I’ve had similar experiences as an ABX subject. I still think blind testing has value, even though it’s not likely to be of much use to audiophiles.
Disagree. The more discerning ears of the audiophile are far more useful in ABX tests. I pointed out the criticisms I had for the way audio ABX tests are conducted. It doesn't defeat the utility value of audio ABX tests, just points toward some changes in approach that would increase their utility value.
I'll grant you, there are some audiophiles out there who will never be convinced by the most perfectly conducted ABX testing. And most aspects of an audiophile's system cannot be easily ABX'ed, at least not at home. One can ABX a source, such as a CD player, fairly easily, as most preamps have multiple inputs and can easily be switched between them. Interconnects are a bit more challenging, and the nearly impossible test is ABX-ing a power cable, because now we're into having multiple amplifiers and some sort of switching device between them in order to verify a difference in sound between two power cables.
Which is, again, why I do my best not to piss on people who choose to spend their money on these sorts of upgrades. Without a serious A/B, never mind A/B/X test, there's no way to prove them right or wrong. I prefer to spend my money on things that will demonstrably improve my system. Maybe once my room is as close to perfect as possible, I've swapped out the crossovers and the tweeters on my speakers, I've found the right cost/benefit balance on my speaker wire and interconnects, and am satisfied with the signal chain of DAC/preamp/amp I've installed, I'll consider playing around with last-mile stuff like that. But probably not.