This reminds me of that nerdy show on the TV where the guys set up a computer model of a grizzly bear and a computer model of a shark and have a computer simulated battle to see "who would win". What is this? An episode of Myth Busters?! I'm not try to be an a-hole, but with all due respect those types are agruments are pointless because they are hypothetical.
How do you know that Miller and King would sound "different"? How does anyone know that Miller and King would NOT sound different? The only way to know this is to actually conduct that test. Assumptions and guessing are not scientific. Bass frequency (or volume) changes are scientific because they are something that can be measured (in the case of volume, with a decible meter). String vibrations are something that can be measured. Force applied to those strings is something that can be measured.
The point is that while we aren't going to step into a lab and measure all of those things with each other, we can't just toss all reason out the window with crazy hypotheticals.
Would Miller and King sound different? My guess is...MAYBE. They could sound different because they play differently; however, they are both skilled enough to probably be able to imitate each other's style and technique too. On a recording, they could probably fool us if they wanted to. So they may be able to sound the same. It's a silly argument and a useless hypothetical example. I don't think it strengthens the discussion on one side or the other.