Mastering legend Bernie Grundman explains why the measurement crowd has it all wrong!

Where did you read that i claim to be an expert ?

I only submitted that objectivist and subjectivist quarrels are meaningless.. And are like twin enemy brothers focussed on gear with or without tools oblivious of acoustics ... Most people here place themselves in one side or the other ... This is why i insisted among others things on acoustics ..

Because sound experience is the result at last and first from psycho-acoustics basic ...Even good gear design must be grounded in acoustics knowledge ...

Then dont put in my mouth what i never said for the sake of debunking what i never claim : i am not an acoustician and never pretend to be one .. I am someone able to read text and who use that to design his own room ...And by the way no one understand hearing conmpletely on earth right now ...

My point here is basic concepts in acoustics are the only way to improve audio , not purchasing costly upgrade so better they could be ...And by acoustics concepts i dont means panels on a wall ...

How many person here insisted on that point for the last decade since i came here ?

i dont means room acoustics speaking of acoustics...If we dont know what is "timbre" in science how can we act to improve it in our room by experiments ? etc

No purchasing a 10,000 bucks costlier amplifier is not the best solution especially with a limited budget ... even if it improve the timbre experience it will not be enough anyway because nothing can replace room acoustics ... Thats my point ...

It is astounding to see people lacking any psycho-acoustics concepts quarelling about subjectivity OR objectivity as children divided in two groups

Quarelling - really? Debating would be the right word. Anyway, you also probably lack the complete knowledge on this topic and yet you are putting out your point in the debate. I do acknowledge that human hearing is far complex beyond current science and I do not understand it. But like to read and discuss about it - because that is the most FUNdaMENTAL thing about this wonderful passion/hobby.

“ I honestly have no idea what “accuracy of the music” means.

That’s one of the differences between you and Bernie.”

what? That he is fluent in gobbledygook and I am not? I guess it’s a job skill for folks working in the audio industry 

“Measurements aren't taken in the real world and the way the equipment is used, it's usually taken in isolation, not the system as a whole with music.”

what measurements are you looking at?

Music is not math or science.  It is art.

Music (art), math and science indeed may intersect, but they are not the same thing. They are all different things (again, it is true, especially math and music, that they often intersect).

If someone wants to listen to music after they've undertaken rigorous scientific and mathematical processes and/or determined they've achieved maximized fidelity by citing measurements on a page (irrespective of how the music actually makes them feel - of course, confirmation bias is always a hazard when one claims their music makes them 'feel better' because they've cited measurements on a page, but that's a whole other ball of wax), that is their prerogative.