Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson
objectivism versus subjectivism. Objectivists rely on measurements of test tones as an essential part of evaluating and reporting an audio device's performance—perhaps even giving these measurements the final say—while subjectivists rely mostly on their perception of a device's performance playing real music. They must also use words to describe their experience, which much more difficult than presenting test results.
Your definitions were written by, or given to you by, a subjectivist camp member and are inaccurate.
A subjectivist relies on sighted evaluations of themselves or "expert" reviewers. They may or may not take measurements and try to do any correlations of them to their sighted experience. Data that doesn't correlate well is disregarded and is considered proof that "Our ears are better arbiters than test instruments" rather than considering the sighted evaluation may have been keying on some other cues or influences, possibly subliminal to the test subject (the listener), such as, for example, small level differences < 1 dB, the price tag, etc.. Oddly data that does correlate is trotted out as proof they were "correct", so interestingly measured data always
fits their overall agenda!
An objectivist, AKA a person whose data the AES might actually consider for publication, uses blind (ideally double blind) tests of groups
of people in order to establish if an audible difference can be discerned with a predetermined level of statistical significance. If one person is found to have "golden ears", or is specifically trained to hear subtleties, such as how Harman research is often conducted, then they are often hand selected to do further, more refined testing.