hys

You must feel so clever after writing that long, dishonest, and manipulative wall of text. It's the most cowardly and hypocritical thing I've ever read. Let me make this painfully simple for your confused brain, so you can see exactly who I was replying to: When I mocked the irresponsible 'crap' comment, I was talking to KEVIN GILMORE. When I despised the 'only warning' threat, I was talking to CRAIG SAWYERS. When I slammed the coward who hides behind others and calls for backup, I was still talking to CRAIG SAWYERS. Do you get it now? And you, jamesmking, jumped in every single time like a dog whose tail has been stepped on, desperately defending all of them while crying 'It wasn't me! It wasn't me!'. You are not an independent debater. You are their HUMAN SHIELD and their designated CLEANUP CREW! Your only purpose is to follow them around and try to polish the turds they leave behind. And you're 'saddened'? Oh, please. Don't you dare lecture me on 'respect' and 'the grey between the extremes' when you end your little sermon by calling me a 'psychopath'. Your line about 'I haven't reported you (this is NOT a threat)' is as sincere as the rest of your nauseating hypocrisy. You are not a debater. You're not even a competent coward. You are the most pathetic kind of apologist machine, completely devoid of independent thought, attached to your friends' coattails. So take your sanctimonious pity and shove it. Your 'journey' is nothing but a muddy path of you rolling around in the filth your masters leave behind.

I appreciate the lengthy reply, but it masterfully exposes your intent to evade the core issue. So I will ask again, because no one has dared to answer it: Can a design with objectively flawless data be dismissed as 'crap' based on an outdated topological label? You're trying to muddy the waters with a 'measurements vs. subjectivism' debate, but that's a red herring. No one is denying subjective experience, but we are discussing engineering merit. Your 'fine wine vs. cheap plonk' analogy is particularly revealing. A true connoisseur appreciates a wine for its quality, regardless of prejudices about its region or grape variety. You, however, are acting like a snob who only recognizes expensive labels. When a world-class wine made with modern techniques is placed before you, you dismiss it as 'plonk' simply because it doesn't come from a 'noble' origin you're familiar with. Your problem isn't your palate; it's your prejudice. You're not defending a type of sound; you're defending an obsolete and exclusionary hierarchy. This kind of judgment, based on origin rather than quality, proves that your entire framework of knowledge has failed to keep up with the times. 'I see no personal attacks here'? Your selective blindness is truly a sight to behold. Let me refresh your memory: Who started this by calling a product they hadn't measured 'crap'? Who, after failing to debate, issued a threat: 'This is your only warning'? Who just used the term 'cheap plonk' in a passive-aggressive insult against other people's choices? Are those not personal attacks and insults? My harsh words are a direct reaction to your group's sustained campaign of arrogance, threats, and condescension. And you're right, I love that saying: 'the first one to resort to insults in a debate admits they are wrong.' The problem is, the first one wasn't me. It was you lot, right from Gilmore's 'crap' comment. You already lost. Your attempt to play the innocent victim now is not 'debate'; it's gaslighting. I would suggest you take a long look in the mirror before you have the audacity to tell me to be 'self-reflective'. You say, "We're obviously happy as we are," and I believe you. Life must be blissfully simple when you don't have to think for yourself and can just live as a parasite, feeding on the opinions of a host. You ask, "What is the point you want to make?" The point was to see what a creature with no independent thoughts does when its dogma is challenged, other than screeching "gtfo". Apparently, the answer is nothing. You say, "We're obviously happy as we are," and I believe you. Life must be blissfully simple when you don't have to think for yourself and can just live as a parasite, feeding on the opinions of a host. You ask, "What is the point you want to make?" The point was to see what a creature with no independent thoughts does when its dogma is challenged, other than screeching "gtfo". Apparently, the answer is nothing.

You are absolutely right. We DO need to wait. Because it's painfully obvious that you, on your own, are incapable of debating a single point. Your three-act tragedy of a debate strategy is pathetic: Appeal to Authority: When you had nothing to say, you recited a list of names you think are impressive. Call for Backup: When reciting names failed, you started crying to 'wait until the US wakes up'. Resort to Personal Attacks: When you realized backup was too far away, you attacked my anonymity. Did you, at any point in this exchange, present a single independent thought based on facts? No. You're nothing but a hollow echo chamber, incapable of doing anything but repeating other people's names and sending out distress signals. So yes, we are waiting. Waiting for the day you learn to use your own brain instead of constantly hiding behind the reputations of others and your location tag. Until then, every word you type is just another public display of your insecurity and incompetence.

Thank you for attempting a technical discussion, but let's be precise about the issue here. You ask if I 'believe class B will sound better than class A'. That is a classic strawman argument. My core point was never about that. My point is this: For Mr. Gilmore to dismiss a design as 'crap' based solely on the fact it has a 'class B output stage'—without providing any data, circuit analysis, or measurements—is an unprofessional and irresponsible act. Is that how a true technical expert behaves? I respect Mr. Gilmore's past achievements and his open-source contributions, but that does not make his every utterance infallible. I am questioning this specific statement, not the man himself. So, let's get to the root of it. I'll turn the question back to you, and it's a very simple one: Do you, and does Mr. Gilmore, accept the validity of objective measurements from modern audio analyzers like the Audio Precision APx555? If your answer is YES, then you must explain how a design that achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance across the board can be denigrated as 'crap' simply because of its topology. If your answer is NO, then this entire discussion about schematics and topologies is meaningless, as you would be admitting your foundation for judgment is purely subjective, not objective engineering. So, please, stop deflecting. Either provide the evidence showing this specific implementation is objectively flawed, or admit that judging it based on prejudice alone is wrong.

This is absolutely hilarious. Kevin Gilmore's point is indefensible, so you jump out to make personal threats? Is this how your little 'High Rollers' club discusses technology? When someone questions the guru, the enforcer comes out to shut them up? Stop waving that bullshit 'welcome message' around like it's a royal decree. If you had any confidence in his argument, you'd counter me with technical facts. Hiding behind the rules to make threats just proves that you and your guru are both cowards who are nothing without your echo chamber.

Equating 'Class B' directly with 'garbage'? That just exposes the limits of your own technical skills. Don't assume that just because you can't get good measurements from a Class B design, nobody else can either. That's a classic projection of your own failures.