Yup!
What I always find curious, and this is a perfect example, is why there is this, at least implied, objection to someone else listening and arriving at a subjective impression; along with whatever other criteria the measurements may or may not satisfy. This is what belies the bias of the naysayers; the predisposition to NOT hear a difference. IOW, here we have the measurements and no listening. To some, the absence of listening impressions invalidates the review for reasons already mentioned. To others, listening is deemed irrelevant and subject to placebo effects; measurements are the last word. However, we still have the measurements. So, the objectivists have their “proof”. Why does it matter to the objectivists that others use different (additional) criteria (listening)?