Pleasurably better, not measurably better

Enjoying how it sounds to you is all that’s important.

Agreed. I was enjoying things a lot and then I decided to try measuring the reflections and frequency curve in my room. After mitigating some peaks and troughs and eliminating some reflections, I enjoyed it more.

Measurements facilitated more enjoyment. That’s why I like measurements and why they are also important.

@hilde45 

I like the food analogy. Consider predicting how people will react to a dish by measuring the pH, thickness, saltiness, sweetness. Characterizing the food by single parameters is almost hopeless.  So you have the characteristics of a mixture and peoples values compounding the problem.

I also like food analogy - imagine that you order famous Korean dish known for it salty and sour taste, but you cover it with sugar to your taste.  Is it still original dish?
When I offer green tea to my friends they put two teaspoons of sugar into it.  It is perfectly OK, but it isn't a green tea IMHO.  You listen to clarinet, that produces only odd harmonics, thru amplifier that adds even harmonics (warm sound).  Do you still listen to clarinet or your syropy version of it?  You can do whatever you want - it is free country, but words "faithful reproduction" still mean something in both audio and food.

@ghdprentice You got at the heart of it, first, when you said, "The problem is the measurement problem is so oversimplified… it does not come close to characterizing sound as heard."

In early psychology, there is the idea of "minima sensibilia," roughly the threshold at which some phenomenon can be sensed. If we had that for audio measurements, it would help -- somewhat. I'm convinced that there is much we hear that no one knows how to measure for, yet. Skeptics will say this is just "subjective bias" but that catchall move just ends inquiry, cold. There's more at work, I'd expect.

@curiousjim