(...) I guess it all harks back to the fundamental continuum in audio today. I'm pretty sure he wasn't the first person to coin the phrase, but Floyd-Toole's description of audio as, "science in the service of art" fits well. Unfortunately, audio has become so polarized of late that one group of people see that quote as, "SCIENCE mf btf fnuedft pf fpf", while the other group read it as, "ffubpth mf btf fnuedft pf ART". One extreme is too arid to survive in the wild, the other too impractical. The pragmatic, real-world response is somewhere between those two polar opposites, and where that 'somewhere' is depends from person to person and from country to country. It's a fluid thing too, changing with each year.
Only by ignorance partisans of both extremes can quote Toole. He is very careful in his paper describing what is needed in order to consider that audio is a science:
Determining how close we are to perfection is ultimately determined subjectively, in carefully-controlled listening tests. However, accurate and comprehensive measurements, interpreted using the ever-expanding ‘rules’ of psychoacoustics, are remarkably accurate predictors of what is and what is not audible and, ultimately, of subjective preferences. This allows us to design better sounding and more cost effective products.
The main question are the ‘rules’ of psychoacoustics. Toole establishes a set based on his studies and views, but they are not universal. They are a valid perspective of a prestigious school of thought. One should consider that Toole is a believer that differences between properly designed electronics are minimal, and all his results depend on the acceptance of this rule. If listening tests would depend on electronics, source or tweaks, the listening tests he refers to would become impossible. When Toole refers to a listening test he refers to a loudspeaker in a room listening test. Extrapolating his views to tweaks and electronics has no meaning at all. All IMHO.