I find myself puzzled by the whole blind testing issue. As a scientist, I certainly believe in the value of double-blind testing. I am very much aware that our expectation color our experience. If you're told some amp costs $30K, you are likely to say it sounds better than one that costs $3K.
On the other hand, so many of the "scientific" types seem to take great joy in "debunking" that any differences exist in cables, tweaks, etc. Differences in cables are often not at all subtle. I have spent large amounts buying expensive cables because they obviously sound better--to me, to my wife, to my friends.
ABX tests often give you a few seconds of music to listen to. Some differences between gear only emerge over time. One system may let you sink into the music--feel relaxed and enjoy it. Another system may sound very accurate, yet leave you feeling edgy, strung up, uncomfortable. It takes a bit of time for these differences to emerge.
Also, different kinds of music show different results. Some music with lots of deep bass will show off one feature of a system that another tune with high violin notes doesn't--and vice versa. The British term PRAT--for 'pace, rhythm and tempo'--defines another characteristic that takes some listening to recognize. But we live with our gear for a long time. That's why reviewers spend typically some months with a piece of gear before writing an article about it.
It's true that some "golden ears" tend to ardently reject blind listening tests. The problem is often, as has been perhaps made clearer, that the wrong thing is being tested for. I would be grateful if there were more a spirit of collaboration and curiosity and interest and less stridency between the two camps.