Yes they do. Today's modern test equipment is extremely precise. Much
more precise than our senses. It can introduce a virtually nonexistent
impedance (thank goodness for op amps) and has an error of measurement
far
below what you think it is. The error is usually listed in the manual
or
on the back of the machine itself.

No, you still don't get it. You still think, for example, that because we
can
detect parts per billion, that scientific measuring devices are more
precise
than our tongue and nose. It's not a question of precision, it's a
question of
accuracy. Those tools are not measuring the same way we're measuring.
It's too
complicated. The wine example was a good one. Even though they can do a
chemical analysis on it, they still can't determine which blend of tastes
and
smells will make up a good wine and which will taste best. Sure, they can
detect obvious things like spoilage or the presence of some awful
chemical, but
they can't figure out which wine would be preferred in a blind tasting.

But what you're failing to grasp here is that we're not trying to classify
perception in and of itself. This discussion is not addressing which forms
of distortion are less pleasing than others, and what the underlying neural
mechanisms are to explain it. The discussion is much simpler than that - it
is whether or not it can be detected in two independent samples. Or, more
precisely, what is the "just noticable difference"? So, using your wine
example, we're not interested in which wine is more fruity. We're
interested in whether or not you can tell the difference between wine A and
wine B, and how test equipment compares in the ability to detect the
difference. Are you still claiming that we're able to detect differences
(not the quality of the difference, but the difference itself) that test
equipment cannot? If you dropped 10 molecules of something into the glass,
would you be able to detect it with your senses? Would the test equipment?

Again getting back to audition, I think the answer is more clearcut. It's
common knowledge that we can measure sounds with sensitive microphones that
simply aren't loud enough for humans. It's also common knowledge that we
can measure harmonic distortion down to millionths of a percent with test
equipment, but we can't make the distinction with our ears. It's also
common knowledge that you can use an SPL meter to tell the difference
between a sound that's 80.000dB and a sound that's 80.001dB, but the best a
human can do is roughly in the 0.5dB range broadband. It's also well known
that humans have a greater difficulty perceiving a narrowband dip in
frequency response than a narrowband boost in frequency response, whereas
test equipment has no such difficulty. We also know that masking can
prevent things from being heard - test equipment does not experience this
phenomenon.

Not only is there demonstrable evidence pointing to the fact that test
equipment can beat all of our sensory modalities (in terms of detection!),
but it's also common knowledge.