Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?

Science explains the music and the gear completely

The gear yes ....

The music not at all...

Music is not only sound sorry....

No more than pitch perception is reducible to physical acoustic...

Read about psychoacoustic= physical acoustic and neurophysiology of perception ...

After that add music studies which is irreducible to any of the fields i just name....

Science is not a "superstition" or a belief in audio thread that explain anything and everything , it is a complex grid of fields studies without ANY alleged artificial unity save for his rigorous method.....

I prefer Puccini.

Then i apologize to you....

Puccini is a God in music....

My best to you....

What makes you think your claim is true?

Perhaps you can provide examples that I've obviously missed. As I stated, test tones and sub audible measurements are no indication of how music sounds.

Science asks the questions that humans contrive with the tools humans design. Data is selected according to human interests. Worshipping tools rather than contextualizing their use is an instance of misplaced concreteness. A.k.a., "scientism."

Science records, stores, reproduces and delivers music to your ears. How it sounds is user defined.