Great comments! Glad you are liking the suggested video.
I disagree that audio is subjective.
Something that comes up constantly in audio forums is the claim that sound quality is "subjective," usually deployed to shut down conversation or excuse any result from any equipment.
But if that were really true, we wouldn't be able to have these discussions at all — and clearly we can. We read reviews, take recommendations seriously, update our views after a demo or a careful listening session. That's not what a purely subjective domain looks like.
What people usually mean when they say "it's subjective" is one of a few things: individual listeners have different sensitivities and preferences (true, and manageable), the variables are hard to control (also true, but that's an experimental challenge, not a metaphysical wall), or the causal chain from equipment to perception is complicated (absolutely — but complexity isn't the same as arbitrariness).
There's also a large scientific literature on psychoacoustics and listening preference that converges on real findings about what most listeners find pleasing, fatiguing, or accurate. That literature exists because the domain is tractable.
So "subjective" in audio mostly just means "I'm not going to control for those variables right now" — which is fine, but it's an admission about methodology, not a deep truth about sound. Once you account for room, recordings, listener sensitivity, and stated preferences, there are genuinely better and worse ways to achieve good sound. The conversation we're already having proves it.
