Here's our fundamental disagreement:

You're arguing, objectively, that I am objectively wrong... based on subjective information.

I'm counter-arguing (you started this) that you are objectively wrong... based on objective information.

When I present you with objective arguments, you respond with subjective points.

When I point out that your arguments are subjective, you double down on the subjectivity as if it were objective.

Look - I will never convince you that spraying the back wall in the interest of "better sound" is a bad idea. You have subjectively decided that it's brilliant, and are immune to objective argument. What I'm saying about headphones isn't silly, it's fluid mechanics. Yes - measuring and listening are two different things. Measuring is objective. Listening is subjective. I NEVER said people like listening in acoustically dead rooms - I said that the music sounds great in acoustically dead rooms. The rooms sound fucking spooky. Then you throw some link from diyaudio.com at me after I already threw Linkwitz back in your face. I'll repeat: the preponderance of speakers ever made are directional. The ones that aren't are weird-ass audiophile bullshit. That's not in my opinion. That's physics.

But that's an objective statement against a subjective opinion. I will never convince you that MBLs sound like shit. I don't want to. You are welcome to believe they sound like angels farting and it's no skin off my nose.

SUBJECTIVELY?

They sounded about as good as EVID 6's which, in my subjective opinion, are about the worst outdoor speaker I've ever had the misfortune of listening to.

And I put about 90 Toa H-4s in omnidirectional arrays in the Seattle Tacoma International Airport.