I suspect the problem isn’t honesty but how we hear. It’s becoming increasingly apparent that, across our sensorium, what we perceive results from error correction to prior expectations (tldr). For hearing, the error corrections come from our ear, but our expectations can adjust or even override them. Think about thinking you’ve heard a familiar voice when you’re looking for the person, or how skilled musicians can trigger surprise, and it’s clear expectation is can modify our experience of sound. Now imagine you’re a hifi reviewer. If you’re listening to a hugely expensive bit of kit that all your peers say is audio magic, are you going to risk saying it sounds no different to something that’s a tenth of the price, and risk being accused of being stone/tone deaf? You’re going listen for whatever can persuade you to hear your peers’ (who you believe) observations, and try to add your own. As an example, read back articles from veteran reviewers, like Ken Kessler. Thirty years ago you’ll find him using the same descriptions and describing the same experiences as he does now, though the equipment has long been superseded (according to those same reviewers). However, I can still remember when I swapped out my Cyrus 2 integrated for an Audio Innovations el34 integrated. After running in it totally blew the Cyrus away, despite measuring much worse. Whether more modern measurement could capture the difference I don’t know, but the difference wasn’t small.