I know the differences in hit and also know that what is best is almost all personal preference. Your claim is that some hits are objectively and inherently better than others. You made the claim so tell us which hits you think are objectively and inherently best, and why, and provide your evidence.
I can take any cue you give me, and change the "hit" of it in about 6 minutes. I put a split elkmaster on it, it will hit like a wet sponge. If I put a good Le Pro on it, it will hit solid. If I put a water buffalo on it, it will hit even more crisp. Or I could change the ferrule material. A thermoset plastic ferrule will be mellow. An ivorine-3 ferrule will be more tingy and hard. None of these changes have anything to do with the cue construction. But they'll change a lot of that so called "feel" you talk about.
I wasn't agreeing with you. Hit is some "mystique" that is subjective, but the feel and perceived "hit" of the cue will have nothing to do with its actual performance. I've had cues that felt great when playing, but they weren't "good cues" My old Meucci back in the 90s had a great feel. I loved how it hit. But one day, I was undoing the cue, and the forearm untwisted from the handle, instead of breaking apart at the joint. The cue was assembled poorly.
Would I rather have a cue that felt wonderful in my hands, I loved the feel of the contact, but the path of the cueball was erratic when playing varying amounts of english.....or a cue that hit like a carrot, but I knew exactly where the cueball was going when I played any spin? I'll take the carrot.