The polar extremes in audio seem to be the:

• If It Ain't Measured, It Aint' Shit (AMIAS for short)
  
• If I Hear It, it Must Be True (HIMBT for short)

AMIAS folks are enamored with microphones, technology, theory, graphs and meters. Every nuance of performance must be attributed to something seen on a computer screen. Everything audio must be distilled down to physics. They berate anybody who hasn't done proper ABX experimental testing. Some must spend more on their measurement gear than they do on the gear they actually listen to.

HIMBIT folks dwell almost entirely in the netherworld of psychoacoustics. Many subscribe to the "you get what you pay for" school. If it costs a lot, it must help. Nothing is too outlandish, preposterous, or unrelated if they can hear the difference. They disregard AMIAS graphs because the computer just isn't sensitive enough to hear what they hear. Tweaking is the focus of their time.

Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle leaning toward the AMIAS side a bit. I know what sounds good TO ME. I believe hearing is similar to taste. Most folks like ice cream, but everybody has a different favorite flavor. (Some are lactose intolerant - the Bose crowd I presume)

AMIAS people can't always agree on what the standard for perfect really is (Flat, BBC Dip, BSC).
HIMBIT folks need a thesaurus of weird adjectives and similes to work their voodoo (smoky, veiled, quiet-between-notes).

I'm not naive enough to believe everything can be objectively measured. (Everybody looks more attractive at closing time)  Hey if it makes you happy, and you think you got value for your money, more power to you -- just don't try to proselytize.  I'll  buy it/try it when I'm damn good and ready.  If I don't hear it, it isn't there-for me.