it's not for lack of want, of course, I like to be concise). Anyway, we'll follow the rest of this directly into the next part since it's going to correlate to my response. "Right back at you...A DAC is a DAC. I'm not portraying it in any other way than what it is. How am I portraying it? Or, more accurately, how are you interpreting that I'm portraying it?" Well, for starters, you're defending a DAC that actually doesn't do it's job correctly at the output level, per measurements? You're portraying it thus: "the intention for audio devices is sound quality; Airist has succeeded." But does it? How do we actually know, aside from your opinion on the matter? Well, it was put up against other devices on a scientific level, and shown to interpret the signal with far less accuracy than others (and so we're clear, that's if we put it up against R-2R's, not just Delta-Sigma implementations), so where's the leg to stand on? Also, obviously a DAC is a DAC, and an AMP is an AMP, what are you even trying to say? It's obviously not about what it is, but about how it functions (which is to near faulty levels).
"That is one of the talking points parroted ad nauseum. My point is that your concept of 'objectifiable mediocrity' does not always manifest in the ways that our limited understanding predicts." For the very thing you accused me of, this is of equal weightlessness. I can not prove it to you, either because you don't want to believe, or because you refuse, therefore it must cancel out evidence disputing it. This is illogical, do you not agree? There are obviously other factors, but this argument makes far more sense at the Amplifier or Headphone level than it does at the DAC level, where the sole job is for the unit to reproduce an accurate signal (once you step into amplifiers and headphones I believe preference is reasonable, but this is an opinion so I suppose it should be considered inscrutable).
I missed the confirmation-bias part, pardon this not being linear. "...ah yes...as predicted... the confirmation-bias put down." This wasn't a put down (obviously it struck a chord, you decided to attack me and ranted about these sorts of behaviors following this remark), but it's obvious you have a bias towards the equipment either through ownership, or your own need to feel correct in your argument. That italicized section is also not a putdown, it is simply a potential observation. Bias is not strictly bound to ownership, obviously, but also the fact that people hate to be wrong. You even so much as try to reaffirm yourself before moving on by saying "honestly, I'm pretty fucking smug when I find out I'm right, and I'm ecstatic when I find out I'm wrong." I don't believe you're ever ecstatic when you find out you're wrong, because nothing you've said here convinces me of that. That statement comes off as extremely self-congratulating, so we're clear (you seem like a smart enough person, you don't need to shake your own hand). I don't like to be wrong, personally, but I am comfortable with admitting fault.
"exactly! which is why 'transparency' is only part of the picture(or sound)." But what you're totally missing (and I purposely didn't paste the rest of your rant, but I'm going to address it) is that I don't mind when someone likes coloration in their sound. I don't even mind if someone wants to pay $350 for a device that colors it before it ever gets to a device like the 789 (which immediately makes its performance less than ideal), but why defend its performance as admirable or comparative to other offerings when it simply isn't? And while all of that equipment you listed may sound perfectly fine to you, and it may sound fine, I don't own any of it, it doesn't mean it's theoretically doing its job with precision. In fairness, distorting music isn't always the wrong approach, especially if it's recorded poorly. But I just don't think a person should be willing to do that at the signal level. So while I know it upset you that it's objectively mediocre, and you think it sounds okay, that doesn't mean it's not objectively mediocre. Once you adjust to just about anything, it will sound okay, per your psychoacoustics rant (which is a fun tie-in to that whole thing you mentioned about living with an item long enough to get a sense of it, I guess). But the scrutiny, apparently, isn't allowed at that point.
I'm not putting you into any boat, though you may want to stop referring to the word cult, seeing as I didn't use that word first. I don't even know how you can conclude that I misrepresented someone's stances, but to each his own (and, likewise, I would warn you to not misrepresent other's stances in the future as well). The issue here, I believe, is that you think I'm solely objective. Which I'm not, but as I said previously, I don't like to make statements that can't be verified, at least partially, in some form or fashion. This pertains almost exclusively to mechanical or electrical devices, if you want to have a discussion about other subjective things you are more than welcome to open up for new discourse.
TL;DR, don't worry, I'm equally as long-winded.