I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

«Beating a dead horse is an idiomatic expression with a figurative rather than literal meaning. If you’re beating a dead horse, you’re engaged in a futile or pointless action. In other words, you’re pursuing a lost cause and wasting time and effort.»

Then who beat a dead horse ? Me proposing multiple aspects of reflections about the brain, information theory, number, music, the cosmos with reference to recognized great minds, or those who insult me here some zealots insisting  going on without end "to beat the dead horse" out of any subjectivist described as "deluded" , or those fetichists insisting  going on without end  "to beat the dead horse" out of any objectivist and even banishing them ?

It does not take a I.Q. test to answer me here....Or pehaps it takes one ?

😁😊😊 Sorry i could not resist to present my defense and my point...

But it is solely about measurements versus subjective.

So maybe it is because we cannot describe feelings and impressions and emotions as easily as we can express things with numbers… maybe that is why we use objective analysis?

At this point we have moved to beating a dead horse using AI and machine learning.
We should be at the glue stage soon.

Now two remarks here....

My feeling and impressions correspond and CORRELATE to ACOUSTIC experience and very well defined concept to describe sound experience: Imaging, soundstage, timbre, bass, LEV/ASW ratio, dynamic, etc all had a precise psycho-acoustic and acoustical definition and can be understood ONLY when we learn how to control them at will in a room if we are an audiophile or in a laboratory if we are an acoustician ...

Buying like a fetichist a piece of favorite brand name gear is not enough, and measuring like a zealot a second times this piece of gear to correct the designer and verify it, is not enough either... And arguing if we must measure OR listen is ridiculous...A dead horse alternatives...

Objective measures of any kind, electrical one or acoustical one, are there to serve our leaning hearing subjective experience and process and serve to improve our impressions by our own will to experiment with objective material dispositions ...

And you read me WRONG, i did not propose, nor any of the scientists i used in my posts,  to replace human mind by a machine to improve room acoustic... It is the opposite, i explicitly say that even if an A. I. will be better for many aspect of the job but not all, it will rob us of our own learning process.... Do you read posts or do you answer them without reading them?

Then interpretating me wrong, it is you who circle "beating your dead horse" alternatives : O or S....

I am not an O or a S... I am in the learning process...

I used to be surprised by such antics but that was long ago. It's silly to argue with those who employ ad hominem attacks, circular reasoning and other mental gymnastics, imo, unless you simply enjoy ill logic. For me that's just a waste of time.

For sure you are more wise than i am...

I am only a too much enthusiastic person....

my deepest respect to you....

In another thread, perhaps this thread, @prof clearly differentiates between subjective preferences and subjective impressions.  We are beating a dead horse, because we are ignoring the initial premise of the thread in some unusual, I would say bizarre special pleading that in the framework of the discussion is totally meaningless. It is self indulgent to even bring it up, and is brought up purely to advance a personal belief while ignoring relevance to the topic.

As has been stated too many times in this thread, and others just in the last few weeks. Almost no one doubt personal preference is not a thing and is not important. But as @prof eloquently stated, and I have in less eloquent fashion, that is not at all what we are ultimately discussing. We are discussing whether your personal impressions represent REAL changes in the sound that is being reproduced or are purely the result of the inconsistent nature of the brain to reach the same conclusion based on poor memory, and any number of other inputs including mood, visual inputs, other sensory inputs, etc. that are involved in processing the current environment and reaching an answer. As the weightings of those inputs are so variable over time, and memory so inexact, it is near impossible to reach objective conclusions based on subjective impressions. Hence why the insistence that subjective impressions can only be treated as objective conclusions, if, and only if, you make all attempts to isolate the inputs available in making the subjective impression. The so called blind testing's goal is to remove a variable from the outcome, namely our most critical sensory input, vision. This should be obvious to anyone who tries to compare to items. I won't insult you by saying we need to remove the variable of touch, and I hope you are not smelling or tasting your audio equipment, but the smell of a tube amplifier (from heat effects) if only evident while listening to it, could also impact a test.

I am sure someone will now post multiple paragraphs and multiple posts of unrelated self indulgent material that not only is unrelated but has no value in answering the question above, but I can only control my own actions.