Good points all around, and I appreciate the humor. A laugh goes a long way, no? The number of perspectives that we have, just between different human beings, is immense, not to mention going outside the human and into the theoretical.
I would still like to respond to the null hypothesis idea. I am familiar with this: in statistics, you begin with a null hypothesis that there is no difference between two choices. Only once you have exceeded your margin of error, usually two standard deviations or ~95% certainty, can you claim that there is a statistically significant difference.
However, I stand by my original claim: when the difference is not statistically significant, then the experiment is a failure. You go into an experiment with the purpose of discovering the magnitude and direction of the suspected difference between two variables. If you are "unable to reject the null hypothesis," it means just that. You can never prove a null hypothesis, only disprove. That's why it's called "null:" it has no value.
The funny thing is that, in general, I am an extremely analytical and scientific person. I probably analyze and contemplate the Stereophile graphs more than most readers, and I personally would like my amps and sound sources to have high power and low distortion.
Let me put it this way: I think it's important for us to increase the number of pebbles for our circle, so that we can better understand and better replicate high fidelity. I just think it's more practical and efficient to allow ourselves to be guided by both personal observation and scientific testing. After all, the most profound scientific results come either unexpectedly or from creative hypotheses. Personal observation can give birth to new alternative hypotheses. New hypotheses can lead to new and better forms of testing and measurement.
The bottom line to the listener is to listen and enjoy. Let the listener within inspire the scientist within.
-Cooper
