No, not hard at all, but mentioning the word "subjective" makes it sound as if there weren't objective scientific facts backing up what I say. It would be like trying to educate ignorant people about climate change saying "well, it's my subjective opinion that climate change is real."
But if you said "Climate change is real!", would you not expect someone to say, "Show us the evidence!"? And if we had data that showed a global average temperature increase charted over time, then we have some objective data to support the statement.
You said, "Cross-feed is a miraculous improvement! Takes headphone listening to a whole new level!" but the data to back that up was one guy's opinion, stated firmly with conviction. That's not objective data, so there's no support for the hypothesis that your cross-feed is perceived as an improvement by anyone other than you, let alone the other questions about when it's an improvement and how much.
Also, are we supposed to give our subjective opinion about cross-feed in this thread, or are we supposed to give our subjective opinion about what we think science says objectively about cross-feed? There is subjectivity somewhere to make the topic even meaningful, because without subjectivity the topic of this thread would be like "Is two plus two four or five? That is the question…"
If you post an opinion as fact backed by science and someone doesn't share your view, be prepared to offer scientific data to back up your claim. If you don't have it, then post as opinion. Subjective results are easily quantified into objective data, which can then be simply compiled into an average, but that takes some organized testing.
Nobody has disputed how a cross-feed system does what it does. What has been disputed is your evaluation of the results...how well cross-feed does what it does. If this had been a peer-reviewed technical paper you'd have had the same reaction. The defense given was to state years spent in research, deriding what others said, restating your position with conviction, and the entire thrust was to "educate" (possibly ignorant?) people with opinions and experiences that conflict with yours.
Now, why would that not go down well?