Audio Debates - Consensus?

[JonL]

Well Ray and Jon, very diplomatic :thmbsp: But on the other hand I was so hopeful.

BTW those 5 were off the top of my head. The list is endless and a discussion of them would produce similar useless results.

marc mc

If you think that a discussion is useless, then I guess it is. I remain interested in what you have to say and what you think of things.

Why do think the results were useless?

 

[RayW]

Can you explain why the results are useless?

edit: nice typing, Jon.

 

[RayW]

I agree with much of what you said Rich

You talkin to me??!?? Sorry, my DeNiro stinks.

as I've stated and will continue to believe, blind testing introduces more variables than than can be controlled and renders any results invalid. Listening isn't science it's all about the human factor...it's all about our preception.

Interesting take on it. Do you feel that blind testing has more variables than plain old A/B? In my mind, blind testing is A/B with the lights off. Seems like less variables to me as all the things you mentioned would be present whether you know what gear is playing or not. Do you feel that A/B testing is invalid in and of itself?

 

[Sam Cogley]

I agree with much of what you said Rich..except the blind test piece. It's exactly because the mind can play tricks that blind testing is not valid with regards to audio and sound. If mood can have an effect on how we perceive sound then it stands to reason that so too would ones level of arousal. If party A is more nervous or anxious relative to a rest than party B that may have a profound effect on his/her concentration and therefore accuracy...as I've stated and will continue to believe, blind testing introduces more variables than than can be controlled and renders any results invalid. Listening isn't science it's all about the human factor...it's all about our preception.

What additional factors would a blind test introduce that an A/B type of test would avoid? The whole purpose of a blind test is reduce the number of variables to a minimum, as the test subject doesn't know which items are in use. The one example you cited here is why a proper blind test uses a large sample size - you overcome differences in individuals. When use use non-blind A/B testing, you introduce the price-bias and expectation factors. In other words, if you expect item A to sound better than item B, it's likely that item A will sound better to you unless the difference is drastic.

 

[dogscanskate]

I think blind testing may have virtues but it may have flaws too. If the same test subjects were to audition the 2 different systems in the same room for a few hours every day for 30 days before the DBX test, do you think they'd better their chances of faring better? I'm inquisitive about that. I think being familiar with the surroundings, the acoustics of the hall and having heard each system before the ultimate test could yield different results (or maybe not). At least it would be scientifically more rigid.

Ray, thanks for going out on the limb, it shows you have guts (as a designer) to try and understand both sides of the coin. Kudos to you man!

 

[Negotiableterms]

Warning - Long Post

Hmmm... this thread has wandered quite a way off from my original question, which was simply a request for cites to any serious attempts to reconcile the two sides. I don't mind where it's gone, but it is a long way...

Some observations from a subjectivist (with the cables to prove it):

I dislike marc mc's views, because they're based on negativism. The fundamental concept that "I'm not a technical person, so I refuse to be in any way involved with the entire technical side, and make all decisions by listening" is based on a very prevalent form of self-limitation. We're all here typing on computers, transmitting over the internet. We should all be technical people, at least enough to understand the basics of what we're about. I believe it was Marilyn Vos Savant who, when asked what she thought was the biggest problem with American education, said: "We teach our children that a knowledge of sex is necessary, but not nice, while a knowledge of science is nice, but not necessary". I think the subjectivist-only view is a product of this problem.

Marc's viewpoint consigns the whole subjectivist community to being incapable of understanding any of the science of audio. I think everyone should understand as much science as they're able, and embrace it as fully as they can. Rejecting science as unimportant is not something I would like to see my children do... and it would sadden me greatly to hear them say such.

It's also completely antithetical. The entire audio realm is a creation of science. There's no such thing as audio reproduction without a ton of science, and there's no valid argument that more science in audio is worse than less science. The more we understand, the better our systems will be.

Second point, I find it noteworthy that one of the foremost technical wizards on this site (yes, Ray, I mean you) has gone out of his way to try to bridge the gap, while the "ears only" side is pushing hard to prove that the gap can't be bridged, and shouldn't be. It seems a symptom of the self-limitation syndrome for the subjectivists to wall themselves in by relegating science to designers and manufacturers, limiting themselves to their ears. I like the idea that the real scientists (as opposed to the high-school level know-it-alls) try hard to understand what the other side is hearing.

Last point, what gets manufactured is dependent on what sells. If buyers don't like the way it sounds, it won't sell. At the same time, manufacturing is entirely dependent on science and engineering to provide quality control and consistency from unit to unit. Anyone in the industry will tell you that you absolutely have to marry the two sides to succeed long-term in the audio business. If you can't measure to see how it sounds, you can't figure out how to build it to sound that way consistently. The fact is that manufacturers are bridging the gap every day... because they have no choice.

 

[Art K.]

What additional factors would a blind test introduce that an A/B type of test would avoid? The whole purpose of a blind test is reduce the number of variables to a minimum, as the test subject doesn't know which items are in use. The one example you cited here is why a proper blind test uses a large sample size - you overcome differences in individuals. When use use non-blind A/B testing, you introduce the price-bias and expectation factors. In other words, if you expect item A to sound better than item B, it's likely that item A will sound better to you unless the difference is drastic.

If you read my comments you would know what variables I believe are introduced.

 

[Art K.]

Hmmm... this thread has wandered quite a way off from my original question, which was simply a request for cites to any serious attempts to reconcile the two sides. I don't mind where it's gone, but it is a long way...

Some observations from a subjectivist (with the cables to prove it):

I dislike marc mc's views, because they're based on negativism. The fundamental concept that "I'm not a technical person, so I refuse to be in any way involved with the entire technical side, and make all decisions by listening" is based on a very prevalent form of self-limitation. We're all here typing on computers, transmitting over the internet. We should all be technical people, at least enough to understand the basics of what we're about. I believe it was Marilyn Vos Savant who, when asked what she thought was the biggest problem with American education, said: "We teach our children that a knowledge of sex is necessary, but not nice, while a knowledge of science is nice, but not necessary". I think the subjectivist-only view is a product of this problem.

Marc's viewpoint consigns the whole subjectivist community to being incapable of understanding any of the science of audio. I think everyone should understand as much science as they're able, and embrace it as fully as they can. Rejecting science as unimportant is not something I would like to see my children do... and it would sadden me greatly to hear them say such.

It's also completely antithetical. The entire audio realm is a creation of science. There's no such thing as audio reproduction without a ton of science, and there's no valid argument that more science in audio is worse than less science. The more we understand, the better our systems will be.

Second point, I find it noteworthy that one of the foremost technical wizards on this site (yes, Ray, I mean you) has gone out of his way to try to bridge the gap, while the "ears only" side is pushing hard to prove that the gap can't be bridged, and shouldn't be. It seems a symptom of the self-limitation syndrome for the subjectivists to wall themselves in by relegating science to designers and manufacturers, limiting themselves to their ears. I like the idea that the real scientists (as opposed to the high-school level know-it-alls) try hard to understand what the other side is hearing.

Last point, what gets manufactured is dependent on what sells. If buyers don't like the way it sounds, it won't sell. At the same time, manufacturing is entirely dependent on science and engineering to provide quality control and consistency from unit to unit. Anyone in the industry will tell you that you absolutely have to marry the two sides to succeed long-term in the audio business. If you can't measure to see how it sounds, you can't figure out how to build it to sound that way consistently. The fact is that manufacturers are bridging the gap every day... because they have no choice.

You can never fully understand what the other side is hearing, or tasting, or anything else as individual as how we peceive or sense. That's as individual as our fingerprints. I for one haven't said that the gap shouldn't be bridged, I have said it can't be. And I believe that or I wouldn't say it. In my opinion having studied behavioral science, it is an objective opinion based on the what we know about human perception. To believe otherwise IMO is to be closed minded relative to the human factor and to continue to ask that we measure the unmeasurable. It's like asking for objective data as to why some folks don't like Broccoli. We can state objectively why Broccoli is good for you and show the reasons. What we can never know is why one individual doesn't like it and another does.

I also studied electronics at the local community college after getting my degree in behavioral science and worked in QC and R&D for Supra, at the time an important manufacturer of fax modems. I left that job for a similar job with Northwest Microcircuits, I didn't have that job long before I was offered a job at Hewlett Packard. I believe in testing during R&D and all along the way during manufacture, how else are you to guarantee quality. Not only do I believe in it, I have done it.

When developing audio products, a foundation in science and measurement are essential. Most audio manufacturers have R&D departments, or personnel who are scientists and technical staff. In spite of that and all of the testing, their products still sound vastly different. How do we explain that...simple. That which is not measurable is always involved...our perception. Somewhere there is someone whose vision guides a company. It is their vision that the company is trying to realize. It's their perception that in the end will be the most important factor in deciding which product goes to market.

It's early and I'm babbling...time for another cup.

 

[crackerkorean]

In reading this thread there are definitely two sides to the discussion with one side still wanting to turn a blind eye to the other. You cannot have audio at all without science and engineering period there is no arguing this. New products need to be designed and tested and developed with theory and proper education.

As with anything, anybody can be educated to a point, the problem lies in if they want to learn. To use a different example person A can say liquid A tastes yummy there for I like it and is good for me. But a person B could run tests on it and find that its antifreeze. Yes it might tastes good but its not good for you.

So if person B tells person A that the liquid is bad but they just plug their ears and go lalalalalalalala im not gonna listen does this make them right? Person B is just trying to educate person A, yes it might taste good but is this the only basis to know if its good for you. (and just to note taste is just perception)

I know my self I just want to educate those that do not have the education that I have. I am not being pretentious but not everybody is in engineering school and haven't learned what I have, I am not saying I know all. But I think if I can use what I have learned to help educate others as to the whys of audio, the more people will be happy either through an improvement to their system or a savings of money that otherwise wouldn't have happened.

Another observation that I have noticed is that most of the debate comes from the tweaks. Tweaks being things that a person without a science (physics, chem etc) or engineering based education can make in their garage with much technical know how (cables, racks, stands, spikes, balls, cork wood etc). You dont see discussion about "oh your brand X thing sucks it closes the sound stage and the imaging" and the like as much. Its more of "this cable is great", "no your a moron cables dont do anything". Why is it these things bring up such polarizing discussion.

When somebody says "If I hear it its real.................enough said" scientist and engineers see this as a challenge. And thus comes the barrage of people trying to educate him as to why not to have such a closed mind them selves. And this is the same person at times saying "have and open mind, yet they would fail to do this them selves".

I know personally I have theories about many things in audio (theories are not set in stone but well enough that it would take quite a bit to change my mind) and these theories to me have been seen and heard repeatedly. This doesn't mean that I am 100% right there is no such thing when it comes to engineering and the sciences. In audio I keep an open mind but when something questions my own theories I try to find an explanation. I might not find it but this doesn't mean I wont enjoy my stereo. But if it goes against my common sense I wont bother. If those not on the side of engineering and science dont want any type of education so be it, but I will offer what I can where and when I have the opportunity if you want to learn.

I am not worried about quality of sound and what you hear as much as I am in a non negligible change in the sound. I could care less what you hear its not what im interested in. Its the link between the change that people claim and actual changes made, this takes out the human component, but can only be done in a repeatable lab environment.

 

[Art K.]

I will refrain from commenting here anymore as my answer is not the one you are looking for, though it is heartfelt and sincere. This is an interesting thread and I'm glad you opened it. The TOL forum rules!

 

[marc mc]

I dislike marc mc's views, because they're based on negativism. The fundamental concept that "I'm not a technical person, so I refuse to be in any way involved with the entire technical side, and make all decisions by listening" is based on a very prevalent form of self-limitation.

Please don't mistake negativism with lessons learned long ago.

As far as not being able to learn the technical side. It's not a case of can't but rather it's a case of time. Why would I spend precious hours reading technical data about audio when.

a) I can pick up a phone and call guys that have 30-40 years of knowledge in the various fields?

b) The understanding of this data would have no impact on me as a music lover who simply wants to hear and own great gear from a variety of design philosophies

c) I do not want to give up any time from my main area of study that I find 100 times more interesting and important to me.

We're all here typing on computers, transmitting over the internet. We should all be technical people, at least enough to understand the basics of what we're about. I believe it was Marilyn Vos Savant who, when asked what she thought was the biggest problem with American education, said: "We teach our children that a knowledge of sex is necessary, but not nice, while a knowledge of science is nice, but not necessary". I think the subjectivist-only view is a product of this problem.

I think I've said this about 10 times but I don't think it has been read once so here it is again. I love, believe and think science is VITAL TO AUDIO DESIGN. It just plays no role in my determination of how I think a product sounds or why I bought and own what I have bought and owned for the past 28 years. And it will play no role in what I buy in the future. I lined up 5 CDP's listened to them all and bought the Creek, because it sounded the best.

Marc's viewpoint consigns the whole subjectivist community to being incapable of understanding any of the science of audio. I think everyone should understand as much science as they're able, and embrace it as fully as they can. Rejecting science as unimportant is not something I would like to see my children do... and it would sadden me greatly to hear them say such.

talk about generalisations! Negotiableterms, please limit my viewpoint to my own PERSONAL viewpoint. And re-read my comments about rejecting science again. To follow your train of thought I would be a fool to not understand the science that went into the construction of my car. After all I trust the lives of the people I love the most including mine. I will sail down the highway at 100KM an hour and yet I know next to nothing about the steering and break mechanisms that my life is dependant upon. Does that mean that I have rejected science or does it not show that I have an utmost respect and trust in it? In the same way I have put my trust and money in the science of Kevin Hayes, Michael Wright, Jud Barber and Harry Weisfeld. And you are more than welcome to come and hear if my trust has been rewarded :thmbsp:

It's also completely antithetical. The entire audio realm is a creation of science. There's no such thing as audio reproduction without a ton of science, and there's no valid argument that more science in audio is worse than less science. The more we understand, the better our systems will be.

Read above. I would only add that the more the designers understood the science in their designs the better my system sounds. Once again I have reasons to remain passive in the process except for end use.

Second point, I find it noteworthy that one of the foremost technical wizards on this site (yes, Ray, I mean you) has gone out of his way to try to bridge the gap, while the "ears only" side is pushing hard to prove that the gap can't be bridged, and shouldn't be. It seems a symptom of the self-limitation syndrome for the subjectivists to wall themselves in by relegating science to designers and manufacturers, limiting themselves to their ears. I like the idea that the real scientists (as opposed to the high-school level know-it-alls) try hard to understand what the other side is hearing.

I'm glad you see Ray as the mediator. But I'm curious why he rips into every opinion I share by "Blinding it with science". I guess we differ on that point.

As for the second part I will just say are you kidding?

Last point, what gets manufactured is dependent on what sells. If buyers don't like the way it sounds, it won't sell. At the same time, manufacturing is entirely dependent on science and engineering to provide quality control and consistency from unit to unit. Anyone in the industry will tell you that you absolutely have to marry the two sides to succeed long-term in the audio business. If you can't measure to see how it sounds, you can't figure out how to build it to sound that way consistently. The fact is that manufacturers are bridging the gap every day... because they have no choice.

Science in design is vital and what you say about it's role there is absolutley true.

BTW you can make me out as the unteachable villian if you want. I have very thick skin. But I have seen this merry-go-round for the entire time I've been an audiphile and it ends the same every time. And even if we did agree and engage ina technical debate the arguments just change gears as the tech gurus will then start to argue over the white papers and testing procedures used. Like I said useless!

marc mc

 

[RayW]

I for one haven't said that the gap shouldn't be bridged, I have said it can't be. And I believe that or I wouldn't say it.

I think we might have different ideas of what "bridging the gap" means, Art. To me it means trying to understand what the other side is hearing, feeling, measuring, etc. I'm not looking to change anyone's viewpoint or "camp". I'm not trying to fill in the gap so there's nothing there and we're all one big, Kumbaya singing commune.

What I'd like to see is the objective side looking at someone saying "I hear a difference in these cables" and instead of replying "it's wire, see this number? shut up", say "hmmm, describe the difference as precisely as possible and maybe we can figure out what's doing it."

And I'd like to see the subjective listener instead of replying "it doesn't matter what's doing it, I like it so go back to your graph paper, Pencilneck" try learning enough about the science side to describe what they hear in definable terms.

Neither side has to cross over, but they can meet in the middle and get along. In the end it may not matter what made a difference, but if we can figure it out then it makes it a heck of a lot easier to come up with more things you might like.

 

[Bigerik]

Just a couple of quick observations....

Definitions of science:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation. Science makes use of the scientific method, which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis.

Scientific method:
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

The set of rules used to guide science, based on the idea that scientific "laws" be continuously tested, and replaced if found inadequate.


Science is being bandied about in this forum as if someone were actually using science to prove or disprove something. Just because someone measures something, it does not necessarily follow that those measurements are scientific. Science asks a lot more than just measuring something for their to be proof, or even a valid theory. Observation is usually the first part of science and measurements are just ONE of the tools used to further a hypothesis.

I know people like Ray, who have done vigorous work on speakers, for instance, and is certainly competent to speak to what he has learned, measured, done and discovered and built and the results of all of that.

However, while I see a lot of first person observations in TOL about what something sounds like (which is not surprising, considering that is what the forum was set up to be), I have, with very few exceptions (House de Kris has done some good work in this regard), seen anyone try to use any scientifically vigorous methods, or even measurements, to support what they say or disprove what others say in this forum.

To many, the word "science", becomes an intellectual bludgeon utilized to end debate or dismiss another persons observations. Sure they will quote one ABX test done in the past that proves their point, or they will parrot someone like Peter Aczel because he supports their bias. They will use science as if that is the final word, whereas what science truly tries to do continuously is prove itself as being wrong.

Rather than using science to end debate, would not a real scientific approach be to try to understand why the people are observing and experiencing what they are and put the pieces into place to gain an understanding of it? Of course, the flip side of this would be to ask for more rigorous and detailed observations on the part of those who state that they are hearing a difference. However, there have been enough observations in this forum of people hearing differences between tweaks, for instance, for a scientific study to be formed and questions asked as to why they are hearing what they say they are.



PS. The idea of cd players sounding the same is based on one espoused by Peter Aczel and parroted by his followers. Aczel says:

As long as they meet the fairly exacting specifications expected these days--and most of them do--they will sound the same, regardless of price. That does not mean, of course, that some are not far superior in measured performance (well below the threshold of audibility) and construction quality.

 

[Bigerik]

I think we might have different ideas of what "bridging the gap" means, Art. To me it means trying to understand what the other side is hearing, feeling, measuring, etc. I'm not looking to change anyone's viewpoint or "camp". I'm not trying to fill in the gap so there's nothing there and we're all one big, Kumbaya singing commune.

What I'd like to see is the objective side looking at someone saying "I hear a difference in these cables" and instead of replying "it's wire, see this number? shut up", say "hmmm, describe the difference as precisely as possible and maybe we can figure out what's doing it."

And I'd like to see the subjective listener instead of replying "it doesn't matter what's doing it, I like it so go back to your graph paper, Pencilneck" try learning enough about the science side to describe what they hear in definable terms.

Neither side has to cross over, but they can meet in the middle and get along. In the end it may not matter what made a difference, but if we can figure it out then it makes it a heck of a lot easier to come up with more things you might like.

Nice post, Ray!

 

[RayW]

But I'm curious why he rips into every opinion I share by "Blinding it with science".

Could you give an example or 2 of this ripping? I don't recall ripping into your opinion.

BTW you can make me out as the unteachable villian if you want. I have very thick skin. But I have seen this merry-go-round for the entire time I've been an audiphile and it ends the same every time. And even if we did agree and engage ina technical debate the arguments just change gears as the tech gurus will then start to argue over the white papers and testing procedures used. Like I said useless!

I believe this is the negativity that Negotiableterms was talking about. Maybe it ends the same way every time because you maintain the same stance every time. If you're convinced it will be useless and you're unwilling to even attempt to understand the other side then you're fullfilling the prophecy from within.

 

[dogscanskate]

It's still an interesting thread but the tech gurus have avoided this discussion like the plague. There are a few exceptions such as sheltie dave and RayW who have shown interest in sharing their thoughts (from the technical standpoint) and to whom I'm grateful. I just wish there were more.

I recognize a lot of posters whose writings I respect an awful lot and are just plain fun to read (most of you guys who've participated in this thread).

I can easily understand where marc mc comes from and looking at his system, he has invested heavily in good engineering. It's all about the music not the specifications. For a guy who is so subjective, he invested in solid engineering skills, go figure !

When I used to work in the field (audio), I was lucky to meet many designers. All they said when testing their product was : "Listen, tell me what you think". Never once have I ever gotten into the technical aspect of a product with any of these guys. I sure wished it but for some reason, this never happened. The proof was in the listening. I think it shows that many designers cared more about how the product performed playing music than how it measured in the lab. I would say most if not all measured quite well.

As soon as this thread dies, we'll get back to the "can you back up your claim with scientific proof?" and it will be business as usual, thread killed.

To all of you who have posted, kudos! You have made an effort and have shown you are open minded! At least, this is a start!

 

[Art K.]

What I'd like to see is the objective side looking at someone saying "I hear a difference in these cables" and instead of replying "it's wire, see this number? shut up", say "hmmm, describe the difference as precisely as possible and maybe we can figure out what's doing it."

And I'd like to see the subjective listener instead of replying "it doesn't matter what's doing it, I like it so go back to your graph paper, Pencilneck" try learning enough about the science side to describe what they hear in definable terms.

Nice post, Ray!

I promised, and now I break it...oh well.

The problem with that post are what I have quoted above. You're asking both sides to define what they hear in your terms...more objective technical/scientific terms.

You want the objectivist to explain what they hear in the way that they already do (without the name calling) and would like the subjectivist to change how they define what they hear to the language of the objectivist. At least that's how I read it and would welcome clarification.

When I describe what I hear, I do it in definable terms. As does just about every subjectivist I know. The subjective world of audio has a language all it's own just like the world of the objectivist. Most of us are familiar with the terms used in describing something, anything, objectively.

The problem seems to come when using the subjective language of audio. One way to deal with that is to agree on a glossary of terms. There are a bunch available and most agree on the definition of terms.

We have a common language relative to the objective world and we can never agree on all things subjective (self defined don't you think), however, perhaps we can agree on a common language relative to subjective descriptions relative to audio.

That will ofcourse never get to the real unmeasurable differences that make us human, and that will make each one of our listening experiences unique to us, and that's ok...I like being unique!

 

[JonL]

The problem seems to come when using the subjective language of audio. One way to deal with that is to agree on a glossary of terms. There are a bunch available and most agree on the definition of terms.

We have a common language relative to the objective world and we can never agree on all things subjective (self defined don't you think), however, perhaps we can agree on a common language relative to subjective descriptions relative to audio.

I agree. That would be very helpful IMO.

That will ofcourse never get to the real unmeasurable differences that make us human, and that will make each one of our listening experiences unique to us, and that's ok...I like being unique!

I couldn't agree more with this, as well. :thmbsp:

 

[RayW]

I promised, and now I break it...oh well.

I was hoping you'd be back. :thmbsp:

The problem with that post are what I have quoted above. You're asking both sides to define what they hear in your terms...more objective technical/scientific terms.

Not really, but my examples didn't do a very good job of conveying what I meant. I'd like to see the subjectivist describe the sound as best they can, using technical jargon if they can, that's true. But I'd also like to see the objectivist side diving in and trying to figure out what "more air" means so we can have a crossover. I really didn't mean to put the onus on just the subjective folks. I think it has to be each side reaching for the other that will cause them to meet in the middle.

At least that's how I read it and would welcome clarification.

I'm tryin, bear with me.

The problem seems to come when using the subjective language of audio. One way to deal with that is to agree on a glossary of terms. There are a bunch available and most agree on the definition of terms.

I'm all for it, but how do you define those terms? Throw out an example and we'll see where we can go from there.

That will ofcourse never get to the real unmeasurable differences that make us human, and that will make each one of our listening experiences unique to us, and that's ok...I like being unique!

Like they say, there's no accounting for taste. And never forget, Art, that you're unique...just like everybody else!

 

[shimniok]

I was thinking just now that this reminds me of amateur auto racing (SCCA for example). The drivers are seeking the most performance out of their car through adjustments, tweaks, upgrades, etc. I have no idea if this is true but maybe some go purely by feel of the car, others go purely by measurements and still others do both.

One can buy a bunch of different bolt on enhancements and try them to see what works best. Another person can try to make heads or tails of engineering, science, measurements, and try to predict what will work best. Or at least understand why some things work together and others don't. Another might mix both methods. Either method might work or fail miserably, cost too much or take too much time, or who knows what. Much of that depends on luck, skill, etc.

I think the higher up the performance curve you get, the more minutely incremental the changes and effects, and --I think-- the harder it is to model in mathematics, and to measure and predict. And the harder it is to 'feel' the difference in driving, I suspect. More and more variables start to become significant and relevant to the tiny incremental changes. And debates rage in car performance circles.

Of course the main difference is that the goal of racing isn't maximum driving enjoyment, it's a performance measurement and that's where the analogy falls totally apart. Hm. Well, I guess I was just "thinking out loud"