On to the link you provided on double blind tests. I note that they ran the test once with some number of people picking one system or the other and concluded that because not everyone picked the better system no one can tell the difference. Now did it occur to these testers that perhaps the folks that picked the better system were the ones who have the gift of better hearing?
They would have done well to repeat the test with the same folks to see if there was a consistency on who chose the better system. But, instead they reached their preconcieved conclusion after one trial and ended their test. Sad and goes to my earlier statement that most engineers have no idea on the limits and flaws of their test. Sadder that many folks will read this and not discern the flaw.
Here is another link to some much better known testers but I'll provide a quote of interest from the article below (I know we started on digital, but cables are just as hotly contested so the analogy is equivalent):
Do It Yourself - Cables - Article: What audio cables are
And here is the quote:
Blind and independent testing conducted by Lee Gomes of the Wall Street Journal demonstrated that 61% of 39 people tested at an audio show could differentiate between low end and high end speaker cables. Lee Gomes remarked, "That may not be much of a margin for two products with such drastically different prices, but I was struck by how the best-informed people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable". However, in more rigorous tests performed under controlled circumstances listeners have not been able to prove there is any audible difference between high end and cheap cables
Now Michael Fermer and John Atkinson are well known in the high-end community and clearly showed an ability as per Lee Gomes remark. The later "rigorous tests" didn't include Michael and John so Michael and John become a statistical anomoly rather than, Hmmmm somthings going on here.
Another poor test where this Lee guy had no idea what he was dealing with.
Now, onto your quote that I included above. Dogs and bats can hear higher frequency range of sound. This has nothing directly to do with the ability discern nuances to sound. But onto the your point of electronic measurements being better than our ears.
So, here is a challange/contest for you.
You can instrument a room with any electronic equipment to sample the sound in a room. Setup your monitors/equipment in an adjacent sound sealed room. I will sit in the instrumented room, blindfolded. You sit in the adjacent sound sealed room looking at your scopes and what all.
We will have a musician or two come into the room I am in and play some acoustical instruments. Lets see who can more quickly discern what instruments are playing. Me using my ears or you using your scopes.
So please don't sell out our ears so quickly. Within the range of our hearing we can discern many more aspects of sound than test equipment can. Test equipment is fine for gross measurements like what is the frequency range and amplitude, etc.
Discerning what we are hearing is something we can all get better at. Just like playing a sport, you get better as you continue to play. We will all reach an ultimate different level due to natural ability (just like in sports). Good audiophiles spend time listening to live unamplified instruments. Just this past weekend I listened to a turkish jazz ensemble (trumpets trombones, saxs, bass, drums) in a small setting with no amplification. What I hear at a live unamplified concert allows me to objectively gauge and compare what I hear when listening to stereo. So it is incorrect for you to dismiss this as, as you put it "audiophoolery". Real sound is what you hear, by the way.
