I think that's where the fundamental fallacy lies in most people understanding audio, at least to my mind. People generally focus on one particular set of measurement and view them on a standalone basis to arrive at any particular set of conclusions.
However, as you put it, it is a combination of factors which our senses perceive, our brains decipher to understand whether we (or others) find it generally pleasing and we process it in real-time to understand make the necessary adjustments.
Badly measuring audio can also sound good, depending on the right combination of factors. It is only a matter of understanding how a certain combination of factors work to appeal or detract from our listening preferences as opposed to each factor on a standalone basis. I believe this is an area where our understanding is yet to mature,
To elucidate, we have a certain chilli native to my hometown and vicinity which has gained a considerable amount of notoriety in the internet age viz. the venerable Ghost Pepper ("Bhut Jolokia"). Objectively, it is the spiciest naturally occurring pepper on the planet and I'd daresay nobody in their right mind has ever taken a liking to it when consumed on a standalone basis. However, when added to certain foods, even in copious and outright outrageous quantities and balanced out with other contrasting flavours such as sweet and sour(again, the sheer quantities of lime juice that go into these preparations would not be consumable on a standalone basis), the combination is downright delectable. Is it still fiery HOT? Yes! Is it extremely sour and/or sweet? Absolutely! And I daresay it'd still qualify as one of the most scintillating dishes you'd ever experienced and is certainly a delicacy for those who've tried it!
I can attribute much of Andrew Jones success to his understanding of what makes for a good listen. While he relies heavily on machine measurements, the final tuning is done by the most supreme instrument of them all, his ear.
I've heard speakers and amps lambasted by ASR measurements (the gold standard amongst so-called objectivists?) trample all over their approved darlings because a combination of these quirks simply sound appealing to my ears. The tough nut to crack are the reasons why any particular amalgam of these inherent deficiencies seem to appeal to a person's senses. Then again, its not just the person in question but also the circumstances under which he is listening that add to the experience, pleasant or otherwise.
To further elucidate on how our brains make adjustments depending on realtime inputs, I remember this showdown/?competition? between a certain bowler (Chris Barnes) and this bowling robot which was accurate to the T and yet, lost to the bowler! While the engineers had programmed every single parameter accurately and was much more capable at 'a consistent shot', they had not anticipated/understood/worked out fully how a combination of these factors would change as the game progresses, hence the result.
Insofar as measurements of cables and other audio equipment is concerned, I also scoff at the hubris of objectivists who believe that every single quantifiable variable has been identified/mapped out and at the same time, i do not discount the effects of placebo.
And while I can certainly wrap my head around the statement that "NO single event measuring equipment is capable...", to qualify it further as "nor wanted!!" suggests that certain phenomenon should remain beyond the ilk of human understanding. That i cannot get on board with.
On the contrary, I was rife with anticipation which is why I wanted to be certain that the headphones employed by me are approved by your good self. As such, i wanted to ensure that I employed the only variable that seems to matter in the present discussion viz. your preferences and understanding of audio. Otherwise, they'd run the risk of being dismissed as not "decent headphones", no matter the objective and subjective provenance, especially since that seems to be the dispensation of this discourse anyway. Hence, the immediate response.
