You've raised several good questions about our hobby. To answer your original question, I suppose you could argue that if the listener thinks it sounds better, that's all that really matters. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. After all, what is "enjoyment" anyway? It's just a biochemical reaction in the brain. So what difference does it make how that reaction is triggered?
Why strive to recreate the original event? Presumably, the closer you get to the original event, the greater your enjoyment will be. But the "original event" is sometimes a somewhat theoretical notion when you consider the way music is recorded in studios. Sound engineers mix and tweak the various instruments and voices; and when you're talking synthesizers, it's anybody's guess what the "original event" sounded like. In the end, I think the "original event" has come to mean music the way the sound engineer intended you to hear it. Again, the closer you can get to that, the greater your listening enjoyment.
I think blind A/B testing is a perfectly valid way of determining sonic differences in gear. And I think, if it's done properly, it works every time. So why the cases of people flunking the Pepsi challenge? I believe the problem is in the way the tests are administered. More to the point, I don't think these tests usually take into account what poor "listening memory" we have. It seems people's memories are more accurate when recalling visual objects than when recalling sounds alone. I don't believe most people can distinguish the usually subtle sonic differences between different pieces of high-end gear after only a minute or two of listening. Even an hour or two is sometimes not enough, yet that's usually the way these tests are administered. I know in my case it usually takes me at least a week or more to be able to tune into the precise differences a new piece of gear brings to my system. I've learned from experience not to expect a new revelation in sound when I bring in new gear. Occasionally, I'm surprised and can hear a difference fairly quickly. But more often than not it takes hours of listening over a number of sessions before I can start to appreciate and articulate the sonic characteristics of a piece.
Admittedly, I've not always heard a difference when "upgrading" my gear. Case in point: I replaced my stock power cords with some (I won't mention the name) highly regarded cords and sat back ready to be blown away by the improvements. I'm still waiting, and it's been over a year. But, like your dad, I still have them in my system. Why? Well, it's like a joke I once heard:
"Do you believe in God?"
"Of course."
"Really? Why?"
"Are you kidding? What if there really is one!"
Why strive to recreate the original event? Presumably, the closer you get to the original event, the greater your enjoyment will be. But the "original event" is sometimes a somewhat theoretical notion when you consider the way music is recorded in studios. Sound engineers mix and tweak the various instruments and voices; and when you're talking synthesizers, it's anybody's guess what the "original event" sounded like. In the end, I think the "original event" has come to mean music the way the sound engineer intended you to hear it. Again, the closer you can get to that, the greater your listening enjoyment.
I think blind A/B testing is a perfectly valid way of determining sonic differences in gear. And I think, if it's done properly, it works every time. So why the cases of people flunking the Pepsi challenge? I believe the problem is in the way the tests are administered. More to the point, I don't think these tests usually take into account what poor "listening memory" we have. It seems people's memories are more accurate when recalling visual objects than when recalling sounds alone. I don't believe most people can distinguish the usually subtle sonic differences between different pieces of high-end gear after only a minute or two of listening. Even an hour or two is sometimes not enough, yet that's usually the way these tests are administered. I know in my case it usually takes me at least a week or more to be able to tune into the precise differences a new piece of gear brings to my system. I've learned from experience not to expect a new revelation in sound when I bring in new gear. Occasionally, I'm surprised and can hear a difference fairly quickly. But more often than not it takes hours of listening over a number of sessions before I can start to appreciate and articulate the sonic characteristics of a piece.
Admittedly, I've not always heard a difference when "upgrading" my gear. Case in point: I replaced my stock power cords with some (I won't mention the name) highly regarded cords and sat back ready to be blown away by the improvements. I'm still waiting, and it's been over a year. But, like your dad, I still have them in my system. Why? Well, it's like a joke I once heard:
"Do you believe in God?"
"Of course."
"Really? Why?"
"Are you kidding? What if there really is one!"