Bumblebees can't fly and audio myths

[reyneman]

No engineer actually said this. Instead, this myth arose from the determination that a simplistic mathematical representation was inadequate to explain the complex interactions of the flight of a bumblebee.

Similar, IMHO, to how many would have you believe that a few simplistic measurements of a few basic parameters are all that matters in the sound of your equipment.

Many fail to realize that the real basis of the ‘receiver wars’ during the 70s was the manufacturers’ battle for the lowest published specs required by the newly established audio guidelines. Vanishing low THD was a source of pride. Check out those channel separation numbers. How about those tuner specs.

Unfortunately, the manufacturers failed to consider the sound of their equipment, and frankly the musical experience seemed to deteriorate as more and more emphasis was devoted to the equipment specifications (Hey, did he just slam my vintage receiver? No, I think he just slammed all vintage receivers… :yes: ). I think that equipment engineered only to generate the best readings for a few basic specs is not the way to audio nirvana. That does not mean I believe that the basic specs are unimportant, only that I believe that they don’t tell the whole story.

Hearing developed as a survival trait, and has so many complex interactions that I don’t think we as yet understand all there is to how we perceive sound, especially on an individual basis. I’ll cut it off by stating that there is a great variance in what each of us find most pleasing in reproduced sound. What I’m getting to is those who worship on the altar of measurement are just as much oil salesmen as those who are in the marketing departments. They make claims that if they can’t see a difference in a few basic measurements, then by damn there is no difference. They then follow it up with certitudes that you’re a gullible idiot if you don’t listen to them (hmmm, and they say ‘the others’ use unsupportable claims). I have heard too many pieces of equipment that measured great but sounded bad to bend my knee there again.

Each of my points could be greatly expanded, but it isn’t important enough to me to do so. This post is merely to add some food for thought, to hopefully get you to consider areas you may not have considered before. The bottom line- both camps (subjective and objective) are just full of themselves and keep repeating the same erroneous platitudes. I say listen for yourself, keep an open mind and make your own decisions on an individual basis. And let others do the same.

And before you get too excited, there are some receivers I like.

[OvenMaster]

One or two great specs don't necessarily make a component, especially if another one or two specs really stink. It's the overall package balance that matters most, yes?
Tom

[Billfort]

Very well said Ray, thanks for that.

I've been messing with audio for about 30 years and my experience has been that enjoying music at home went to a whole different level when I looked beyond specs and started using my ears to listen to things before judging them.

[phidauex]

Thanks for mentioning the bumblebee thing. I'm a science educator by trade, and I hear a lot of people use the bumblebee as an example of the 'failings' of science. "You know, scientists said it would be impossible for a bumblebee to fly, but I saw one the other day! Huh, still got a lot to learn, don'cha?" Few realize that no one ever said that 'bumblebees can't fly', they just used it as an example of a complex type of flight that wasn't as easily modeled as the flight of some other animals.

As to audio... I place a lot of value in measurements, but measurements, like statistics, can easily tell a story that isn't realistic. Its tempting to say, "That number should be as small as possible, always." or "That number should be as big as possible, always." But just because the story isn't that simple, doesn't mean the numbers have no value, you just need a good understanding of the meaning of the number, and how it was determined, and how that relates to the actual use of the gear.

THD at 20khz tells me very little, since I never listen to 20khz sine waves. IMD between 300 and 4000hz, on the other hand, tells me a lot more about what I might hear. The numbers may look very similar, but the story they tell is very different.

Here is a simplified example.. Before the creation of Thiel-Small parameters for loudspeaker behavior, and the various box models created by Thiel and Small at the same time, we had two kinds of loud speakers, ones that sounded good, and ones that didn't. But it was not easy to tell which would sound good, and it wasn't easy to tell WHY a good one sounded good, or a bad one bad.

After a good model was developed, however, it became possible to look back and say, "Oh THATS why that one sounds so boomy, its got too high of a Q." or oh, thats why its got no bass extension, it should have been vented, not sealed. Now its possible to predict with reasonable accuracy how something will sound, before building it. Speakers are now of much higher average quality, because its easier to produce a good sounding speaker. Still a challenge to create a GREAT speaker, but easy to make a good one (less than 100$ in parts today can get you a lot nicer sounding speaker than 100$ prior to box models).

Of course, its not perfect, because the model is just that, a model, not a 100% accurate description of reality. You start a speaker design 'by the numbers', and then finish it with the ear. Same with crossovers, you start with the math and the simulations, and finish the tuning by ear. Just because the last step is 'by the ear', doesn't mean that the measurements have no bearing.

The art is elevated by those making the most insightful measurements. Things like understanding dipole radiation and room modes lead to the development of things like Linkwitz's Orion speakers and other great OB speaker designs. We could have muddled our way to them by trial and error, or we can take a good objective look at the world in which we hear, and get ourselves pointed in the right direction.

Sorry for the ramble. I basically agree with you, Ray, many people place way too much emphasis on simple measurements. The measurements and the listening tests are two sides of the same coin, and they come together, one cannot reject either if you want to maximize the audio experience.

peace,
sam

[zosoisme]

amen reyneman..........aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaam en !!!!!!! don't know about anyone else, but my ears dont do math, they either like or detest what is offered to them .....

[Bigerik]

No engineer actually said this. Instead, this myth arose from the determination that a simplistic mathematical representation was inadequate to explain the complex interactions of the flight of a bumblebee.

Similar, IMHO, to how many would have you believe that a few simplistic measurements of a few basic parameters are all that matters in the sound of your equipment.

Many fail to realize that the real basis of the ‘receiver wars’ during the 70s was the manufacturers’ battle for the lowest published specs required by the newly established audio guidelines. Vanishing low THD was a source of pride. Check out those channel separation numbers. How about those tuner specs.

Unfortunately, the manufacturers failed to consider the sound of their equipment, and frankly the musical experience seemed to deteriorate as more and more emphasis was devoted to the equipment specifications (Hey, did he just slam my vintage receiver? No, I think he just slammed all vintage receivers… :yes: ). I think that equipment engineered only to generate the best readings for a few basic specs is not the way to audio nirvana. That does not mean I believe that the basic specs are unimportant, only that I believe that they don’t tell the whole story.

Hearing developed as a survival trait, and has so many complex interactions that I don’t think we as yet understand all there is to how we perceive sound, especially on an individual basis. I’ll cut it off by stating that there is a great variance in what each of us find most pleasing in reproduced sound. What I’m getting to is those who worship on the altar of measurement are just as much oil salesmen as those who are in the marketing departments. They make claims that if they can’t see a difference in a few basic measurements, then by damn there is no difference. They then follow it up with certitudes that you’re a gullible idiot if you don’t listen to them (hmmm, and they say ‘the others’ use unsupportable claims). I have heard too many pieces of equipment that measured great but sounded bad to bend my knee there again.

Each of my points could be greatly expanded, but it isn’t important enough to me to do so. This post is merely to add some food for thought, to hopefully get you to consider areas you may not have considered before. The bottom line- both camps (subjective and objective) are just full of themselves and keep repeating the same erroneous platitudes. I say listen for yourself, keep an open mind and make your own decisions on an individual basis. And let others do the same.

And before you get too excited, there are some receivers I like.

Awesome post, Reyneman! Sums up what "Thinking Out Loud" is all about.
Damn, wish I could have said that! :D

[mhardy6647]

The only dangerous thing about a line of argument (thesis) like this is that it can lead to the illogical conclusion that "there are parameters to sound reproduction that cannot be meaured" [as opposed to 'haven't been meaningfully measured'], which can lead inexorably, IMNSHO, to things like magic pebbles and quantum purifiers and little chips that make CD's sound better.

The bottom line, though, is that what matters most is how it sounds to the listener (and there is a placebo effect in hi-fi, as in most other human-related issues).

[phidauex]

The only dangerous thing about a line of argument (thesis) like this is that it can lead to the illogical conclusion that "there are parameters to sound reproduction that cannot be meaured" [as opposed to 'haven't been meaningfully measured'], which can lead inexorably, IMNSHO, to things like magic pebbles and quantum purifiers and little chips that make CD's sound better.

The bottom line, though, is that what matters most is how it sounds to the listener (and there is a placebo effect in hi-fi, as in most other human-related issues).

Good point. I'm a firm believer that everything about audio can potentially BE measured, even if we haven't figured out exactly what to look for, or how to measure it yet.

If we can launch a satellite into space with four superconducting gyroscopes that are spherical to less than 40 atomic widths (the most spherical things in the known universe, next to neutron stars), that can detect an angular shift of less than .0001 arcseconds, the most precise angular measurement ever made, then we should be able to figure out why receiver A sounds better than receiver B. ;)

Of course, I'm not claiming that these critical measurements have been made. Making a measurement in an electrical system is like looking at a painting through a jeweler's loupe. It doesn't matter how powerful your loupe is, or how clear it has been polished, if you aren't looking in the right place. It is very easy to lose the forest for the trees... The challenge is finding the right properties of the system, and the right way to measure them. Thats what Kris and others are doing right now with the digital cables. Someone said, "These three digital cables sound different!" There isn't a good explanation for why that might be, so he's been making some different types of measurements to see if we can find the difference that someone is hearing. The reason is out there, its not magic, it just needs to be found.

peace,
sam

[Morden2004]

'How' something sounds is clearly a personal observation. And, to make matters worse, how something sounds to human 'A' may have no relationship to how it sounds to me, human 'B'. Clearly, the physiological properties of each human (that includes the ears and the brain) are not the same.

To the best of my knowledge, a critical analysis of the different responses to identical sounds is likely unobtainable. How does one quantify 'subjective analysis'?

Am I off track?

Paul

[phidauex]

Well... I don't want to turn this into a 'subjective vs objective' debate, so let me try to skirt around it with a different point...

If everything about an audio system can potentially be measured, then the fact that people have subjective hearing differences can be made irrelevant. If person A hears a difference between two things (that isn't in his/her head), then there is a physical difference between the two objects, that can be quantified. That would be an objective measurement of difference.

If person A likes the sound of object A better, we can't say that the physical property possessed by A is 'better' persay, just that person A likes it better. But that doesn't mean the difference isn't there.

Ideally we'd be at a point where we knew a lot about the small differences in our gear, and then individuals would know what they prefer. Person A would say, "I love receiver A, because I really like the sound of .0023 blah blah blahs." Person B would say, "I love receiver B, because I really like the sound of .0010 blah blah blahs." They'd shake hands, and all would be good.

The dirty exception comes when the differing property can be said to have a real effect on the accuracy of the output signal, and then you get into the 'is more accurate to the original recording better or not?' which is a dirty conversation we won't get into right now. ;)

However, most differing properties don't have a real difference in output accuracy. One changes the signal one way, the other changes it a different way, and neither can be said to be more or less accurate than the other, just different. Different order harmonic distortion measurements can fit into this category of 'not better or worse, just different.'

peace,
sam

P.S. Hi, my name is Sam, and I like a little 2nd order midrange distortion, and am sensitive to low frequency response and damping issues. Nice to meet you.

[PakProtector]

No engineer actually said this. Instead, this myth arose from the determination that a simplistic mathematical representation was inadequate to explain the complex interactions of the flight of a bumblebee.


What a bunch of ignorant BS. Measure wing area, and mass of said Bumblebee.

Just in case you haven't drawn the proper conclusion, wing loading isn't high, and there is *MORE* than enough math to account for this lift.
cheers,
Douglas

[Phil H]

I never put A-1 sauce on a good steak. I want to taste the meat not the sauce. I want to hear what the artist produced. The system's accurate reproduction of music is more important than what sounds good to me. I have no desire to find a configuration of equipment that will make Barry Manilow sound good to me. I won't wear rose colored glasses to an art exhibit. My equipment can be vastly improved. I would rather head toward accurate reproduction rather than seek colors that I like.

PS Maybe the same people who said the bumble bee can't fly said the same for the Wright Brothers.

[phidauex]

What a bunch of ignorant BS. Measure wing area, and mass of said Bumblebee.

Just in case you haven't drawn the proper conclusion, wing loading isn't high, and there is *MORE* than enough math to account for this lift.
cheers,
Douglas

The story goes that, in the 30's, an engineer and a biologist were talking at some conference, and the biologist wanted a better explanation of how a bumblebee got its lift. So, on the back of a napkin, the engineer calculated the lift the bumblebee could create. Of course, he made a lot of assumptions, like a smooth, rigid wing, spherical body, etc. I mean, he was calculating it on a napkin after all, so he had to keep the calculations simple, using the simplest lift models. He found that there wasn't enough lift to carry the mass of the bee.

Of course we have better models though, if you account for a changing slope angle, the flight of a bee is well understood. Even more complex things like dragonflys, which have a very complex four wing interaction, have been well modeled.

Its just that, in the 30s, on a napkin, some guy came up with the wrong answer based on a simplified model. Not the momentous issue people think it is...

peace,
sam

[reyneman]

A quote from an engineering thread:

To keep things simple, he assumed a rigid, smooth wing, estimated the bee's weight and wing area, and calculated the lift generated by the wing. Not surprisingly, there was insufficient lift

You're right PakProtector- there are a bunch of ignorant people talking out their ass.

[PakProtector]

A quote from an engineering thread:

To keep things simple, he assumed a rigid, smooth wing, estimated the bee's weight and wing area, and calculated the lift generated by the wing. Not surprisingly, there was insufficient lift

You're right PakProtector- there are a bunch of ignorant people talking out their ass.

Nope, straight area, no need to complicate things. Try it yourself if you don't believe me.

The key screw up must have been estimating the bee's mass fron its furry and heavy looking body. A simple scale would take care of that.


Of course this topic is a whole lot closer to the Audio Conundrum than was originally claimed, and that is IMO quite funny.
cheers,
Douglas

[cfowler]

What I have never been able to explain, is the fact that some of my most memorable musical experiences have been via very low-fi sources. For example the experience of hearing the Allman Bothers' "Jessica" on a car radio in 1972 on a summers day down at the beach. Or "Thus Sprach Zarathustra" the Deodato version, on a tranny under my pillow, not to mention the hours and hours of music I loved and listened to on my Kreisler three in one "Stereogram" at the age of 12 and 13.

For a while I spent a lot of time listening to the system instead of the music, now I am learning to hear both, but I am unable to hear what I heard back then, with the same level of passion and sheer simple joy. Back then the music mattered more than the source and level of reproduction quality, for a whiel there, music mattered more than anything else period.

[Sandy G]

I was thinkin' the same thing, cfowler...I remember the 1st time I heard "Slow Ride" by Foghat..it was whilst consuming a Beer, going way too fast w/a buddy in a Volare on the backroads near Waldorf, Maryland...It was on the car's Amplitude Modulation radio, & yet it blew me away..moreso than about any time I've heard it on more "capable" gear...Wonder how the slide-rule 'n' graph boys would 'splain that ?-Sandy G.

[bigmacc]

Great thought provoking piece. :thmbsp:

Of course you know l keep an open mind especially when it comes to music. :scratch2:

Hope you are coming to AK Fest next month take care buddy. :D

[Negotiableterms]

Great post, Reyneman!

I think there are a lot of things in audio for which we haven't developed good measurements. Waveform fidelity, or timbral accuracy, and so on are just easy examples. Science only provides correct answers when it has all of the data, and the model is complete as to major variables. That's clearly not yet the case in audio.

Let's just look at IM distortion. We measure it under an ancient standard (IHF?) by looking at two points, say 300 and 4000. If we could look at the total interaction over all points, would that give a more meaningful result? I dunno. Has anyone seen a more complete measurement of IM?

There's a commentary on this in Mix: "[Harmonic distortion] measurements quantify distortion components that are in some way related to the original input signal. What about distortion products that have nothing to do with the input signal frequencies? This nonlinear distortion is reflected in intermodulation (IM) distortion levels. However, IM distortion tests usually use only two input frequencies, whereas music and speech contain far more than two tones. Multitone IM distortion tests will reveal nonlinearities that generate distortion products at frequencies where no signal is present."

http://mixguides.com/studiomonitors/Basics/audio-mix-speaker-tests/

This is one example of our incomplete measurement system for audio gear. It's no surprise that we hear things that don't show in our measurements.

[Lefty]

Audio electronics is a well developed and engineered field. The performance and accuracy of the circuits can be measured and duplicated for a large volume production, even allowing for unit to unit variation ( you don't think every Pioneer SX-1980 has the same exact measurements do you, every electronic component has a tolerance spec you know?). However the customers, being human, required that they also design and install tone, loudness and volume controls so the user can make it sound best to their ears and that's how it should be.

I still feel that the electronic components get far too much credit and blame for good for bad sound, it's ones speakers and room layout the define the sound of ones system far and away....


Lefty

[Bigugh]

If that's totally the case, why aren't we all listening through cans & eliminating room & speaker anamolies from the equation? I'm no engineer, but I've been a guitar player long enough to know that when someone is talking about 'warmth' they're talking about a quality of distortion they find pleasing. Sound, like color, is a subjective reality, & how could what someone likes ever be statistically predictable?

[wineslob]

Audio electronics is a well developed and engineered field. The performance and accuracy of the circuits can be measured and duplicated for a large volume production, even allowing for unit to unit variation ( you don't think every Pioneer SX-1980 has the same exact measurements do you, every electronic component has a tolerance spec you know?). However the customers, being human, required that they also design and install tone, loudness and volume controls so the user can make it sound best to their ears and that's how it should be.

I still feel that the electronic components get far too much credit and blame for good for bad sound, it's ones speakers and room layout the define the sound of ones system far and away....

Lefty


I think you've nailed it........ almost. One thing I've notice in my 30+ years of being an "audiophile" or was it fool, it is in the speakers. BUT here's the catch, once you get to a certain level of micro detail the components become far more important. An example: I had an old Lux CD player that died. I replaced it with a cheap Sony SACD carousel player. Spec wise it "looked" great, and the reviews concurred. People were "stunned" at how good it sounds. I then bought a Marantz SA 8260 player. The Marantz virtually "specs" the same as the Sony. Essentially the Marantz bitchslaps the Sony. Why? I have no idea, but it makes it sound like crap, and its VERY noticeable.

[phidauex]

If that's totally the case, why aren't we all listening through cans & eliminating room & speaker anamolies from the equation? I'm no engineer, but I've been a guitar player long enough to know that when someone is talking about 'warmth' they're talking about a quality of distortion they find pleasing. Sound, like color, is a subjective reality, & how could what someone likes ever be statistically predictable?

A lot of people do listen through cans only! Check out http://www.head-fi.org :D There are a lot of great headphones, and great advancements in them that make listening through them great experiences.

Color is a subjective reality, however, we can still make good guesses about how others will perceive something. We are different humans, but we are all still humans, so educated guesses can be made. There are some things I could do to an audio signal that I bet nobody would think was an improvement, and some things I could do that I bet just about everyone would hear as an improvement, but there are also things that aren't as cut and dry. But at least the cut and dry things can be put aside as 'subjective, but not very'. ;)

peace,
sam

[GaryP]

One thing I've notice in my 30+ years of being an "audiophile" or was it fool, it is in the speakers.

My definition of an audiophile / audiophool ( ;) ) is one who appreciates well mastered music.

And to appreciate it, one must have a good playback system.

And to have a good playback system, every component counts, such as speaker cable, interconnects, power (receiver / pre amp / power amp / integrated amp), speakers, listening room, system set up, etc., etc., etc.

[Unda Maris]

Please don´t forget that mathematics and engineering drove the audio business for more than 100 years !

All of today´s existing audio gear may it be speakers, amplifiers, CD players, recording mixers, microphones etc. was possible, because there was the possibility for the manufacturers to build audio devices to a certain standard and at least to the state of the art of their time.
Only a standard made it possible that millions of people were able to listen to radio programs and records.

These standards were established by physical properties, voltages, sound pressure levels, distortion levels, frequency bands and so on.
If such standards wouldn´t exist, it would be e.g. a nightmare to adopt MM phono cartridge of manufacturer A to a phono preamplifier of manufacturer B and so on.

Most of the subjetivism friends don´t see, that they hear their music through components, which are built to strict technical standards and specifications.
If these specifications are reflected by the sales specifications is a completely different story, because there are many, really many more things to think about, while designing e.g. a speaker like the specs you will later read in an advertisement. This is systematic science, but not known by the public, because a lot which goes beyond standards and common knowledge is a manufacturer´s secret. This science may also include the wisdom how the taste of an average listener is. No manufacturer would sell more than a single unit, if really everybody had a different taste. So if the average phool wants to buy heavily distorted amplifiers, the engineers will set up a standard to make them exactly like the phools want them ... :scratch2:

IMHO the way to Audio Nirvana goes only over the music and the people who make music themselves and not by judging technical components by means of taste. For me this is so important like judging the quality of a glass safe while seening da Vinci´s "Mona Lisa" presented inside ... :scratch2:
So judge your audio gear with sine signals or whatever, but not with the innocent music ... :D

As a amateur musician I can say, that nothing, really nothing in audio comes close to making the music yourself, sorry ! And that´s the kind of subjectivism I like ! :D

[doucanoe]

Wow, mucho pontification going on here. Good points all actually but personally specifications don't mean much to me. I should say that speaker specification and testing data help me in determining what I think its personality will be prior to listening to it but amp/pre/tuner/cd spec's don't help me much. Im not a tech. or a engineer, just a music appreciator.

Most spec's of a tube piece that Im sure I would like, would more than likely be trounced by a well designed SS piece. I have owned Tuners with great specifications that leave me high and dry and also CD players that have done the same.

You can tell me about the specifications of a certian piece of gear and I will smile and say "lets give her a listen". Also, with the understanding that its more than likely going to sound different in my set-up.

I really feel that specifications are a good place to start but do not insure whether or not you will like the sound it produces or what it will do for you in your system. Personally, I seem to thoroughly enjoy tube preamp/amplifiers that dont bench test well and very efficient speaker drivers that are "colored" to many ears. I gave up a long time ago trying to impress others with my system so if it sounds good to me that is all that counts and measurements be damned.

Good Post R.

RC

[Billfort]

Great post doucanoe, I was going to post essentially the same thing you did here but didn't want to wade into another round of subjective vs. objective.

It always seems so futile when all I care to do is listen to music on my 'test-bench-challenged' tube, high-eff speaker and vinyl based system (with a little SACD simply because it sounds good).

[Bigugh]

I have some experience with sound reinforcement & FOH mixing. I worked for a fella for a while who would ring out the mains with pink noise & a spectrum analyser. "Statisically," that PA was dead-flat perfect. When the show would start he would lean over to me & ask "What do we need to fix?" & I would re-tweak the system until it sounded good. Dead-flat wasn't musical. I contend that the situation with hi-fi gear is relatively similar. Tube gear is cherished for the musical quality of the distortion that tubes produce. When I sold hi-fi gear in the late '70's the shop owner was an audiophile who probably had the best ears of anyone I've ever met. Switching distortion in A/B amps drove him nuts & he kept trying to teach me to hear it, too. I've gotta be honest & say if I've ever heard notch distortion in an amp it would be news to me. But I got to audition all kinds of gear in a well-controlled audio environment. There is a great deal of gear that is highly prized by people that I wouldn't have anything to do with for love nor money. Conversely, the stuff I've got is found to be lifeless & uninspiring to others. Why? The specs are good. Ears can be trained, but beyond a certain point what is good is what sounds good to you, specs be damned. I wouldn't be writing this if all of us were a bunch of fools jabbering about whether or not we should be pointing our Electrophonic speakers towards the walls. We're all listening, tweaking, improving our systems & we're listening to this broad array of gear because it sounds good to us, and that's as it should be. What a boring place this would be if we all liked the same things, eh?

My very humble opinion.

Don

[melofelo]

interesting thread... :thmbsp:

[mentalmonkey]

Great thread! Ray and Sam, your first post are both well written and seem well thought out to me. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I personally love vintage gear, but I know that some of my little (pre-spec war) era peices, such as my HK430 and my Sansui 5000x, not to metion my tube Scott 299B sound much better to my ears (at least with my Klipsch speakers) than my larger super spec monster receivers do. I know this is a generalization guys, and please don't get me wrong. The big SX Pioneers, the G series Sansuis, and many of the other big boys sound great. They just don't sound as great to me as their specs would sugest.

I do think specs have their place. I'm just not sure if we know yet what to specifically measure.

[john_w]

Very well put Ray! I have tried to get something like this point across in other threads and it seems like it just gets drowned in the momentum of the latest propaganda.

Also, looking at this from another angle...

From the point of view of an EE in the audio field (I'm a SWE, and an ASET, so I can only give a good educated guess here - but somebody more qualified may be able to tell me if I'm wrong), when he or she creates a new product, all they can start with are the numbers. It HAS to start there - no other choice. And there would have to be quite a bit of measuring and tweeking along the way.

Then, I would presume that if the engineer cares at all about what he is producing he eventually gives his prototype a listen (after taking some measurements), notes some subjective observations, then thinks about what he needs to tweek - again, based on the NUMBERS (micro-farads, ohms, volts, phase shift, slew rate, rise time, etc., etc...), and goes for another design iteration. This process, I would imagine, repeats until his boss yells at him and says "good enough already - ship it!" At which the engineer mumbles about his evil PHB and concedes.

There is an inescapable interplay between the specs and the outcome, which will likely have a huge subjective component to how it is judged. (i.e. somebody's brain interpreting what their ears are telling them.) It's like a two-horse carriage; you need both objective and subjective information to get realistic results.

Pure subjectivity is an over-simplification, probably promoted mostly by people with some latent bitterness about their high school math scores.

On the other hand, I think that pure objectivity is another form of over-simplification, with more of an ego component to it. After all, we know all there is to know about sound waves and how the human brain interprets them...right?? :no: