These are happy times for audiophiles as even at $549, one can achieve at the minimum 95% of the best out there. IMO.
It’s hard to believe that Bluetooth headphones using AAC codec can sound almost as good as as those expensive audio equipments.
I would agree. None of my wireless headphones has the equivalent performance of my wired ones. I am skeptical that the Airpods Max can overcome the limitations of bluetooth. But all that computational power is doing something, so I'll wait until they go on sale and then evaluate myself.
fretting over AAC compression (unless we're going beneath 256) is silly, it's almost no objective difference. Only the most trained of ears will notice a difference.
There are obviously physical differences which would preclude some people hearing the difference. It is true, in a sense, that untrained ears may not notice the difference. One may be happy with the crappy sound of airpods if that is all you have ever heard. But if you really care about your music, get a kick out of hearing an instrument or sound which is missing in airpods, then you will never go back once you have used high quality headphones. Lots of people don't care. There are also lots of people who do care, or would care if they were given the opportunity to hear really good sound (I hope!).
I've never really understood the "audiophile" term in the first place. Everyone hears different and if someone tells me that a certain pair of headphones are fantastic because they hear them as fantastic that means absolutely nothing to me. It matters how they sound to me and that's really all. Is being an "audiophile" some type of degree you earn? Aren't you just listening to music like everyone else? You might own more high tech equipment but that doesn't really mean you hear anything better than me, it just means that you've decided to invest more of your money into higher priced audio equipment that is supposed to sound better. How is that at all relevant to how something like the Airpods Max sound to each person?
My point being, when you put on a pair of AirPod Max's you aren't hearing anything more than anyone else is hearing. I don't understand why if an "audiophile" says these are good why that is supposed to mean anything to me.
If you don't care about sound quality then it wouldn't mean anything. If you do, someone who calls themself an audiophile is saying that they really care about the quality of music that they hear. There are a ton of audio options out there. If you are interested in figuring out which ones might work for you their experiences can guide you. Of course this depends on the individual.
I don't under why if a so called "critic" says these are good why that is supposed to mean anything to me.
A movie, music, play, or other critic watches/listens/watches to earn a living. To get paid that means that they have things to say that some people, maybe not you, might be interested in - if you happen to like that particular critic. They evaluate hundreds/thousands (over a lifetime) of pieces 8 hours a day which is impossible for someone who has to work in some other field to make a living. If you find a reviewer you like you can find things which otherwise you would have missed. It is like having a good work mentor who points you in the right direction.
So then everyone is an audiophile. Movie, tv, and even art critics are simply giving their opinion on the subject matter.
Yep. But they have massive historical experience, can do comparisons to pull the wheat from the chaff. Their opinion may not match your interests. I see a lot of critics who recommend jazz recordings. Since that's not my musical style I pretty much ignore them. I pay a lot of attention to critics who recommend the best sounding recordings. A lot of my music library is based on their recommendations. Without them I wouldn't have found these recordings, some of which are absolutely awesome.