First, sample size is small and each strata is even smaller. They are enough to drawn statistical conclusions, but their power to make claims about the public/individual is weak.
Go study the math behind population sampling. Go study the math behind subject selection, as well.
Second, there is no repeated experiment.
The Headphone papers are just the latest in a long series of papers. There is literally now a century of experiments, or more, starting with Helmholtz and then Fletcher. There are many, many experiments that lead to these results. Your complaint about replication is invalid, and demonstrates the ignorance of your position.
Third, the ''high" correlation is not physical science standard. Usually even less than 95% confidence while physical science is up to 5 sigma confidence (1-3x10^-7).
And this isn't particle physics. You do understand that preferences vary substantially among listeners. Finding something this close is quite remarkable.
Forth, results of physical theories are usually predictions of a sound conjecture and tested
No, that's not required. Science is about developing testable theories, and then testing them. An overarching theory is not required. Were it required, no advancement would ever, under any circumstances, be possible, because in a new field, there IS no "sound conjecture" to start with.
Science is TESTABLE, VERIFIABLE, and REPEATABLE. You can never, EVER say "proof" only "best available understanding". When you say "scientific proof" you're talking about something that does not exist.
then confirmed by numerous repeatable experiments with required accuracy and confidence level. While results of Olive's reseaech are drawn from this single 268 sample.
Your statement ignores a century of work. Your statement ignores a great deal of work on how to select subjects. Your statement ignores a great deal of work on population sampling. Just give it up.
How would you compare the credibility of this kind of research to any of the modern physical science?
Within their stated limits, they're fine. Both of them.
They have done a great job in researching human preference, but their conclusion is limited and should be applied with care.
What's the mass and half-life of a neutrino?
And I don't believe the consipracy that it is Harman wants to be a rule maker and utilise/amplify these limited results to market their products. But you can't completely ignore it since both Toole and Olive were employed by Harman and look at the way Harman promote their research results and their products.
Their work, and mine, is part of a thread of work that goes back to Helmholtz in the late 1800's. Give that one up.