You're assuming perfect ears, Feri. I can't personally hear frequencies at the very top of the HF range, but that doesn't mean I don't want to know what is happening up there - for one thing, others who might listen to my system CAN hear those high frequencies, so relying on my personal ear tests to get it right would not be a good idea.
I find graphs to be a much easier way to see what is going on in my room than simply by listening. For example, when I had that problem with one of my (former) subs needing a phase reversal, I had no idea, simply from listening, what the problem was. I had a 'sense' that my bass 'wasn't right' or as good as it should/could have been but I could have conducted listening tests for ever and still not got to the bottom of what needed changing. One OmniMic test that took less than 10 minutes revealed the problem AND allowed me to fix it.
I have found that if it measures good, then it also sounds good. The flatter I have managed to make my graphs and the better I have been able to control in-room reflections and decay times (by measuring and then making changes), the better the sound has been when I have subsequently listened. Again, I could have listened for a long, long time and that would have told me that my room was ringing, but it wouldn't have given me any clue as to how to fix it, other than by blind experimentation/listening tests - which could have taken for ever.
So yes, I do rely on graphs/measurements more than ear tests. But the point is, that reliance leads to better sound, which my ears then appreciate.
I don't understand. You asked Igor to run both a 44K and a 48K REW measurement, and listen to both. How can changing the REW sampling rate alter what he hears?
Can we move on to something more interesting, please?
I was commenting on your post in which you said "Let's talk after you have rectified the validity of your measurement graphs, ...48 kHz sample rate setting in REW + listening test, both!!!". I'm sure I misunderstood your intention, but when I first read the post it sounded like you were asking Igor to take both a 44K and a 48K sampling measurement, and listen to the system after each REW measurement for any difference. Of course, this would make no sense, since REW doesn't alter the calibration. My apology for misunderstanding your intention. However, I stand by my original claim that the sampling rate would not be the cause of the pecularity Igor is seeing in his measurement.