That's a tired, inaccurate cliche. Amir listens. So do I. So do most people on his forum.
In fact I have a hunch I have often tested my ears more stringently than you have in evaluating some gear. I've actually tested myself *only* using my ears, not my eyes, no peeking. (In other words, controlling for sighted bias). I'm not suggesting that you have to or should bother blind testing anything at all. I don't blind test everything and the hobby is fun either way. BUT....If you want to talk "using your ears" that's when the rubber hits the road, and you can't cheat by knowing what you are listening to. (It's not for nothing that if you really want to get an accurate picture of what you can hear, you go to an audiologist and it will be a blind test).
I also gave your site some other clicks, looking at a few videos. I appreciated for instance your tour of an audio store. It's always nice to have a virtual visit to those places (I enjoy audio stores, too bad there are so few now!). Though the amount of emphasis put on the cabling started to feel bizarre, almost obsessive, including the constant graphics pointing to "Stealth Cables." Did I miss something and you are a dealer for those cables? Or are you just a fan?
Another thing that stuck out was your video on Ignore Hi-Fi Reviewers. I certainly think you made some fair points about different hearing, different rooms etc. (Though I don't think those are in the end total obstacles to a subjective review being informative and useful).
However you made some common, dubious remarks about measurements. It's very common for technically naive audiophiles to project their own ignorance. For instance:
"If someone tells me that measurements are going to tell them how something sounds, I think that's completely ridiculous."
That seems to translate to "
I don't understand how measurements correlate to sound...so neither does anyone else."
It's hard to take another charitable inference especially when you follow up with...
"There is no way that the frequency response of a speaker is going to tell you about the tonality of a speaker..."
...which is very strange. Of course frequency response variations help decide the tonality of a speaker...as it does everything else!
How could it not? If a speaker is mostly flat but has a 4dB rise from 4K onward, it's going to indicate some added brightness, other things being equal, vs a speaker without that rise.
I work in pro sound, post production, and if I, or any of the mixers, had no idea of the sonic consequences of different frequency profiles, we would not be able to quickly and constructively use EQ to fix or modify the sound! It would just be random tiddling of knobs "hey, I wonder what this will do?" No...the sonic effects of various peaks and dips in frequency response are something you can learn, and are well known in mixing. Have a look:
https://g05.bimmerpost.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2693479&d=1631366831
There is no magic dividing line between predicting the sonic consequences of adjusting frequency response (heard through speakers!) vs the sonic consequences of different frequency profiles a speaker would impose on the sound. There *are* other things to consider, such as off axis frequency response, but that too is quite well studied. As Floyd Toole has cited from careful research, frequency response is a very powerful tool, and can also tell you if there are audible resonances etc in loudspeakers.
Now, you may not care about measurements...nobody has to care. But to project upon others that they can't predict some salient characteristics from measurements is a mistake. (And it can also be predicted from measurements what YOU will hear. For instance, with low enough distortion, it can be predicted you will not hear differences between A and B components...)
And you also said this:
"But don't try and correlate pure measurements with how something is purely going to sound."
Why in the world not? What do you think audio engineering is about? The history of audio, and it's advancement, is that of understand how sound works on a technical/scientific level, by correlating what can be engineered and measured to the sonic consequences. That's how it has progressed...not by shamanic rituals or inferences from dreams or feelings or whatever.
This is why, as I said, your video(s) have some of the character of pseudo-scientific (or perhaps even anti-scientific) thinking.
Cheers.