You are a little too certain of yourself and your method. People don't all "hear" the same thing. Hearing is not just a physical response, it is also how your brain responds and interprets sound. You are convinced you are the only person who can hear things? I think not.
Some of those audiophiles can hear those distortions just like you - and they like what they hear. They think that's how things are "supposed" to sound or that those sounds are more "natural" It's as simple as that.
There is no "Amir method." It is either what is accepted by formal audio research and engineering or voodoo audio mythology created by audiophiles with zero verification of validity of what they do.
We, the scientific and engineering group in the industry and researched have arrived at above conclusion through hard work and verification. It is not some random approach you can dismiss. Let me give you an example that is relevant here.
When I was at Microsoft, we were developing our next generation *
lossy* audio codec (WMA Pro). We had a mode in the encoder where you could set the quality as the priority and the codec would then choose the (variable) bit rate to achieve that. At the highest level, the quality could be set to max which by definition had to be transparent. To make sure we achieved this, we decided to leverage the large group of audiophiles at Microsoft in a blind test.
The files were encoded, achieving roughly 2:1 compression ratio. In other words, lots and lots of data was thrown away (in a psychoacoustically aware method of course).
To my disappointment, the audiophile group severely underperformed our codec test team. They simply could not hear any artifacts.
I was busy so I had not take the test myself. My codec team manager came to my office and ask me if I could run the test. I said I did not have time. Seeing how badly he needed the results, I told him to wait and I pulled up a couple of samples. In an instant, not only could I tell the difference, but identified exact moment in the track where the difference existed. The team was very happy as they went and found the problem that caused the fidelity loss in those segments.
The conclusion is certain: audiophiles like you state love to think they have great ears. But when it comes to non-linear artifacts (as opposed to simple frequency response changes and such), they have no better ability than the general public. Which is to say, their ability is quite poor compared to trained listeners.
Fact is that people buy flawed audio products because they are totally deaf to their artifacts. This proves their inability to be critical listeners.
Faced with above, the convenient counter is: "oh, I prefer the distortions." Who says? If you can't hear the distortions, you certainly can't prefer them. What's more this theory has never been proven to be true using controlled tests. I have tested countless flawed products and as I observe in this review, the defects are hard to hear. But if you do hear them, they are unpleasant.
So please, don't try to fight facts and science with just word arguments. I have the data and science on my side plus decades of testing hypothesis like yours. There is no there there.
Audiophiles need to wake up and get out of their illusions of audio. Reality is a cold, hard place for them to be sure. But it is also liberating when you can prove something, than claim it!