I like the wine analogy - but disagree with it from the "Brain Breaking" standpoint.  Obsessing about wine is very different from obsessing about audio equipment and the "quality" of what we are listening to.  If I pick and drink from a bottle of wine that costs $135, I will enjoy it to a certain extent and then will probably never taste it again.  I obsess over audio equipment and music quality because I will expend a lot of energy and downstream time commitment (not the dollar commitment) to get to a point of enjoyment = setting up and improving an audio system and then reaping the benefits.  I then can continue to enjoy varieties of music periodically and repetitively - sometimes with new listeners.  Life is too short not to be listening to great quality music with all its diversity - and to not to take the advantages of the improving technology.  I love helping a young person experiencing his current favorite song in high-res lossless quality over a top quality headphone system that has been EQ'd.  Wine, in my opinion, has not changed very much in top quality end - but it has dramatically improved in consistency of the low to mid range quality.

Great & fun analogy! The major difference is that w/ sound systems, we are trying to REPRODUCE an actual live event that we sometimes get to experience so there is an actual point of reference which the equipment attempts to emulate.  In fact, some manufacturers have over the years, demonstrated their stuff in direct comparison to actual live music being played in the room. 

With wine, there is no set standard that winemakers try to reproduce. In fact, flavor profiles often change w/ each vintage.

Music enjoyment takes no training, it moves you & you like it or you don't.  Trying to listen carefully & decide which sound systems and / or equipment comes closest to live music definitely takes some time & experience to grasp & consistently be able to discern. 

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!!!