I think we are using the word "subjective" differently, and if we account for that, we actually agree.
I think that you think I mean accuracy is "mysterious," "unknowable", "unable to be analyzed" that kind of thing.
But the word subjective, as I have always used it, essentially means "relative to an observer." It doesn't mean something is unknowable or un-analyzable.
Wikipedia defines subjectivity as "a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery, as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view."
Note the use of the words "perspective" and "feelings." I'm simply saying these differ from listener to listener. Objectivists like to say, "Yes, you are talking about preference" but no, I'm clearly talking about perceived accuracy, as I've tried to make clear several times in this thread.
I agree! I think there's a disconnect between musicians who spend their lives analyzing and perceiving how those relationships affect the emergent qualities, and sound scientists who seem to think the emergent qualities aren't an important area of research (or even entirely fail to acknowledge the subjectivity of accuracy).
I get that you think accuracy is relative to an observer (i.e. using the standard definition of subjective). I also think that we actually agree -- which is why I'm having trouble with your insistence on a distinction between (objective) accuracy and perceived accuracy. In short, a well-trained listener will perceive sound to be accurate if and only if it is objectively accurate. As I said before, there are many dimensions of accuracy: accurate tone, accurate transient response, etc. So different listeners may focus on different dimensions of accuracy and find more accuracy in some dimensions than in others. But this doesn't make accuracy subjective. It only makes preference for one dimension of accuracy over another subjective.
I think the second part you quoted, about getting the lines, shapes and colors around the eyes and mouth objectively right in order to get emotion right, is all you need to see that accuracy is objective. We don't need an observer who reacts to emotion to say that an image gets the lines, shapes, and colors around the eyes and mouth right -- it's an objective determination. For example, cameras are excellent at conveying the emotion on a face. A medium-format camera will do a better job at conveying emotion than a disposable camera, entirely because the medium-format camera takes objectively more accurate pictures. No perspective or feelings required.