What I know is what you say you hear, but you have failed to give a logical explanation as to why you are hearing what you say you are hearing.
08-27-10: Dougdeacon
... ultimately what counts is whether a person knows what they are talking about.
Agreed. In this case the measure is how music sounds with and without the trough. We know. You don't.
The OP requests that you avoid further postings on his thread, which he started to help people willing to help themselves, not to argue anyone into something they're unwilling to try.
As it turns out, some of us have other things to do rather than to spend all our time listening to a wide variety of audio equipment. Since some of us have limited time, we need to cut down the search by pre-screening down to a set of logical candidates to investigate from the wide variety of available audio equipment that is sold. That's why I look for logical explanations, because that is how I get clues as to what is worth my while to investigate further.
Don't get me wrong, I think that there is a limit to what you can learn from objective data. If you want to optimize a system to your specific tastes, you can only do that by listening to the actual equipment. But you should understand that there are real limits to subjective evaluations: they are subject to being colored by various preconceived notions. That's why you, and audiophiles in general should learn more critical thinking about this stuff. You will find that seeking out objective information and data to support your subjective assessments will help you in your own evaluations.
Ultimately, what you do is up to you. But what I am telling you is that when you post your opinions on public forums like this one; those comments are going to be evaluated by people like me based on whether subjective comments can be supported by an rational explanation (or at least some evidence of reasoning) of why you might be observing what you are observing. In my mind, relying on well-worn buzzwords just doesn't cut it.

