But even if the difference is never consciously visible, there is, nevertheless a difference: in one scene we have some 'magnificence' derived from the sheer mass of birds and the complexity of their movement. In the next, we have only 97% of that 'magnificence'. You can't put it into words, and you can't see it consciously, but one scene is less 'magnificent' than the other. If we carry on removing birds you will, at some point be able to discern the difference, but long before then you were being short changed but couldn't put your finger on it.
In this case we are not removing any birds, but slightly shifting a couple of birds that are so far away that you can't see them.
I think we have pushed the analogies way beyond the breaking point, and are totally out of phase. Your argument could be turned into "we should worry about the audible effects of the paint we use to paint our amplifiers, because it might possibly affect the sound.