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

Well, deludedaudiophiles stated the divide quite clearly and repeatedly, the measurement crowd doesn't believe we can trust in our individual sensory perceptions to make best decisions.

Ok, certainly our sensory perceptions can fool us, but do present measurement regimes and total reliance on them lead us to a better individual decisions?

And then, we as humans have  great ability to learn, evolve, we have the ability to train ourselves to be better listeners. Listening to a wide variety of systems, components, even parts for the diy modder over a long period of time, exposes us to many variables, which if we're ever mindful of, can improve listening skills and aural memory. I'm not claiming this infallible method, but are measurements done in lab situ on individual components really a superior method for determining best sound quality for our systems in our rooms and for our unique ear/brain sensory perceptions! A really preposterous posit to my mind.

This is also not to say measurements don't have their place, certainly important to the engineer/designer, assembler of audio components. Also important for assembling a more synergistic audio system. But as a replacement for experienced listeners choosing for themselves this is symptom of machine belief. Perhaps some day, but AI hasn't yet surpassed human ability in choosing individual audio systems.

I also continue to sense the measurement/subjective divide is symptom of psychological reactive forces. One side doesn't trust humans in general sense, this obviously valid conclusion. And on our side, we have the self proclaimed 'Golden Ears', objectivists posing as subjectivists, irritating and extremely deluded with all their hubris. On the measurement side we have belief in machines, understandable response to human failability. measurements not subject to nearly endless vagaries of human variability. Perhaps some day AI will be preferred method for assembling an audio system, but not yet. I'll go back to robot model I brought up much earlier in thread. This portable measuring robot will be placed in each listening room, do full analysis of individual components, and full system analysis, will also know each individual listener preferences and/or sensory perception system. At this point I MAY trust measurment/machine over my own analysis/senses.

Well, deludedaudiophiles stated the divide quite clearly and repeatedly, the measurement crowd doesn’t believe we can trust in our individual sensory perceptions to make best decisions.

You misinterpret what I am saying. Sensory perception is important. You may prefer the artifacts in a tube amplifier. The output resistance of a tube amp may provide a pleasant change to the frequency response of your speaker and atmasphere has suggested some speakers prefer this. Turntables can have color in addition to the fact the mastering is different. These are significant changes for which preference is relevant.

Where the differences are extremely small, at least from an extensive measurement set, then preference is either a very questionable or false premise. Without testing if your brain is playing tricks on you I place little validity in it.

I do believe you need a happy medium of both sensory perception and the hard data to support that perception.

Neither side is right or wrong and we all interpret data and sensory inputs differently. 

What's the old saying  "One man's garbage is another mans gold" ????

You like what you like why argue. 

I personally would not trust user listening tests unless they don't know what they are listening to. The potential to fool ourselves is too high.

I wish I could be fooled into believing a system sounds good when it sounds bad. I'd save a lot of time or money. It's easy to "fool" oneself on a blind or short-term listening session. That is why the gold standard is long term evaluation. It's very hard to convince yourself somethings sounds good after you have experienced all it's flaws.