That people ever got anyone to believe that a discussion around audio was anything but subjective is fascinating to me, but I wouldn't call this review "subjectivism" since it obviously doesn't participate in the denial of the usefulness of data.
It's funny that you bring up "evil," because basically any use of measurement data (with the rigs I have access to at least) would entail some acceptance of evil. For example, I have a measurement rig based on the GRAS 43AG-4 but the issue with it (and others like it + the genuine GRAS flat ear-and-cheek rigs) is that it vastly overestimates the SPL below 3 kHz relative to what a human will actually get.
So its a choice between two evils. The first is an industry standard/familiar to others measurement that is likely meaningfully inaccurate to what a human will actually hear. As we see often, this ultimately inaccurate measurement, due to it being familiar, will instill false confidence on the people who see the measurement and don't know its foibles in terms of how accurate it is to a typical human experience. The other evil, and what I opted for here, is an extremely accurate measurement made on a specific human that, by design, stops anyone from overextending the data beyond the person its actually relevant to.I understand the viewpoint that no industry standard test fixture data means its potentially less relevant to the viewers' experience, but when you both A) understand that most of the industry standard rigs have meaningful inaccuracies anyway and B) understand that most data from these fixtures is misused by people who don't understand A, the idea of a measurement without these inaccuracies that bakes in an assumption of not being able to misuse the data overconfidently seems like a compromise that could be worth choosing. Really it just depends on your goals.
Honestly one of the more interesting comments I've seen on one of these videos. Would be a good discussion for a livestream!
