Dear Morb,
It's also a non-sequitur to discuss the JFK Jr problem, call it "fallible senses vs instrumenation", and then use that as a proof of the limits of hearing. In fact, your comparisons are apples-oranges.
You were comparing an optical sensor (eye) with, what, EM radiation sensors(?) under conditions where the optical sensor is severely disadvantaged. Had you compared optical to optical (e.g. eye to camera, telescope) you would have discovered that the instrumentation was no better than the eye under those fogged in conditions.
My point was to say that human sensory detection uses a wide variety of criteria in arriving at conclusions, and is subject to a high degree of training (yes, pattern recognition). Agreed, it has nothing to do with electron flow, and neither does your commentary. But my point actually does have a great deal to do with why audiophiles, as well as audio professionals, become skilled in hearing fine differences, and also with a discussion on the fallibilities of double blind tests. Lets not get into blind testing here; it's a long and heated argument.
It's a necessary and good exercise to look at audio "theories" in terms of well-established scientific knowledge, like phase diagrams and electron flow. But it's also a little dangerous to always infer from the text book situation to the engineering situation; the devil is in the details, and human ears need to be trusted at times to tell you that you haven't always got the explanation right.
