Interesting thought- Linn &

The irony, zavato, is that Linn instigated and promoted the notion of "Linn vs the rest of the world" with their argument that all other turntables (pre-Linn) had been designed and built with a deeply mistaken assumption---that a turntable is an electronic device, rather than a mechanical one. And Ivor was quite correct! But other designers, it can be argued, have taken his design principle even further, and, employing "better" materials and machining, created tables whose performance beat the Linn at it's own game. Whether or not that is true is a different question.

"getting the intent of what the musicians are trying to convey is just as, if not more, important than getting all the notes correct". This line of reasoning and evaluation can also be traced back to Linn, and is just SO subjective. Art Dudley in his reviews often includes a discussion of the capability of a component under review to reproduce "intent". It just seems to me to be a very personal thing, this matter of a component affecting the perception of the intent of the musician(s) and/or singer. If two components create the perception of two different "intents" (whatever that means), how is a listener to know which intent is closest to the Artists actual intent? Should the Artist be asked what his intent was ;-)? Seems more than a little presumptuous of a listener to me! Can that ability to reproduce intent be in any way quantified (whatever that may mean), and is that ability universally observable and agreed upon by a group of skilled listeners? Does the perception of that ability change depending on the listeners state of mind and/or emotion? Can that ability be attributed to anything in the design of a component? Attributing intent-reproducing capabilities to equipment I admit tests the limits of what I consider valid evaluation.