Earl's data indicated that a very large amount of low-order distortion - 2nd order, maybe something like 15% or 25% - was only borderline detectable and was not objectionable. Overall his finding showed a slightly negative correlation between THD and preference, indicating that (as a generalization) higher THD amps tend to sound better than low THD amps. He found that the distortion and noise as the signal passed through the zero point tend to be audible and objectionable, because these (virtually instantaneous) anomalies are not "masked" by other sounds. Distortions which are delayed in time relative to the main signal - which (if I understand correctly) is what happens with large amounts of global negative feedback - also tend to be audible and objectionable, even in small amounts. I'm neither math enough nor brain enough to understand exactly what he looked at and how he analyzed his findings to arrive at his conclusions, so these are my recollections from conversations with him.
At some point along the way, but NOT as part of the study he did for these papers, Earl measured a bunch of amplifiers he had access to and found a particular Pioneer receiver to perform exceptionally well based on the Gedlee metric. Its published specs were unremarkable as I recall; in other words, there was no hint of hidden excellence in the numbers. He used one of these receivers for many years, and may be using it still. No I don't remember the model number, and it has been discontinued, but it developed sort of an underground cult following, and audiophiles being what they are, many were hotrodded with various upgrades.
To outsiders "Earl Geddes uses a cheap Pioneer receiver" probably sounded like "Earl doesn't care about distortion in amps", but I think the truth was more like "Earl thinks distortion figures for amps are useless as predictors of sound quality."
(And while I've seen people seemingly assume that Earl listens by looking at measurements, I have watched him listen critically. I have never seen someone so intensely focused on the task of LISTENING before or since, though he would never include his own listening impressions in his data because if he knows what he's listening for then he is not free from potential bias.)
All of that being said, I am not under the impression that Earl thinks amplifier sound quality is a major issue, at least not relative to the sound quality variations in loudspeakers.