Prof I just want to re-enforce your comments on the profit incentive in the bolstering of unsupportable claims. This IS why the FDA steps in in medical claims requiring challenging testing to be a "player". Much is still allowed especially in the non FDA aproved areas. You can bet if someone elses money (well, your money but aggregated) was paying for cables as in medical insurance, this would be a rather different conversation with different stakeholders..But I can certainly agree with those who say "it's MY money and this is friggin' audio!".
But people should understand the financial incentive by the audio industry to get us to spend all kinds of money on dubious premises. Note I do not include visual and structural aesthetics, bling factors, long durability, company location or business model etc etc etc as not perfectly valid contributors to buying choices. But SELLING specifically on fraudulant claims deserves pushback. So this is mine, among many others, including the tireless prof. Thanks.
But people should understand the financial incentive by the audio industry to get us to spend all kinds of money on dubious premises. Note I do not include visual and structural aesthetics, bling factors, long durability, company location or business model etc etc etc as not perfectly valid contributors to buying choices. But SELLING specifically on fraudulant claims deserves pushback. So this is mine, among many others, including the tireless prof. Thanks.