I respectfully disagree about the photon. That doesn't mean I'm right, it just means I studied. I may have missed a few classes but we definitely covered quantum mechanics. The fact that a photon has unusual properties does not alter the fact that a single photon can be registered by the eye.
Re: the signal is identical: the guy in the video said the signal is not identical, and proved it, so hopefully he's right about that.
AFAIK, the limits of hearing have only been tested in a challenge and response environment, not at the molecular level, nor at the quantum level as in the case with the photon. So that would be like saying that Canada does not exist because Americans cannot find it on a map.
Lastly, our view of science is basically unchanged since Kuhn's view of science cycles. There will be another cycle, and this version of the science will be replaced in a few years. Just as it always has. And the reason that we "see" entanglement, which was previously completely unknown, is that we are looking in different places. There's no reason to believe that the perception of sound does not operate in as yet unknown ways, and the use of a null box doesn't prove it because it uses circular reasoning. It only tests what it was designed to test. You could just as easily say that quantum effects do not exist because this box does not "see" them.
What the "box testers" are saying is that audio effects only exist with the box. They then look in this box and say "See, nothing outside the box." They then go on to say, well, there are things outside the box but you can't see them so they don't exist. I have a problem with the methodology.

Well, you can disagree of course, but there's nothing wrong with my science.
I'll give you a short example. The smallest packet of light that the eye can register is one photon. That means, perception on the biological scale extends to the limit of the smallest quantity of light that exists. However, the smallest amount of light that the conscious mind can register is way, way larger than one photon. So does the photon "affect" your eyes? Of course, but can it be seen? That's an interesting question. The science is proven, but what it means in terms of perception is less clear. And why is the eye designed to register a photon, if that photon goes nowhere? Because it does go somewhere.
So, for example, let's say that as time goes by, you lose one photon a day. Is it cumulative? Of course. Is sound cumulative? Of course, as it persists in memory. Or it can even build up in a resonant acoustic.
These tests test a a narrow band of science outside the ear and mind, they don't test perception. If you want to say, hey, that's it, there's nothing more, fine. But if you chose to think, hey, maybe there's a bit more, also fine.
Quantum physics did not exist 100 years ago because we could not see it or test it.
Could you devise an experiment to see if a few millipascals moved the cilia in the ear? Of course. It's not in the video.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev Of course I watched the whole video. I just think it is funny that he says no two wires test the same.
As far as the science goes, it isn't really complete science. If perception is modulated by quantum entanglement, for example, they aren't testing for that. If double blind perception occurs on a subconscious level, they aren't testing for that. And so on. They are self testing. They create the experiment, then test withing the experiment using their own methodology. It's a reasonable approach, but it is circular reasoning to say that the test proves everything inside the test as well as outside the test.
However, there's a basic hands-on, practical flaw in the methodology, which is cumulative experience. So, for example, a lot of audio engineers prefer Gotham or Canare cable over some other brands I won't mention. But here's the thing--audio engineers with decades of experience will use Gotham cable, but they won't spring for something (in most cases) that costs $100 a foot. The decades of experience are collectively informing them that prefer a better quality wire up to a point and also that among brands they have a preference.
For these reasons, I recommend using a quality wire (Gotham) but not a boutique wire. And since this then creates three tiers instead of two, and since the price is really not a factor, since one eliminates the huge profit margins of boutique wire, there's no reason whatsoever not to follow this simple plan.
Now, you might argue that all these audio engineers have it wrong, and that I and many others are deluded when we prefer Canare or Gotham.
In which case I could point you to, for example, numerous works of art that were scientifically proven to be authentic, then found out to be fakes using different science or not even science at all.
Or you can choose not to discard the decades of experience by audio engineers. And don't put cheap tires on your cars even if they test exactly the same in the short run (I'm guessing no two tires test alike).

Also nice video

"No two wires will ever measure exactly the same." Quote from video.