Indentical measurments = Identical performance?

I understand both sides of the issue.  Objectivists posit that if it can't be measured, then it doesn't exist.  There is a certain logic to the notion that what we hear is a function of the measurements of a piece of equipment, or that one cable sounds different because it measures differently in some way.  Subjectivists posit that measurements are irrelevant, and that all that matters is your subjective impression of the equipment. Subjectivist opinions are therefore . . . subjective. Some will have one impression of something, others will have a different impression.

I think that there is merit to measurements but it is clearly not the be-all and end-all.  There are so many factors, such as other equipment, speakers, room acoustics, cables, power, sources, etc. that it seems that subjective analysis is the only way to decide whether a piece of equipment is good for you.  How does one measure depth and width of soundstage, for example?  How does one measure the fact that one piece of equipment has an almost 3D presentation in space while another is more 2D? Logically, if it sounds different, it should measure different. But I don't think that there is a true correlation between how a piece of equipment sounds and how it measures.  so, bottom line, identical measurements do not mean identical performance.

I saw people making unfair comments here discrediting Stereophile in a similar fashion on ASR.  Stereophile supplements their extensive listening with measurements, while ASR occasionally adds de minimis listening test in the end of measurements.  Although I look at their measurements as one of the decision factors, I understand there are other psychoacoustic components not being measurable at least based on today's technology.  That is why identical measurements (available today) can not be equated with identical performance.  I found Stereophile reviews are as such much more trustworthy.  

There are so many technical factors. Crown International in the late 1970s, 80s made some of the best built and technically measured stereo equipment in the world. Dollar for dollar the best. .00025 intermodulation .0025 THD at full rated output in their preamps. Power amps .0025 IM and .025 THD at full rated output at any of the Amplifers from their 45WPC amp to their 500WPC Stereo reference. Did they sound good? You bet!  However, if you wanted to pay the money for a less powerful amp with worse specifications that sounded remarkably better you would buy a Mark Levinson Mono Block pair with their preamp. I owned a Crown PL 1 SL1 and enjoyed it for 40yrs. Still  sounds acceptable as long as the switch buttons work for power and function. So outstanding quality. After 15 years I sent it back to Crown. They replaced one small capacitor in the power protection circuit. It all tested like new. So, testing is great.  It gives you an idea on how accurately quality control throughout is designed into equipment. But it does nothing to tell you about sound. The system might spec great but be overly bright or too robust on the same speakers. So room matching, speaker matching preamp, power amp, source are all important factors just as important as technical measurements. My old Crown equipment was so much better technically than my new tube integrated but in no way sounds as good. No contest. 

I really do not see the point of these posts. ASR is not taken seriously by those who are really interested in music. It is best to ignore them and let them argue amongst themselves.