I have to respectfully disagree with some of your post. This is not about bashing you Tmazz, but about the culture marketing has created.
Steve, I have mentioned this before, but I am not sure if you were part of that thread. I understand and appreciate all of the points made in your post, but I do have one problem with what you wrote and that is your references to design "flaws." I am just not comfortable with you referring to some of the things you describe as flaws, a word which carries a very negative connotation when taking about a design. I prefer to call them design limitations. Using the word flaw implies that the piece of equipment sounds the way it does because of some error made by the engineer. Most times this is not the case at all.
Actually, in many cases it is errors that engineers do make in designing. Insufficient power supply (even in expensive components), number of filter sections used. Checking parts quality throughout, many are not necessarily associated with price at all. More as I follow through in response.
In a perfect world amn engineer would have an unlimited budget and not restrictions in terms of size, weight. heat dissipation etc and a customer base that would be willing to pay whatever it took to make a perfect sounding amp. But this is rarely, if ever the case.
Size, weight, heat dissipation are terms for power output, maybe the power or output transformer in an amplifier. Those terms do not define what it takes to make a perfect sounding amp or preamplifier. Who needs an unlimited budget, except for high power out? I designed a perfect sounding preamplifier which marketed for only $3,000. This is certainly not the 10 grand, 20 grand, 30 grand nonsense. Sure if one wishes huge amounts of output, the cost would be more, but we are discussing quality, not quantity.
By the way, I think we both agree that designing is more than solving a few equations. Please correct me if you feel differently.
I am sure there is not an audio designer out there that wouldn't love to put together an amp made with all top of the line Dueland caps, but the reality is that in most case, the cost of those caps could exceed the entire parts budget for the amp.
And how would one know how good/accurate a Dueland capacitor is (not just picking on Dueland)? By some string in some forum comparing capacitors? By the cost? DIYers? Those hardly qualify as defining how good/accurate a capacitor is. In fact, different physical shapes, sizes, voltage ratings from the same manufacturer can affect accuracy.
Secondly, by using the wrong values in coupling, the accurate capacitors are deemed poorer in quality, relegating the good capacitors to actual extinction. How many times has one seen schematics/diyers/capacitor comparisons that use .1, .22, .47, .82uf coupling capacitors in their designs.
Guess what, those smallish accurate capacitors will sound thin/sterile, while the fuller, less accurate capacitors will actually sound better. More will choose smooth over sterile. Unless the capacitors are properly tested, with the correct value ufd, the wrong brands will be claimed as superior. By the way, I found some much much less expensive that tested accurate, that I used in my preamplifiers and amplifiers, but they have become extinct due to the marketers and unqualified testers. I guess one wishes to pay more for the same sonic quality product, be my guest. That assumes the more expensive product is actually accurate.
Engineers do not undersize power suppliers or coupling caps because they don't know any better, they do so because they have to make compromises to make the amp work within the restrictions that they are given to work with and quite often produce a very good amp given those restrictions. To refer to a $1k amp as flawed because it does not sound as good as one that sells for $25k IMO is doing a great disservice to the company that sells it and the engineer who designed it.
Three comments. First engineers do undersize power supplies all the time. I cant remember the last time I saw a power supply that was designed properly; for example with the proper number of filtering stages. This included both inexpensive and very expensive components.
Secondly, with respect to price, you are correct in that there are price points, so $1k would necessitate a lesser quality. However, $25k is nonsense, unless one is dealing with super high power output, thus special ordered parts, and in appearance.
I do agree with the points you are trying to get across, but as a fellow EE I think you can understand why the choice of vocabulary gets under my skin.
There is a difference, as I am an electronics engineer, you an electrical engineer. Back in my day we concentrated on linear electronics, while your curriculum is much more generalized. I think we both understand that classes/books only give us the tools for further investigating. Frankly, I have found very few engineers who fully understand designing audio, even the very expensive components.
As one simple example, on another forum I know of one with a Masters Degree in EE from MIT who did not understand how an inductor worked in an electronic circuit. He stated twice he would flunk me for breakfast. Turned out he could only quote a narrow book definition; he understood nothing more. I proved otherwise by actual experiment/photo of results. He voluntarily left the forum never to return.
Anyway, back to synergy. In my mind synergy is simply the selection of various pieces of equipment whose sonic signature complement each other and add up to a better sound when used together as oppose to pieces whose sonic signature class and sound worse as a pair.
I agree. I would add that when designing, I dig deeper, thoroughly testing individual parts and dividing components into sections.
In conclusion, as I believe we both agree, that classes and books only provide a foundation for further investigation. This is not unique, as this also occurs in mechanical engineering and other disciplines.
Cheers
Steve