The problem is that it's not always easy to do your own research for "caveat emptor".
It's not always easy to know that the volume has been raised a bit in order to make things sound better (in fact, I have been fooling myself too about volume levels, even when diligently trying to volume match! -- I don't think I am the only one). But that is a rather simple example compared to something like MQA, for instance. It took a bunch of experts on Computer Audiophile and a blogger named Archimago to expose the technically quite intricate scam, which is obviously not about sound quality but about digital rights management and the associated stream of money (yes, some might still think MQA sounds better, but that is not because it is, but because it introduces pleasant euphonic distortions or because the particular mastering listened to is better).
Of course, the whole MQA episode now leaves 'esteemed' writers like John Atkinson and Robert Harley, who had praised in into the Heavens, embarrassed, with their pants down (even if they won't concede that). I think it's a shame, frankly, that they failed miserably on MQA without asking the tough questions, because otherwise I often find Harley in particular a good reviewer/writer.
Yet how would the non-technical consumer know?
So anyone who exposes deceit gets my up vote.
+1000
I actually got fooled into thinking that MQA was a great platform myself. At the demo I heard, the SQ with MQA was better, but the demo was shall we say- 'gamed' --even though I don't think the exhibitor who put on the demo was fully aware of that!! ( IF I give him the benefit of the doubt, which in his case, I do). Nonetheless, the whole affair has left a very bad taste in my mouth for MQA..and one that would have been a lot worse IF I had actually opened my wallet to support that drivel.