What are we objectivists missing?

After treading through the various forum posts re cables for the various uses we apply them to, be it amp>speakers, source>pre, pre>amp, et all.....

It still seems to me that the 'better' one's equipment is, or is in one's perception of what is played in the environment that it is done in...

...that what one experiences is a very subtle form of eq.

One may purport that cable Q is superior in their instance, while for others they stink in relation to cable R...or F...or whatever.

Granted, I've not had the pleasure to experience personally such gratifications beyond the occasional 'listening sesh'...in an entirely different space with equipment I've no personal experience with to any great degree.

In short: If your boat floats better, have at it.  Tell us about it; those who can indulge obviously may do so to whatever degree desired.

I've not heard every conceivable combination of equipment in one space that would allow for a critical opinion that would hold up under any and all scrutiny.

Not likely to, either.  So it comes down to pleasing oneself to whatever level one desires to take it to.

If one wants to regard me as a nasty narrow-minded jade...I'm good with that.

Been called worse...mostly on the highway, when a Focus keeps showing up in front of your Porsche in the other lane you didn't take.... ;)

On two different occasions, I've read articles by a very famous audiophile who claims LPs sound better than cds, who said something along the lines of, "I really liked how this xxx sounded but I haven't seen the measurements yet so I could have egg on my face." If you like how it sounds, measurements don't matter, but don't try and convince me that it's better than something else.

I figure subjectivists are like religious people and objectivists are the scientists. There is no proof that a new cable, silver fuse, etc improves the sound, but they believe it does As @djones51 said, until you take vision out of any audio testing, there's going to be bias.

"The most reliable method is to listen."

@ghdprentice ​​​@jtucker 

The most reliable method is to listen.    BLIND.  Repeated ABX testing is required.  A consistent score of 95% or better indicates a valid distinction.  All else is entirely invalid.  PERIOD.

Blind listening proves if there is a change or not.  Measurements are unnecessary - we are listening, not measuring.  That removes any suggestion measurements do not measure everything.

@henry53 

"The product measured 0.003% distortion. You cannot hear 0.003% distortion. The same pages waxes lyrical about a turntable that has 0.06% wow and flutter, that's 200 times higher?"

Back to math juniors Henry.  That's 20 times higher.  I note you put a question mark, so perhaps you weren't sure.

I believe there are several missing parts here. One would be time. A measurement is a snapshot. You run a test tone through a circuit and measure what comes out the other end. To measure something like ‘space between instruments in a sound stage’, the relationships between snapshots in time is required.

The room boundaries - discussed often here - are important but not factored in when tying a meter to the end of the wire. Since no two rooms are identical, a change which may help in one room would be the detriment to another.

Another part - the human ear. This is the last stage in sound - a device at the end of every signal path that is never measured. If the mechanism used to hear a sound is not part of the measurement, what use is the measurement? Our ears may react to sound waves in such a way, with more or lease sensitivity, more or less elasticity, that some changes in electrical characteristics of sound are either attenuated or lost altogether. This is like a suspension system in a speaker - dulling out some changes and accentuating others.  The human brain is a really good shelf. It is able to subconsciously shelve noises and frequencies  in our environment to still hear changes in tone while filtering out fan noise or noise from lighting ballasts.  
 

When we test fire alarm systems we do an audibility test. The recording which is played through the speakers is loaded into a hand held device. You walk throughout a space with the hand held and it compares what is being heard to what should be being played. The purpose is to determine if the words can be made out, but I think you get the idea. I consider that type of test to be closer to a real world test and you’ll find issues that cannot be identified by measuring the signal, ambient noise, or the speaker. I think the impossibility of doing the same in our listening rooms, with wires to the back sides of our eardrums, is why we reserve our judgement for a final listening test and put the results over any other test.