Niggly might be a good word for it, not that I intend to rub you up the wrong way in anything but a good-humoured way, but i am trying to eek (niggle?) out an understanding of where and why folk draw a line between the 'facts' they are willing to accept affect perception (the sugar/starch content and the sweetness of a banana) and the ones they don't (the ability of digital sampling to accurately represent audio spectrum).

Given that a page or so ago you agreed with Gazjam, that using spectroscopy to analyse the chemical content of wine could say nothing about the how that wine might taste, it seemed like rather a turn for you to then argue against Macca's post, retorting the reason for a banana tasting the way that it did was because of a 'fact' about it's chemistry.

Now, it may be that I missed the irony in your response to an already ironic post, in which case I'm sorry, it doesn't however undermine the credibility of the notion that there is a sensible place between pure objectivity and pure subjectivity where physics and psychology/perception can co-exist and enable us to put together good hifi systems without wandering 'lost in the dark' or of never enjoying any music because we're more interested in a frequency graph.