Vote

However, I do rely on specifications to decide which components I am interested in auditioning.

If you can't measure it, you don't know what you're talking about. Subjectivity is spectulative.

I'm an objectivist in theory, which is to say that I believe that audio quality is potentially measurable. However, current measurement techniques fail to capture all the differences that are apparent to the well trained ear. As measurement techniques improve, I believe they will approach subjective perceptions more closely. Inevitably, subjective impressions are colored by things other than the innate qualities of whatever piece of equipment is at issue.

I choose to leave the objective measures of audio to the scientists and the subjective measures of audio to the listeners. It is not that objective data is not important, it is that it does not impact on the listening experience.

I'm equal amounts of both. I believe subtle sonic differences exist between components that measure alike using current testing procedures. I believe that some people are better listeners who can hear these differences after thoughtful listening sessions but not necessarily in A/B testing. I believe that objectivists would be able to measure such sonic differences electronically if they would devise the appropriate measurement/test procedures. The current debate from entrenched positions works against this happening. Why can't an objectivist try to figure out how to measure what a subjectivist says he hears? Stereophile's bench tests have been a step in this direction, where the tester often tries to explain the subjective reviewer's observations by using measurement results such as impedance mismatching, sometimes minor frequency response variations, phase and time alignment, etc. We need more of this.

Direct experience relies more on using your ears and less on number crunching and the disputable laws of physics when it comes to true acoustic audio. There are too many holes in experimental evidence (objectivist) to pass an accurate judgement. You have to use your ears and go from there. That means subjectivist is the way to go. You have to get out and listen.

if you believe you have golden ears on loan from God, how could you fail in a double blind test?

How it sounds is what cou nts.

You have to be able to do a bit of both to get the full picture, but ultimately it comes down to the fact you listen to music with your ears :)

I don't have a storage scope nor a frequency generator with a calibrated microphone at home, but I do know what real music sounds like. If it sounds good I like it, otherwise I couldn't care less about it.