Better Sounding Systems, Objectivists or Subjectivists?

@tommylion 

Well, now, if someone tells me, or a group of "certified audiophiles" tell me, to hop up and drop a big 'ol steamer on top of my amplifier - no, I'm not going to do it and listen (or challenge my other oganoleptic senses) to see if makes any difference in sound. Now, should they explain to me a plausible mechanism whereby their claimed "improvements" could be effectuated by said steamer...well, no, in this instance I still wouldn't care. Point being, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary (or jeez, at least Ordinary) evidence of a plausible mechanism.

Psycho-acoustic is not subjectivist nor objectivist....

The better sounding system is always the best acoustically embedded one...

All the rest is upgrading marketing conditionment in all audio thread...

Timbre tonal playing microstructure EXPERIENCE is related to a specfic ears in a specific room...

Controlling the acoustical factors in relation to specific gear Is way more important than just using a tool to measure an amplifier quality or cherry pick amplifier by ears...The last two is not the end of the process, it is not even the beginning of the process...

Music listening is an esthetical and spiritual acoustically CONTROLLED experience in a room ...Like a musician controlling his playing body....

In the 2 cases timbre optimal perception is the key....

The worst system is the one created by objectivist, then less worst by subjectivist, the better one is created by an acoustician...

Some will demand an explanation of how something works before they are willing to try it, but, if it works (produces the desired results), no explanation is required for it to do so.

The worst system is the one created by objectivist

Objectivist? This has nothing to do with a system. They typically don’t need any “system” to really be an expert. They just KNOW. You know, graphs is the Internet and such 😉

Some will demand an explanation of how something works before they are willing to try it, but, if it works (produces the desired results), no explanation is required for it to do so.

Demand?  That's not nice, who likes demanding people?  I show them my back.

Anyway, is there something, anything, implicit in this statement that there exists no possible explanation or reason available for producing the desired results?