Critics aren't soul searching philosophers although they may be seekers and audiophiles at some level. They are marketing politicians, personalities, and entertainers who are created by the markets they dwell in.
Just like leaders in religions, critics MUST subscribe to certain polemic belief systems (even if they don't necessarily believe in them themselves) in order to maintain their positions as commercial high priests, or they won't have product coming through the doors any more and they won't enjoy whatever status their position gives them. So, high end audio is full of convenient superstitions and promulgated belief systems that serve markets as much as sound quality.
The recent silly controversies over 9" and 12" tonearms are a case in point. The error envelope of vinyl playback is so unalterable and huge, any "precision" involving differences is purely moot, yet everybody jumps on the bandwagon with an opinion about these fake precisions.
What is wrong with flavors? Nobody seems to object to them in food. I have may different and enjoyable ways of listening, and I like all of them.
I long ago cashiered the notion of the absolute sound, which is a manipulative construct, and now regard my audio system as a player piano playing indeterminate scrolls, which I want to sound a certain way and as good as possible. If it can make me hallucinate and intensify emotion and some sense of transcendent communication, that is good enough for me.
Audiophiles also have incredibly diverse motives, including prestige, exclusivity, and cost distinction, not to mention endless arrays of obsessive intoxication, not just sound quality, so as usual, one must eventually decide one's own priorities.
Lol this is how it works in the artbusiness also , but not all mags or reviewers are the same , some have more knowledge and are genuine