Charles, I get that and I understood what both you and Tom were communicating. Your most recent response makes that even clearer in the brilliant way you (and only a few others) are able to. And I fully accept your findings and results with the MZ2.
I also believe that both of you are reasonable listeners and have reasonable assessments. Therefore 'anemic' (used as an example, since it was brought up) is likely anemic. I don't see how a component can somehow 'change it's spots' for lack of a better phrase.
I'm trying to understand 'anemic' in this context...in other words, it wasn't something that was subtly better or preferred or marginally 'less' in some way or manner.
My base-line for this is that differences in quality components exist, but are not drastic. Perhaps I need to re-assess that base-line?
I also believe that both of you are reasonable listeners and have reasonable assessments. Therefore 'anemic' (used as an example, since it was brought up) is likely anemic. I don't see how a component can somehow 'change it's spots' for lack of a better phrase.
I'm trying to understand 'anemic' in this context...in other words, it wasn't something that was subtly better or preferred or marginally 'less' in some way or manner.
My base-line for this is that differences in quality components exist, but are not drastic. Perhaps I need to re-assess that base-line?