Your ears are the most important measure to you. They are of zero consequence to me. You may make the arguement that the human ear is more sensitive than other measuring devices (I don't know myself), but in virtually every psychoacoustic study even done, the ears are also the most easily fooled into hearing things that aren't really there and not hearing things that are, or at least misinterpreting them. That makes your ears essentially useless in an objective assessment of the efficency of audio compression codecs or determining the effectiveness of transporting packeted digital data over optical vs. electrical interconnects.
Roger: read it again, I said I didn't make any observations on it, it was just my thoughts. And to add that cable choice may depend on digital source and format, to add to Rich's comment.
Mainly because I don't care, I do not find dts or DD sound nearly enough audiophile quality to get really picky about it. Just my opinion, and my ears, for movies. Yes, it seems there's always arguments, no matter what you say or do, so I don't usually post re "sound quality" any more, just about "sound differences", which are generally more easily agreed on.
In the matter at hand, the decoder is more accurate than your ear. It is performing a mathematical task within strictly defined parameters that allow for total accuracy. Attempting to anthropomorphise this simple task and then question its ability to perceive 'rightness' is pointless. Is the result of a simple calculation made by a computer somehow less 'right' than the same result generated by a human brain? No.
If you 'perceive' a subtle difference when listening to packeted data transimitted by different cables, and then ascribe these differences to the cable being used, then we have entered the realm of psychology along with green marker pens and sonic pyramids.