No, but it should, perhaps, make us a little less sure of them. At least that's my opinion .
Maybe those of us on the "science" side of the argument might recognize that access to measurements comprehensive enough to be meaningful are actually pretty rare, and that the stuff that we expect to be neutral, based on incomplete measurements, brand, reviews, etc, might be just as compromised, or more, than some boutique gear we expect to be deliberately colored.
Maybe those on the "I trust my ears" side might recognize that their ears cannot be divorced from their perceptions, and all they can tell us is what they like. And, in recognizing no objective metric or standard beyond what they hear, it cannot ever be any more than that. They have chosen to make it personal, therefore it cannot be more natural, musical...fill in the pseudo-objective blank. It can only be what they like.
Tim
And here we need statistics. When groups of people share the same desire to get more of the “something that was missing” from the stereo reproduction, and using the technological means available reach it, with the help of the industry, we have the audiophile community as I see it. When I read the opinions of several people who were fortunate enough to listen to Paul Stubblebine great system separately and do not know each others, and report similar experiences I have two possibilities - thinking that their experiences were real or thinking Paul Stubblebine was a great hypnotist. As, in some conditions, but in a smaller degree I could experiment similar perceptions I choose the first hypothesis.
Steve wrote: It was tantamount to being at the symphony and hearing it live.
Others tell me: It is not possible, just listen to the recording
I pick the first, although I know it is risky, most of the time science will not support me and I will have to rely on the empirical knowledge of many friendly experts and amateurs. Besides it will allow me to enjoy reading some audiophile forums and magazines.