The argument over "objective" (which are often not objective) measurements vs. "subjective" (which need not be subjective) listening is as old as modern audio, perhaps older.
Some of us of a "certain" age will recall references to the "Julian Hirsch" school of objective audio reviewing. It was, at first, the only school. Julian Hirsch was the principal reviewer for "High Fidelity" magazine. It was pure measurement. No listening. It proved, for example, that cheap Japanese direct-drive turntables were better than expensive belt-drive turntables. Sometimes these were called manufacturer sanctioned measurements. I call these measurements not objective because if they don’t correspond to what you hear, you’re measuring the wrong things. They also measured electronic components for the usual specifications and "proved" that early solid state outperformed the best tubed electronics. They were busy selling whatever the mass producers were making.
So along come Gordon Holt and Harry Pearson (HP) with their iconoclastic choice of listening to systems and components. Though called and still called subjective, they showed there was an objective side to listening. That was an educated ear’s comparison to acoustic music in real space. HP soon invented a vocabulary of sound including the concept of "sound stage" He made it a requirement that his reviewers regularly attend concerts of live unamplified music. Most of that is classical. It was HP’s assertion that if a component was good on classical music it would be good on everything. The listening was always done by substituting the component into a familiar reference audio system and listening to familiar recordings, many of which were available for the reader to buy. That was followed by a discussion of how the component brought the system closer or further from the real thing. If this seems somewhat familiar to those on this thread it is because of @dbb’s outstanding writing. That kind of listener reviewing is very different from most of what I read these days which are simply multiple ways of saying, "I like it."
So this distinction between measurement and listening will go on and on. As has been shown there’s really no point to interrupting the other side’s party.
