It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.
i trust that Van Maanen is competent in audio design... As i know that you are competent in your specs review...
but my point citing Van Maanen is because he was INSPIRED by the non linear aspect of hearing and the time dependant domain where the act of hearing take place ... He used this in his tought experiment and real experiment with his design..
But so competent he could be i have no idea about the quality of his design...
I used it to complement my point about the ecological hearing theory...Van Maanen is conscious of that... You have heard many more high end components than me, buy one and review it... I will love that... 😊
Test yourself his design and i will read your review...i will never be able to buy his product anyway...😊
I dont belive in the Van Maanen design theory...I cannot evaluate it by listening anyway... And i am not competent in amplifier design... BUT I KNOW THAT VAN MAANEN IS RIGHT about hearing theory and the way the ears process sound in relation to sound source.. this is why i read it...
There is mystery when you state a theory you have believed with no evidence in reality. You have not presented any data points related to performance of audio amplifiers. You just want us to read a few lines of text written by a company designer. So no, it is not evident in the least.
But for Van Maanen some other aspects of his design are inspire4d by his hearing theory ideas... Then he used music real test also and very importantly..
Our job is to verify his claims there. After all, every designer uses music to check out what they have built. And they all claimed to be informed as such in their designs. We as consumers are left to figure out who is right in this and who is not.
I have repeatedly asked you to tell me about nature of Van Maanans music testing. You don't have any to offer. And he has not seen fit to provide such proof either. There is nothing scientific about that. We have classic audio marketing, that's all.
What? We design circuits based on knowledge of electronics, not Fourier "tools." Fourier principles are used in such things as lossy audio compression but have no role in design of say, an analog amplifier.
I wonder, if ASR website (Amir Science Review) was so popular, beating every single audio forum & site, including Stereophile, by multiple TIMES, why the owner of that site, the honorable Amir His Majesty, spend so much time here?
Because ASR is more than me: it includes tens of thousands of your fellow audiophiles who are discussing audio topics on their own without me. I do my part to post my near daily reviews and folks go on discussing them and other topics of interest. You can read my audio review from last night. Or you can hang around here and continue to show interest in what we are discussing...
But for Van Maanen some other aspects of his design are inspire4d by his hearing theory ideas... Then he used music real test also and very importantly..
I thank you for your informative set of measures ffrom tghe beginning... Why ? because this useful...
But i disagree wi5th you vabout the importance of hearing theory and listening test...I disagree with the idea that we can predict more than the behaviour of the electronic compobnents but also their sound qualities... Sound qualities is a set...In this set each sonic character production cannot be predicted as human hearings will perceive it and judged it...
In a word Fourier is reliaqble for circuit design not for predicting all aspects og hearin experience..
There is no mystery in what i said... this is evident
There is mystery when you state a theory you have believed with no evidence in reality. You have not presented any data points related to performance of audio amplifiers. You just want us to read a few lines of text written by a company designer. So no, it is not evident in the least.
Your information is useful, but you cannot qualify all amplifier only on the specs measured... listening test arenecessary...
My information is routinely the only reliable data you have on performance of audio equipment. The only thing outside of that is marking claims and buyer anecdotes. Come back with such listening tests on all audio gear and I will stop measuring.
Is a measuring tool set is enough to predict the linear well behaviour of circuits ..,.Yes... But it is not enough to qualify and determine the ultimate sound value...listening is necessary..
Fine. Where is the link to the listening test protocol and results so we can examine their correctness?
I wonder, if ASR website (Amir Science Review) was so popular, beating every single audio forum & site, including Stereophile, by multiple TIMES, why the owner of that site, the honorable Amir His Majesty, spend so much time here? 50 posts so far on this thread alone in a few days. Daily. Even in weekends. And very long elaborate posts. Nobody wonders why so many men hours that can be spent measuring stuff, and posting in the website he owns? 🤔
only an idiot will say that Fourier theory is useless in design... But Van Maanen use real musical test and his psycho-acoustic knowledge and LISTENING as essential... Thats my point
None of us care how something is designed. We are caring about how to evaluate company claims of superior fidelity. You say it is done with music. I ask how and you have no answer. I show you that the very same company is using measurements to prove that and now you say it must be OK then.
Is a measuring tool set is enough to predict the linear well behaviour of circuits ..,.Yes... But it is not enough to qualify and determine the ultimate sound value...listening is necessary..
i added to this that we must enlarge and added to fourier theory an ecological theory of hearing to understand what we hear... Magnasco and Oppenheim say that...
Where is the mystery ?
My basic point is simple...
Your information is useful, but you cannot qualify all amplifier only on the specs measured... listening test arenecessary...
It is useful to have a hearing theory... No one can object to that...
This is why the Magnasco and oppenheim experiment is important as the final note of many other experiments in the same direction revealing the limites of Fourier tools for understanding hearing..
There is no mystery in what i said... this is evident
He does not used ONLY fourier tool but his hearing theory ideas then musical real music too and mainly...
Ah, we finally make progress. So measurements with "fourier" tool is instructive to tell us about fidelity of audio gear. Well, that is what I am producing. And what your manufacturer is NOT.
As to whether he is testing with real music, no proof of that is provided whatsoever. We don't even know the song titles let alone how such a test was conducted.
You are not able to contradict me about hearing theory and then you resort to absurdities and put them in my mouth ..
There is no dispute about the research you put forward. That the brain applies non-linear processing to what it hears is a given. Nothing in there said anything about measurements. That came from your designer who wants to sell amplifiers with certain characteristics. To which I say fine. Please prove that they are audibly superior to competing design. He doesn't have this proof. And you don't either.
but hearing theory is impossible to understand with only Fourier tools and theory..We need other more ecological approach because sound phenomenon CANNOT BE RECONSTRUCTED as the ears produce them with ONLY FOURIER TOOLS...
Is it diffucult to understand ?
The claim no. The proof, absolutely. How have you convinced yourself of any of this without a single controlled test? You say the ears matter yet your designer has not provided a single comparison with ears that his amplifiers sound better than any other amplifier.
the testing of the design oprocess included Real musical burst and sine wave...
No, I am dead serious. Were you there when he performed these listening tests? What was his equipment compared to? How was the listening test done? Blind? Level matched? How were any issues narrowed to the specific design techniques?
An why were any sine waves used? You keep saying they shouldn’t be used.
I know how to read. But I don't want to imagine anything. I like to see facts, not articles written by someone to promote their electronic design. Do you have proper listening test results for anything you have put forward?
the testing of the design oprocess included Real musical burst and sine wave... All designer use Fourier tools.. I dont understand your point... you seems desesperate to put me in a box with a contradiction..
I am not the expert on design... But all designer Use Fourier tools... There is NO AUDIO DEESIGN WITHOUT FOURIER TOOLS...
but hearing theory is impossible to understand with only Fourier tools and theory..We need other more ecological approach because sound phenomenon CANNOT BE RECONSTRUCTED as the ears produce them with ONLY FOURIER TOOLS...
I say WE SHOULD NOT USE ONLY FOURIER TOLLS AND SINE WAVE AND TONE BUT ALSO REAL MUSIC AND LISTENING AS ESSENTIAL PART OF THE DESIGN...
You want to put in my mouth an absurdities...Fourier theory is essential to design... No designer can trash it..
You are not able to contradict me about hearing theory and then you resort to absurdities and put them in my mouth ..
😊
only an idiot will say that Fourier theory is useless in design... But Van Maanen use real musical test and his psycho-acoustic knowledge and LISTENING as essential... Thats my point
Thats my point suggesting an ecological theory of hearings qwith not only Magnasco and Oppenheim but many other researcher in acoustic....
I don't care about many others not cited or any ecological "theory." We care about reality of how to determine audible performance of an amplifier to make purchase decisions. Your own expert witness is using test tones to do that. In both papers,. Yet you say we shouldn't.
Tone sine waves are used by all designers.. they are part of the design process.. . The ultimate test is by musical real music...
Nope. Again, he said that the tone burst clearly shows the audible difference:
"To that end, two high-quality amplifiers with clear differences in their perceived sound, have been tested with tone-bursts. In this report, only the results at 30 Hz will be reported and discussed, as at these low frequencies the issues show more clearly."
I like to know why he can test two amplifiers with test tones and declare audible superiority of one over the other just as he is doing. Please answer that.
I make appeal to this ecological theory because you criticized all audiophiles TOGETHER in a single block as being ALL wrong because they supposed that "musicality" exist in some design when they listened to it even if the design do not correspond with your limited set of linear measures
I don't criticize people. I measure audio equipment and if I see problems in it, I report. If you are going to dispute that, then you need to come forward with either your own measurements to the contrary or controlled listening tests. Take this page of your favorite designer's product:
It says "distortion minimized for human hearing." Where is the proof of that? A manufacturer can just say it and it becomes true?
It has a bunch of simple numbers in there. What are the conditions under which they were measured? It produces 75 watts at what distortion? What is the level of noise? Here is how I show power:
You see how informative that is compared to his one number?
What you see there is pure marketing fluff. It is not remotely useful to make a purchase decision. Not on objective or subjective basis.
Title: "Tone burst response of amplifiers to determine some properties of their dynamic behaviour"
Tone sine waves are used by all designers.. they are part of the design process.. . The ultimate test is by musical real music...
Please explain to me why it is OK for him to run such tests when you claim any such test is based on "fourier theory" and therefore invalid. I remind you that this is your expert witness.
Are you serious? Fourier Theory is the BASIS of circuit design... I never said that it must be put in the trash bin... 😊
but as a basis to hearing theory Fourier analysis alone dont work... THIS IS MY POINT and Magnasco and Oppenheim point... Van Maanen know that and use the time dependant way the ears works to imagine his specific parts design... I use Van Maanen here as a PROOF for you that Fourier based theory essential for linear predictive beahaviour of components must be used also with an hearing theory which is not Fourier based...The first article i cited of Van Maanen is about :"Often disregarded Conditions for the correct Application of Fourier Theory" did this title suggest to throw out Fourier theory in the trasbin ?
You know how to read i imagine..
As a hearing theory Fourier theory is unsufficient to describe the real hearing workings.. Thats my point suggesting an ecological theory of hearings qwith not only Magnasco and Oppenheim but many other researcher in acoustic....
Van Maanen said explictly that he use real MUSIC signals not artificial tones or continuous sine wave to test his design and measure their behaviour under stress ....And he described in his articles how he designed his own amplifiers... He is not in the job of comparing amplifiers as you did with some set of linear measures...
Title: "Tone burst response of amplifiers to determine some properties of their dynamic behaviour"
Then he says this:
"To that end, two high-quality amplifiers with clear differences in their perceived sound, have been tested with tone-bursts. In this report, only the results at 30 Hz will be reported and discussed, as at these low frequencies the issues show more clearly."
See? Not only does he use classic test tones, but says it "clearly" shows the difference between the two amplifiers. Here is one of his graphs for the first amplifier:
Please explain to me why it is OK for him to run such tests when you claim any such test is based on "fourier theory" and therefore invalid. I remind you that this is your expert witness.
@mahgister First you state this:I beg your pardon but all my posts which are a rational discussion with Amir were not about subjectivits and objectivists, which is a MEANINGLESS debate let to itself most of the times;
Then you say this:But on this thread it is not at all what all is about... Here it is about objectivist versus subjectivist...
Sometimes it pays to remember what you previously post in reply to other members--IMHO.
As i said above Van Maanen use real musical signals not artificial tone as you repeat erroneously many times... Consult the article..
I have read every word of that article, multiple times. There is no mention of any such musical signals. Nor proof point that they are revealing as such.
The only signal he shows is a disjointed sine wave:
The input signal is in blue. Does that look like music to you or a test signal? Answer is the latter, yes? In his very own simulation he shows the value and power of using simple test signals.
The name of his company is "temporal coherence"... After all that he propose his finished product to a general listening tests among potential customers or reviewers...
Again, as do every other manufacturer of audio gear. Where is the proof that he has figured out the secret in musicality that measurements don't show? Offering ear to customers and reviewers is not that. He needs to demonstrate with listening tests that his claims are correct.
This physicist only describe how he think about his own design parts in relation to one another to satisfy "musical qualities" as himself hear them and he try to realize a design that will take into account the non linear and time dependant way that the ears related himself to music...
So? Just about every designer claims to be making musical amplifiers. Claims are easy. Where is the proof point in the form of listening tests that he is accomplishing this? You say humans can tell such. Where is the human tests then?
It isn’t though. People here want to know what gear to buy that gives them the best audio performance.
If they want to check the gear performance and compared the designer specs with your VERIFICATION and opinion about the specs really measured, they will do as me and consult your ASR site and thank you for the review about specs ....
But on this thread it is not at all what all is about... Here it is about objectivist versus subjectivist... And it is about your claim that verification of specs measured said all there is to said about gear choice... I thank you as i said for your OBJECTIVE INFORMATION... I dont thank you for your measuring ideology extended as a theory who claim to be able to predict what is the " musicality" of an amplifier with ONLY A LIMITED SET of linear MEASURES, I DID NOT THANK YOU WHEN YOU PUT all audiophiles IN THE SAME TRASH BIN BECAUSE THEY DONT BUY YOUR HEARING AND LISTENING THEORY...
You put forward a paper that uses artificial tones to see if the listener can detect simultaneously the time and frequencies of those artificial tones. Nothing in that research included or involved testing amplifiers.
Van Maanen said explictly that he use real MUSIC signals not artificial tones or continuous sine wave to test his design and measure their behaviour under stress ....And he described in his articles how he designed his own amplifiers... He is not in the job of comparing amplifiers as you did with some set of linear measures... He design his own , he does not debunk gear market as a job as you did .... He says it clearly here : " All stages of an amplifier should be as linear as possible when Fourier theory is to be applied to approximate its response to music signals". Not artificial tones..
Here what you said is so distorted compared to what i spoke about, it is COMPLETELY out of what i claim about Van Maanen opinion :
You and the Van Maanen’s brief write up which you keep quoting have theorized that this research gives the ability for people to tell two amplifiers apart which are pristine as far as measurements. Not a single listening test of such amplifiers has been presented by you or him. You expect us to make a massive leap from a test of artificial tones to accepting this.
I nevear said nor Van Maanen that his research gives the ability to people "to tell two amplifiers apart which are pristine as far as measurements"... You describe you own job here... Van Maanen dont do the same job as you...He dont debunk gear specs and do not tell people what is better or not for them IN SPITE OF THEIR OWN HEARING EXPERIENCE... You do that, not Van Maanen... This physicist only describe how he think about his own design parts in relation to one another to satisfy "musical qualities" as himself hear them and he try to realize a design that will take into account the non linear and time dependant way that the ears related himself to music... The name of his company is "temporal coherence"... After all that he propose his finished product to a general listening tests among potential customers or reviewers...
You talk about science. In science we postulate a theory. We can then either show that mathematically to be correct, i.e. Einstein, or practically correct by experimentation. You have shown neither. There is no mathematical proof that two amplifiers that measure exceptionally clean in my testing have audible artifacts that are clear to folks like you. And you certainly haven’t provided any controlled tests that demonstrate that.This is the main issue I keep bringing up. I have explained why you can’t leap from the one research paper with artificial tones to testing of audio products.
As i said above Van Maanen use real musical signals not artificial tone as you repeat erroneously many times... Consult the article..
Now you accuse me to not proposing a mathematical theory of hearing? Are you kidding me ? i have the impression you dont know at all what you speak about now... The ecological theory of hearing explicitly suppose that the mathematical Fourier frequencies based theory is unsufficient to describe sound qualities as perceived by humans... Because sound qualities are INTEGRAL QUALITATIVE WHOLES, AFFORDANCES said Gibson, the ears/brain has learned to identify and perceive and USE in evolutive history ( because perceiving sound is related to the way human produce sound ) ...
I make appeal to this ecological theory because you criticized all audiophiles TOGETHER in a single block as being ALL wrong because they supposed that "musicality" exist in some design when they listened to it even if the design do not correspond with your limited set of linear measures ...you negate that audiophile OPINION as pure ILLUSION... This is why my critic came for, against your idea that well measured specs as you define it in the material design suffice to provide an amplifier with a good musicality... Your claim is not wrong in itself, a design must be well behaved and working in a predictive way linearly... But i criticized your claim that the set of measure used to analyse the design is all there is that is necessary... The set of measures CAN BE IMPROVED and the design too can BE IMPROVED ... and even then, we will need LISTENINGS to verify if the improved design correlate with the right set of measures to tell all the story there is to tell...In a word we must train and trust our ears... Measuring is not enough...
And no, appealing to authority in the case of Van Maanen being a "physicist that knows what he is doing" means nothing. Physics education doesn’t teach you anything with regards to audible differences between amplifiers. By that notion, any physicist audiophile could say anything and we would have to believe it which is obviously wrong.
Here i apologize to say it you are a bit pathetic ...I insisted in the beginning about the bio and expertise of Van maanen because , remember, that at the beginning you described his article as leaflet of marketing publicity to sell his amplifier... You try an ad hominem attack to minimize his sayings.. ... i insisted that they were serious articles describing his way to understand design of amplifier and speakers if we take into account the psycho-acoustics about the ears non linear structure in the time dependant domain...By the way if you read his bio he learn electronics in his teen years and ALWAYS designed amplifiers all his life as a hobby in paralleel to his works in physics of fluids... As you know acoustic is related to fluid mechanics.. Then after your ad hominem attack i feel that i must establish his real status as an expert... I am not an expert but i know how to read... I use Van Maanen and Magnasco and Oppenheim and Gibson, to CORRECT your claim about hearing and measure...They never correlate as you claim you can do it...Then Audiophiles are not all pure deluded people because they trust their ears... ... But you are right they must inform themselves about measures yes.. but objectivist fanatics mocking audiophile must study psycho-acoustic and hearing theory... You get my point now ? i am not a subjectivist nor an objectivist,... I think and hear by myself and i try to inform myself even by reading your specs analysis for which i thank you because it is useful...But i dont buy your propaganda about blind test and audiophiles all put in one bag together..
I can only speak for myself but the problem at hand for most here on this thread I think is how to best choose what to buy. Measurements are very useful for that. Explaining why human hearing is so complex is totally useless towards that end. It is useful to understand how human hearing works to help better understand why we hear what we do. But these are two totally different use cases. What is of value always depends on context. So there really should be no debate. Two totally different sets of information used for two different but related purposes. Best to understand it all but no point in arguing one versus the other. One topic at a time please!
You have now turned this into a test of manhood when it comes to listening test ability.
You really have a problem if your manhood is threatened by @mahgister.
There is no mathematical proof that two amplifiers that measure exceptionally clean in my testing have audible artifacts that are clear to folks like you.
You've probably not tested for that. As you've explained previously, you don't even listen to everything you test.
Magnasco and Oppenheim then concluded that human hearings is not only a brain computing activities based on Fourier analysis but ALSO an ecological event, a real perceptive event of a discontinuous set of qualities that cannot be reduced to Fourier modeling... This is the crux of the debate...
It isn't though. People here want to know what gear to buy that gives them the best audio performance. You put forward a paper that uses artificial tones to see if the listener can detect simultaneously the time and frequencies of those artificial tones. Nothing in that research included or involved testing amplifiers.
You and the Van Maanen's brief write up which you keep quoting have theorized that this research gives the ability for people to tell two amplifiers apart which are pristine as far as measurements. Not a single listening test of such amplifiers has been presented by you or him. You expect us to make a massive leap from a test of artificial tones to accepting this.
You talk about science. In science we postulate a theory. We can then either show that mathematically to be correct, i.e. Einstein, or practically correct by experimentation. You have shown neither. There is no mathematical proof that two amplifiers that measure exceptionally clean in my testing have audible artifacts that are clear to folks like you. And you certainly haven't provided any controlled tests that demonstrate that.
This is the main issue I keep bringing up. I have explained why you can't leap from the one research paper with artificial tones to testing of audio products. You don't accept that. But let's hope you accept that you have no data whatsoever to back the prediction you are making.
And no, appealing to authority in the case of Van Maanen being a "physicist that knows what he is doing" means nothing. Physics education doesn't teach you anything with regards to audible differences between amplifiers. By that notion, any physicist audiophile could say anything and we would have to believe it which is obviously wrong.
Anyone reading this will think everyone here is like a certain yammering person and its goose and gander for time for A'gon and its members. Maybe that's intended, maybe not, but it's a bad look.
I am very friendly and i decided to speak so as to put his claim about listening biases in a good setting...
i work for him free.. 😊
The problem is that he does not like my hearing theory... 😊
I dont know why ...
@mahgisterAmir just called and he would love it if you posted ALOT more on this topic over on ASR. He thinks it would add great value and everyone would welcome the spirited debate.
We are not afar from one another... I regret my first "rude" post toward you...
By the way , what you called very wisely "ambiance" in acoustic is called ASW/LV ratio: it is Immersiveness the way the listener feel included in the sonic event...
It takes me one year non stop experiments in my room to create this... As you wisely said , it is not soundstaging...I like the "ambiance" word...It include immersiveness with something more... I discovered that acoustic device are not all Helmholtz resonators or diffusive and absorbing or reflective materials ... But also secondary artefact that ADD to the "ambiance...
I used to believe a lot of things that I now accept are not true. I used to think I knew a lot of things that I really did not, especially how we hear. That was an eye opener, and helped a lot with my first problem. The final piece in the puzzle was much harder to put in place because both ASR and the people that use it, and sites like Audiogon and the people that use it are both somewhat wrong at least in my opinion for putting that last piece of the puzzle in. Both ASR and Audiogon users think they are trying to extract every last bit of musical information they can get from a recording, and here is the important point, and nothing else. ASR users approach this very literally and analytically. Audiogon user’s think they are doing the same, but are often adding things that were not on the recording, but have convinced themselves they are getting more of the information out.
That last piece of the puzzle was accepting that enjoyable sound from speakers is not just about hearing what is on the recording, but using your system to create a simulation of what a live event may have sounded like. Not did sound like, but may have sounded like. Amir often says, look, these two things sound exactly the same. I accept those conclusions. Amir often says this level of distortion is unacceptable. If you are only trying to extract exactly what information is on the recording, he is correct. If you are trying to simulate a live environment which I think many audiophiles are doing without realizing it or accepting how they are doing it, then I don’t think this conclusion is correct.
@mahgisterAmir just called and he would love it if you posted ALOT more on this topic over on ASR. He thinks it would add great value and everyone would welcome the spirited debate.
I can only speak for myself but the problem at hand for most here on this thread I think is how to best choose what to buy. Measurements are very useful for that. Explaining why human hearing is so complex is totally useless towards that end. It is useful to understand how human hearing works to help better understand why we hear what we do. But these are two totally different use cases.
I used to believe a lot of things that I now accept are not true. I used to think I knew a lot of things that I really did not, especially how we hear. That was an eye opener, and helped a lot with my first problem. The final piece in the puzzle was much harder to put in place because both ASR and the people that use it, and sites like Audiogon and the people that use it are both somewhat wrong at least in my opinion for putting that last piece of the puzzle in. Both ASR and Audiogon users think they are trying to extract every last bit of musical information they can get from a recording, and here is the important point, and nothing else. ASR users approach this very literally and analytically. Audiogon user's think they are doing the same, but are often adding things that were not on the recording, but have convinced themselves they are getting more of the information out.
That last piece of the puzzle was accepting that enjoyable sound from speakers is not just about hearing what is on the recording, but using your system to create a simulation of what a live event may have sounded like. Not did sound like, but may have sounded like. Amir often says, look, these two things sound exactly the same. I accept those conclusions. Amir often says this level of distortion is unacceptable. If you are only trying to extract exactly what information is on the recording, he is correct. If you are trying to simulate a live environment which I think many audiophiles are doing without realizing it or accepting how they are doing it, then I don't think this conclusion is correct.
It is my understanding, albeit limited, that because much of today's pop music is mixed for headphones, that this totally screws up this paradigm.
it is just too bad that our verbose friend doesn’t realize this, and continues to post and post with soooooooooooooooo many painful words, further feeding this dumpster fire
although anyone with any sense can see what this amir clown is about, how he handles himself, and would hardly be attracted to his site -- this said, we can also see that this forum is unfortunately frequented by plenty of folks with neither good sense nor restraint...
So there really should be no debate. Two totally different sets of information used for two different but related purposes. Best to understand it all but no point in arguing one versus the other.
You're right, of course. But the problem is that one of the persons in the debate has an ulterior motive: The promotion of his own website and forum. So he needs drama and conflict to maintain the excitement.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
