"Condescending" "bullying"? Muralman, can you ever chime in without taking a gratuitious swipe at me, evidently now on behalf of unidentified others. If you want to mix it up a bit, that's fine, but let's do it without the audience and where we can speed it up a little, or alot, its up to you. As I said - repeated here for the third time - and assuming that you can find the time away from your family, which, er, selectively, you seem to be able to, contact me directly and we will have that "reasoned, mature" dialogue I spoke about. Otherwise, keep the gratuitous personal comments to yourself. Say something constructive beyond absolutist statements, step up or put a lid on it.
Has anyone ever heard a Coda sound "sweet"? My, my...when one conducts an experiment, one must ensure that the components used to test the hypothesis are actually able to translate results either way. Has anyone ever, ever heard of taking a Coda SS amp and matching it with Dominus, or the like? Yea, I can see how an Apogee ribbon with tubes in the line can sound better than a Coda amp...
Sub: you pulled the trigger too fast again; seeing what you think I will say, thinking that's what I said, then reaching a conclusion due to your preconcieved bias. While we could have a discussion on the mind as a "component", I did not say that and think it would be out of context and confusing here; I said the mind was in a continuum (a sequence) that included components "thereafter", meaning components after the mind. That's what "thereafter" usually means...I don't know what you mean by "cleaving" external effects from sound. Maybe I missed something; you said you might have ventured afield with the rug thing - the only external effect I "cleaved" - and then say I "cleaved" inappropriately. I took amp and wire and integrated them on a fundamental level, forcing the accuracy-attached to say that it was "compexity" that mattered. I then integrated complexity on wire v. amp, saying that there were priorities at different levels of system sophistication (a point still unchallenged), at which point "functional" became the measure, which then I said that in the listening context (which, again, is the final arbiter) they were functionally equal in most advanced systems (another point that has gone unchallenged), then said that adding the "rug" was self-serving and cognitively disingenuous. Oh well...
Hey guys, I'm really sorry that you had to concede that wire can be important and not always a scam, that you can't continue to swoop into threads with your science garble seeking to down talk those who hear something beyond the measurements. Sorry, sorry, sorry, but maybe you are going to have to admit that just maybe something out there beyond a "Coda amp", or the measurements that say it must be better, or the misplaced, uninformed bias against a piece of technology vs. another just because its appearance, or because it doesn't fit in with science's bias for more moving parts in their machines (a bias originally swallowed whole).
Exasperating...