I respectfully disagree
This is not reductionist, but about statistics - the core of all psychological research, which I worked with for a long time when I was younger
The whole point is that if there is such a thing as "better", then the minimum requirement of proof would be that an average of humans would subjectively qualify it as "better" in a double-blind test. We are not at all interested in sameness, as we are not comparing absolutes, but relative measures - and we don't care about individual preference, but the grand average. We even have the possibility to come up with an effect size, if our sample size is big enough.
So IMO, for any claim of goodsoundingness there is a relevant double-blind test to be done. Complicated and expensive, yes, but it's absolutely possible in this way to extract "hard data" from any subjective experience. If you want to. Hifi don't.
/Jakob E.