Use the numbers to get within spitting distance. Then switch to subjective analysis. To what your senses, experiences and emotions tell you.

Finally, I know I've mentioned this a zillion times on this website, but for thirty+ years I made a living in the film industry as a story analyst, telling (okay, gently suggesting to) the bigwigs what screenplays, novels, etc. they ought to throw their money at and produce.

I hope this will not be a second post. I think first time failed.  Apology if it is.
 

I also love your analogy and complement you on starting this provocative thread. I agree with your position.  Herewith, is my prospective. 

The education of a sommelier involves not only coursework on wine and tasting theory but practical training comparing types, vintages, and brands to develop an analytical pallet.  Practical training involves tasting standards to develop the pallet-brain database.  The variables that may impact taste, and ultimately developing an analytical pallet, such as storage, age, decanting, temperature, etc. are controlled to the best degree possible during training.

 Audiophile training involves developing an analytical ear-brain database using the absolute sound of live performances.  The standard has many more uncontrolled variables.  I am sure you have sat in different seats in your favorite venue where acoustics were different.  Therefore, the standard is subjective than that used to train a sommelier.  Perhaps, a recording musician has the advantage since this situation controls the variables and if sound is manipulated for purpose, the effect is known.  However, most of us have not had that experience.   That said, a professional audiophile journalist or us hobbyists do use controlled experimental techniques when comparing components to each other.  We can, successfully, as a sommelier, train our connection to discern differences in designs, brands, etc.  We can accurately characterize a component compared to another component under the controlled experimental conditions in real time that we use.  We should not be criticized for doing this.   We fall short and should be criticized when we attempt to adamantly convince others that a component sounds more like absolute sound since this cannot be a well-controlled objective experimental observation. It involves subjective impressions of our individual ear-brain connection of a variable standard (absolute sound) we heard in the past.  We can give our subjective observations on approaching absolute sound, but they should be couched as such. We should rationalize our position with contextual examples.  This is the hard part of our hobby. Finally,  we should not be criticized for presenting counterpoint or rebuttal  if done correctly.  

This thread says absolutely NOTHING!!!

As someone whose work straddles the quantitative and the instinctual I understand and sympathize with the desire to measure & verify and also going with one's gut.

I enjoy digging into the numbers but I also don't get too hung up on them. Hi-Fi for me is all about enjoying the music. My system is a means to the end.

I have to admit I was warned on an earlier post that it weakens your argument when you feel compelled to relate to another subject. I concede. But, the larger point is that the wine industry does involve individuals certified as "experts" and the audio industry does not. An attempt was made in the 70’s via The Society of Audio Consultants. It was an objective series of questions to see if you could pass Hifi 101. I passed, but it didn’t make me a better listener -- or communicator. The wine industry also extends some degree of credibility and respect for those who are at the pinnacle of subjective interpretation. Audio industry experts get mixed reviews -- to put it kindly.

Scientists and engineers are my heros. Clubbing something over the head and dragging it home for dinner would take alot of time away from my musical enjoyment. I prefer to pluck something off a shelf, toss it in a cart, pay for it with a piece of plastic, stuff it in a grocery bag and drive it home. None of this would have worked without science. You also keep airplanes from falling out of the sky and developed the laser technology to zap the cancer out of my prostate.

But, we may be spending more time tossing the "why’s" back and forth across the net when we could be allocating more time discussing the "whats." So, WHAT just happened? Describe it? How did it make you feel about your system? The musician(s)? The recording? The experience? And, how about the cost vs performance? Was it worth the money? Would you recommend it based on what you heard?

The "why" conversation goes something like this: Did something change? WHY or WHY NOT? Could it be measured? Or, perhaps, the listening session was rejected entirely due to the implausiblity of the premise?

So, the question becomes: if the WHAT is there and the music is more alive and engaging due to a change in the system, then WHY should we agonize over our ability, or inability, to attach the correct scientific theory or measurements to the phenomonon? Why can’t we just celebrate our new audio discovery and share our comments with others, without retribution?