The Law of Diminishing Returns is BS! A Video on the Magico M9 (TAS)

[Lee]

I put forth an argument on why this law is misleading at best when applied to high end audio. What say you?

 

[Gregadd]

Okay. Frst of all never say, in my opinion it is a fact. Either it is an opinion or a fact. Never the two shall meet.
Secondly you can't have infinite improvements in pursuit in of a finite goal. That is why both lines level off. It is just that one does so faster than other. Don't worry the law of diminishing returns, remains intact.
Te good news for him is the Magico M9 can be every bit as good as he claims, the law of diminishing returns notwithstanding.
Clearly he fell under the Alon Wolf spell. He is not the only one.

 

[RCanelas]

IMO, this is precisely the type of content that is hurtful to the hifi industry, especially the high-end segment.

Of course diminishing returns is a thing and is observable in audio, like in everything else that is a function of any type activity in the universe. To deny it, even in a click-bait fashion, is profoundly absurd and, frankly, an immediate turn-off for a large swath of a contemporary audience. The only bs myth I see here is the notion of exceptionalism for audio. That this industry and hobby, somehow, doesn't follow the same fundamental principles that rule the rest of the world.

More importantly, I think we are discussing the wrong thing and shooting ourselves in the foot while doing it. We are clearly in Veblen goods territory, and as such mentioning the monetary value of something as an argument for anything at all is typically an incredibly bad idea. It inevitably leads to an indefensible position and allows for a trivial ridicule of the whole industry by the usual crew. Notice you could have done the same video, describing your incredible experience and the qualities of the M9, without effectively engaging in gaslighting the viewers about something beyond discussion. As simple as that.

Again, IMO, the price is what it is, it is part of the footnote, not the headline. Class, discretion and appeal to hedonism should be the tools of the trade, not b rate controversy.

 

[Lee]

Okay. Frst of all never say, in my opinion it is a fact. Either it is an opinion or a fact. Never the two shall meet.
Secondly you can't have infinite improvements in pursuit in of a finite goal. That is why both lines level off. It is just that one does so faster than other. Don't worry the law of diminishing returns, remains intact.
Te good news for him is the Magico M9 can be every bit as good as he claims, the law of diminishing returns notwithstanding.
Clearly he fell under the Alon Wolf spell. He is not the only one.

I think you have to give me some credit. I had a visceral reaction to the M9s based on performance, not some razzle dazzle by Alon. I like Alon a lot but if the sonic goods did not measure up, I would not have made this video. But they did and here we are. And they worked so well I decided to tell the story wrapped up by these flaws in the Law of Diminishing Returns.

I am really a huge fan of Wilson Audio’s approach as well and I have two Wilson systems at home. It wasn’t easy for me to love Magicos at first but their approach has significant merit. The M9s are really special.

 

[Lee]

IMO, this is precisely the type of content that is hurtful to the hifi industry, especially the high-end segment.

Of course diminishing returns is a thing and is observable in audio, like in everything else that is a function of any type activity in the universe. To deny it, even in a click-bait fashion, is profoundly absurd and, frankly, an immediate turn-off for a large swath of a contemporary audience. The only bs myth I see here is the notion of exceptionalism for audio. That this industry and hobby, somehow, doesn't follow the same fundamental principles that rule the rest of the world.

More importantly, I think we are discussing the wrong thing and shooting ourselves in the foot while doing it. We are clearly in Veblen goods territory, and as such mentioning the monetary value of something as an argument for anything at all is typically an incredibly bad idea. It inevitably leads to an indefensible position and allows for a trivial ridicule of the whole industry by the usual crew. Notice you could have done the same video, describing your incredible experience and the qualities of the M9, without effectively engaging in gaslighting the viewers about something beyond discussion. As simple as that.

Again, IMO, the price is what it is, it is part of the footnote, not the headline. Class, discretion and appeal to hedonism should be the tools of the trade, not b rate controversy.

I think instead this reply is a good example of the reverse snobbery that exists in the industry today. Why do you disparage teams trying to build the best possible speakers?

I can’t yet afford a Porsche GT4RS but I am damn happy my friend can. And I am damn happy Porsche built a state of the art track car.

And that GT4RS technology may trickle down into the Boxster and Cayman just as learning from the M9 might enable a killer Magico A5 Mark II.

The video from the start doesn’t deny that as you spend more you approach a limit on purely technical terms. It only takes issue that these metrics a. Don’t tell the whole story, and b. That spending more doesn’t lead to step changes in realism.

That’s the good news for audio and the industry. Things are getting better all the time. Better design, better parts, better manufacturing. To the point that speakers utterly and completely disappear and leave a real live choir in Alon’s reference room.

And this good news, does nothing to hurt “high value for dollar” components. New technology, in fact, enables that.

 

[Gregadd]

I think you have to give me some credit. I had a visceral reaction to the M9s based on performance, not some razzle dazzle by Alon. I like Alon a lot but if the sonic goods did not measure up, I would not have made this video. But they did and here we are. And they worked so well I decided to tell the story wrapped up by these flaws in the Law of Diminishing Returns.

I am really a huge fan of Wilson Audio’s approach as well and I have two Wilson systems at home. It wasn’t easy for me to love Magicos at first but their approach has significant merit. The M9s are really special.

I think I did give you "some credit." Your tortured analysis of LDR or your "man crush" on Alon does not at all invalidate your opinion of the M9. I hope it is everything you claim it is. Even if your opinion is a tad embellished.

 

[PeterA]

"Lifelikeness" of the M9. I had hoped the video would have had some actual footage of the system playing music. Oh well.

Regarding the Law of Diminishing Returns (LDR), I think it has to do with how much one actually values small, incremental improvements to one's listening experience, and what it costs or takes in set up effort to get those improvements. Often, better system set up brings a much bigger improvement than gear upgrades do. Sometimes better gear just costs more. I understand both arguments, but I would not dismiss the notion of the LDR.

I have found that success comes from having a specific target and knowing how to get there. That involves the right gear choices and understanding how to set everything up. The fascinating thing is that at the top where people are really where they want to be and no longer think much about gear, the systems tend to be quite different. I also think real improvements come slowly and are rare.

 

[Solypsa]

Why do you disparage teams trying to build the best possible speakers?

I must have missed this when I read @RCanelas post. Was it his 'appeal to hedonism' language'?

 

[RCanelas]

Dear Lee, please don't read more into my writting than heavy constructive criticism. We're all in this together.

I think instead this reply is a good example of the reverse snobbery that exists in the industry today. Why do you disparage teams trying to build the best possible speakers?

I'm proposing that we actually don't fall into snobbery by not giving the monetary value of something too much credit. Especially in the high-end, luxury space. It is a disservice to everyone, IMO, exactly the opposite of being a snob. My comments have nothing to do with teams building advancing the state of the art, the M9 or any other specific product, it only concerns the content TAS created, nothing else. I don't see any disparaging. To be clear: the fact the m9 costs what it costs or 10x as much should not be a justification for anything (either good or bad). It representing pinnacles of engineering, performance and design that are worth whatever the cost is should be the arguments for whatever point we want to make.

I can’t yet afford a Porsche GT4RS but I am damn happy my friend can. And I am damn happy Porsche built a state of the art track car.

And that GT4RS technology may trickle down into the Boxster and Cayman just as learning from the M9 might enable a killer Magico A5 Mark II.

That's all true and good, but please notice that essentially dismantles your own point about LDR not being applicable for whatever reasons. If it wasn't, trickle down wouldn't be possible by definition. Which again, reinforces my argument: the same way Porsche doesn't discuss LDR with their cars (it is not a surprise they lead in profitability in the car world), neither would I want anyone discussing it with my brand. It is the way a GT4RS and a Boxster both survive in the portfolio of a luxury brand, discussing it dissolves the implicit market segmentation and ultimately makes luxury meaningless. Value is value, price is price. Just don't use price as an argument at all, for anything in high-end. It just costs what it costs. And that's ok.

The video from the start doesn’t deny that as you spend more you approach a limit on purely technical terms. It only takes issue that these metrics a. Don’t tell the whole story, and b. That spending more doesn’t lead to step changes in realism.

These last words from you reinforce my idea that we are aiming for the same objective, just rowing in slightly different directions. Please notice both your points a and b are fundamental derivations of LDR, indicating you appear to recognize it's existence and validity. Maybe it is a semantics issue at this point, alas words and concepts have precise meanings, law of diminishing returns included.

Cheers

 

[Lee]

"Lifelikeness" of the M9. I had hoped the video would have had some actual footage of the system playing music. Oh well.

Regarding the Law of Diminishing Returns (LDR), I think it has to do with how much one actually values small, incremental improvements to one's listening experience, and what it costs or takes in set up effort to get those improvements. Often, better system set up brings a much bigger improvement than gear upgrades do. Sometimes better gear just costs more. I understand both arguments, but I would not dismiss the notion of the LDR.

I have found that success comes from having a specific target and knowing how to get there. That involves the right gear choices and understanding how to set everything up. The fascinating thing is that at the top where people are really where they want to be and no longer think much about gear, the systems tend to be quite different. I also think real improvements come slowly and are rare.

Point taken but we are assuming a good setup as I suggest in my speaker placement formula video with Jim Smith.

 

[Lee]

Dear Lee, please don't read more into my writting than heavy constructive criticism. We're all in this together.



I'm proposing that we actually don't fall into snobbery by not giving the monetary value of something too much credit. Especially in the high-end, luxury space. It is a disservice to everyone, IMO, exactly the opposite of being a snob. My comments have nothing to do with teams building advancing the state of the art, the M9 or any other specific product, it only concerns the content TAS created, nothing else. I don't see any disparaging. To be clear: the fact the m9 costs what it costs or 10x as much should not be a justification for anything (either good or bad). It representing pinnacles of engineering, performance and design that are worth whatever the cost is should be the arguments for whatever point we want to make.



That's all true and good, but please notice that essentially dismantles your own point about LDR not being applicable for whatever reasons. If it wasn't, trickle down wouldn't be possible by definition. Which again, reinforces my argument: the same way Porsche doesn't discuss LDR with their cars (it is not a surprise they lead in profitability in the car world), neither would I want anyone discussing it with my brand. It is the way a GT4RS and a Boxster both survive in the portfolio of a luxury brand, discussing it dissolves the implicit market segmentation and ultimately makes luxury meaningless. Value is value, price is price. Just don't use price as an argument at all, for anything in high-end. It just costs what it costs. And that's ok.



These last words from you reinforce my idea that we are aiming for the same objective, just rowing in slightly different directions. Please notice both your points a and b are fundamental derivations of LDR, indicating you appear to recognize it's existence and validity. Maybe it is a semantics issue at this point, alas words and concepts have precise meanings, law of diminishing returns included.

Cheers

I am not entirely sure what you mean by “not giving the monetary value of something too much credit.” My point is that these reference level speakers do, in fact, deliver the goods you would want and not in the incremental fashion as LDR dictates. The Law simply doesn’t apply at the price points we have in the industry today, with some rare exceptions of high value products along the way up the graph. The M9 is not 10% better. It is world’s better than the M6 and comparable speakers.

Tricke down technology derives from these flagship or “moon shot” type efforts. It’s not really related to the Law. The industry gains knowledge as better technology is deployed. Some of Magico’s secret formula is the new tech of drivers and Klippel measurement.

It’s not semantics, it’s a practical and applicable view of what sound quality exists as you move up in investment. Is the Sabrina X at roughly $19K a great value? Heck yeah. But if you spend another $20K or so and buy the Sasha DAW is the sound significantly better? Way better in fact. Is my Alexia V way better than the DAW? Absolutely. So for all practical purposes LDR discussion in audio is really misleading and a waste of time.

Audition a good set of components that reviewers and friends recommend, audition them, find what really floats your boat, and buy within a comfortable budget range.

 

[Lee]

I must have missed this when I read @RCanelas post. Was it his 'appeal to hedonism' language'?

I read his comments regarding “exceptionalism in audio” as a swipe against the ultra-luxury segment in audio.

Every luxury goods category has an ultra luxury segment. We should be grateful that this segment exists as it helps fund products up and down the line.

 

[docvale]

...

Regarding the Law of Diminishing Returns (LDR), I think it has to do with how much one actually values small, incremental improvements to one's listening experience, and what it costs or takes in set up effort to get those improvements. Often, better system set up brings a much bigger improvement than gear upgrades do. Sometimes better gear just costs more. I understand both arguments, but I would not dismiss the notion of the LDR.

100% agreed. The LDR is real and not because of an alleged stop in the audio quality improvement at a certain cost, but because those continuously existing improvements cost more and more (and require more efforts in addition to the financial one)

@Lee you mentioned an asymptotic line as a graphical representation of the LDR, but, technically, you have not been correct. The actual line that described the LDR is a logarithmic line, which represents that speakers that cost $500k might not be 2x better performing than speakers that cost $250k, yet sounding better

 

[RCanelas]

I believe we keep speaking past each other, but I don't like to be misunderstood, so I'll keep trying. I love high-end, for more reasons than one. I believe the M9 constitutes an impressive achievement, even though my particular preferences traditionally make me steer away from this speaker topology. It doesn't matter, it is impressive and you're doing the right thing by celebrating it. I'm raising a point that perhaps you're just not doing it in an optimal way, or even doing it in a damaging way in the medium-long run. I've seen you write in wbf about the challenges the high-end faces, so I'm putting my opinion forth, as a relatively young guy, with young friends, who all consume and discuss high-end audio.

My point is that these reference level speakers do, in fact, deliver the goods you would want and not in the incremental fashion as LDR dictates. The Law simply doesn’t apply at the price points we have in the industry today, with some rare exceptions of high value products along the way up the graph. The M9 is not 10% better. It is world’s better than the M6 and comparable speakers.

LDR doesn't dictate incremental steps as you go up the ladder, it dictates that the differential between cost and gain is more or less monotonically growing as you go up. Typically logarithmic, i.e., sub linear. It should be clear that loudspeakers costing 10 million do not play twice as good as ones costing 5 million (hold this thought). There being a cut off point someone chooses, something being extraordinarily good, it doesn't matter: it is still on a curve of diminishing returns for someone. That is what the 'law' means. This is what I meant by saying words have specific meanings, and your use of LDR is a) not very accurate, b) missing the point (high-end isn't about price, so why make it a main point for discussion?) and c) harmful as it leaves us wide open to unnecessary criticism due to people not being blind to a) and b).

If you focus the discussion of the 10 million speaker vs the 5 million speaker on cost difference and how LDR is or isn't true, you lost the argument before it even began: there is nothing you can say that doesn't dig you deeper, because obviously the performance doesn't double, the cost does, but you just said LDR is BS, but apparently it holds, but it is BS, but it holds... These are the wrong optics on the topic. No one in those industries discusses a Porsche, a Luis Vuitton or a Patek Philippe based on comparative value, it goes against the very grain of luxury and exclusivity. Yet we do it here, because we think we are different.

As you put it

for all practical purposes LDR discussion in audio is really misleading and a waste of time

so why do a video making a strawman out of LDR and calling it BS? It focuses the discussion on the wrong points of high-end, and industry already plagued by bad optics and with a difficulty to penetrate a younger audience. And younger audiences are acutely sensitive to these things. Just don't discuss price, but performance and the effect of the product in you.

 

[Lee]

100% agreed. The LDR is real and not because of an alleged stop in the audio quality improvement at a certain cost, but because those continuously existing improvements cost more and more (and require more efforts in addition to the financial one)

@Lee you mentioned an asymptotic line as a graphical representation of the LDR, but, technically, you have not been correct. The actual line that described the LDR is a logarithmic line, which represents that speakers that cost $500k might not be 2x better performing than speakers that cost $250k, yet sounding better

But my point remains, the $750K speaker I heard was actually twice the sound quality of a $300K speaker I heard. That violates the Oxford definition we put forth in the video. The Law suggests that improvements become incremental over time but because we hear in a non-linear fashion that isn’t imho true.

 

[Lee]

I believe we keep speaking past each other, but I don't like to be misunderstood, so I'll keep trying. I love high-end, for more reasons than one. I believe the M9 constitutes an impressive achievement, even though my particular preferences traditionally make me steer away from this speaker topology. It doesn't matter, it is impressive and you're doing the right thing by celebrating it. I'm raising a point that perhaps you're just not doing it in an optimal way, or even doing it in a damaging way in the medium-long run. I've seen you write in wbf about the challenges the high-end faces, so I'm putting my opinion forth, as a relatively young guy, with young friends, who all consume and discuss high-end audio.



LDR doesn't dictate incremental steps as you go up the ladder, it dictates that the differential between cost and gain is more or less monotonically growing as you go up. Typically logarithmic, i.e., sub linear. It should be clear that loudspeakers costing 10 million do not play twice as good as ones costing 5 million (hold this thought). There being a cut off point someone chooses, something being extraordinarily good, it doesn't matter: it is still on a curve of diminishing returns for someone. That is what the 'law' means. This is what I meant by saying words have specific meanings, and your use of LDR is a) not very accurate, b) missing the point (high-end isn't about price, so why make it a main point for discussion?) and c) harmful as it leaves us wide open to unnecessary criticism due to people not being blind to a) and b).

If you focus the discussion of the 10 million speaker vs the 5 million speaker on cost difference and how LDR is or isn't true, you lost the argument before it even began: there is nothing you can say that doesn't dig you deeper, because obviously the performance doesn't double, the cost does, but you just said LDR is BS, but apparently it holds, but it is BS, but it holds... These are the wrong optics on the topic. No one in those industries discusses a Porsche, a Luis Vuitton or a Patek Philippe based on comparative value, it goes against the very grain of luxury and exclusivity. Yet we do it here, because we think we are different.

As you put it

so why do a video making a strawman out of LDR and calling it BS? It focuses the discussion on the wrong points of high-end, and industry already plagued by bad optics and with a difficulty to penetrate a younger audience. And younger audiences are acutely sensitive to these things. Just don't discuss price, but performance and the effect of the product in you.

Thanks and a few comments.

1. I appreciate that you are offering up a younger person’s perspective. I want the high end business to be welcoming of all people but we especially need new blood so I applaud you and your friends.

2. As for LDR suggesting that the cost / sound quality relationship is not linear that is where we have an honest disagreement. The most expensive speaker you can buy I believe is the M9. I do believe the sound quality is twice or more than the sound quality of several of the $300K speakers I have heard. It’s just that good as the Wilson WAMM was so much better than every speaker I had heard before and by a wide margin.

3. Most people who I watch discussing diminishing returns on the audio fora seem to that the Law kicks in hard at $10K in system price. It’s not correct to agree with them when that is not the case. We should be honest as a community that money does bring better satisfaction. It’s no different than Porsche bringing better performance. As we say in the video, one can get very satisfying sound (especially these days) at that price point. But someone on the edge migh forgo a quality upgrade if they buy into this myth.

4. I would humbly suggest that the better way to bring in younger people and make the hobby more accessible is to feature product bundles for systems at different lower price points that are high value. But let them experience what is possible also. Just like Mike Kay demonstrated the IRS Beta speakers at Lyric for me in 1990 when the cost was WAY out of my budget at the time but it gave me a glimpse into what great sound is all about.

We might bring a friend to Evolution Hifi in Atlanta and let them hear the amazing Alexia V speaker there. It’s $70K but it will give them a glimpse of the Possible. But they may be able to buy a Sabrina X at $19K with similar qualities. We may have them listen to a Vivaldi Apex stack at nearby HifiBuys but they may be able to buy a Bartok.

5. I did not make a straw man out of LDR. I presented a valid argument that it is misleading at best because at the available range of gear we have today, it just keeps getting better in a linear fashion as you spend more.

You can worry about the optics of high prices but why? I can’t afford the $1+ million Porsche 918 Spyder but I can afford a Cayman S. There is an ultra luxury customer segment in our business. Young adults need to be able to understand that but they can rest happy at night knowing that totally affordable gear is available.

Getting back to my DAC analogy, the Denafrips DACs sound pretty good to my ear as does the Benchmark DAC3. You can get that level of sublime performance for a few thousand dollars. At the lower the Chord Mojo 2 at what $700? is very interesting as Rob Watts just makes the stuff better and better.

But why ridicule someone who has purchased a dCS Vivaldi Apex stack or a Wadax or a MSB Select 2? Yes, they are the Paganis of the digital source world but I love the fact that Paganis exist.

 

[godofwealth]

Whatever it costs, the M9 cannot escape the laws of physics governing its design. That means as a dynamic moving coil loudspeaker in a box, it suffers from all the classic limitations of that genre of loudspeakers (multi-driver integration, lack of phase coherence, cabinet coloration and high distortion). Even if Magico spent 10X the amount, and produced an M10 that cost $7.5 million, the results would not be different.

Here’s what I’d like to see of the M9: a THD measurement over frequency from 20 Hz to 20 KHZ at say 96 dB. I’m guessing the speaker, like all moving coil loudspeakers, will barely resolve 8 bits in the bass. Here’s an example below to show you what I mean. This is one of JBL’s best loudspeakers, the M2, which costs around 30 grand. To me, this level of distortion is unacceptable at 30 grand, let alone what Magico is charging.

I know only two ways to produce a low distortion loudspeaker: either use a electrostatic design like a Quad, which has about 30 dB lower distortion than the M2, but sacrifices ultimate loudness, or use a fully horn loaded design, like the Klipschorn or La Scala, which achieves very low distortion (like 0.1%) even at 105 dB, but gives up phase coherence. Not sure what all the money buys you in the M9, but without seeing some basic measurements, I’m skeptical. You can’t cheat the laws of physics by throwing more money at the problem. You need a smarter design.

 

[Lee]

Whatever it costs, the M9 cannot escape the laws of physics governing its design. That means as a dynamic moving coil loudspeaker in a box, it suffers from all the classic limitations of that genre of loudspeakers (multi-driver integration, lack of phase coherence, cabinet coloration and high distortion). Even if Magico spent 10X the amount, and produced an M10 that cost $7.5 million, the results would not be different.

Here’s what I’d like to see of the M9: a THD measurement over frequency from 20 Hz to 20 KHZ at say 96 dB. I’m guessing the speaker, like all moving coil loudspeakers, will barely resolve 8 bits in the bass. Here’s an example below to show you what I mean. This is one of JBL’s best loudspeakers, the M2, which costs around 30 grand. To me, this level of distortion is unacceptable at 30 grand, let alone what Magico is charging.

I know only two ways to produce a low distortion loudspeaker: either use a electrostatic design like a Quad, which has about 30 dB lower distortion than the M2, but sacrifices ultimate loudness, or use a fully horn loaded design, like the Klipschorn or La Scala, which achieves very low distortion (like 0.1%) even at 105 dB, but gives up phase coherence. Not sure what all the money buys you in the M9, but without seeing some basic measurements, I’m skeptical. You can’t cheat the laws of physics by throwing more money at the problem. You need a smarter design.

View attachment 102861

You are missing the point. Measurements don’t tell the whole story. Small improvements in metrics can lead to a step change in sound reproduction. The Law may work in terms of incremental improvement in measurements but our ears hear in a non-linear fashion.

 

[godofwealth]

I’m not disagreeing with you here. Ultimately with something as expensive as the M9, you are looking at a product that’s pushing the state of the art in a well-defined genre. It can’t escape the limitations of that genre, but as you say, it can lead to “small improvements”. Whether those are worth paying the costs of owning an M9 is up to the prospective buyer. I’m sure Magico has gone through a heroic effort in designing the M9, sparing no expense in finding the best drivers and using the best components in the crossover network and making the cabinet as inert as possible. But they’re working within the limitations of a paradigm. As their own advertisement puts it, “think inside the box”. But it’s worth asking whether the game is worth the candle.

The situation is not unlike EV technology vs. ICE technology. The Tesla Model S Plaid can accelerate 0-60 in under 2 seconds, a capability once restricted to high end sports cars that cost much more than the Tesla. That‘s not to say the Model S will handle like a Lamborghini. All the batteries add weight. So, it’s a question of pros and cons in automotive technology, as in speaker design. But the world is rapidly moving to EVs, far faster than anyone predicted.

My own sense is that conventional speakers like the M9 is not the future. Something like the Devialet Phantom Gold is: a 5000 watt class A/D active speaker design inside an eggshell case that can generate close to 120 dB from 15 Hz to > 20 kHZ. That‘s impressive. It costs a tiny fraction of an M9. A high end version of the Phantom perhaps. One you can stream music to digitally.

Ultimately we are still waiting for a genuine breakthrough in loudspeaker technology, which has barely budged in 60 years. A true digital loudspeaker that converts the incoming bitstream to sound pressure with no analog conversion — a pulse width modulated loudspeaker. Kind of what’s happened in the video world. Who in the world streams analog video to their projectors or TVs? It’s all digital HDMI technology now. But the high end audio world is stuck in 1950s technology, still sending analog signals to loudspeakers!

 

[Gregadd]

Perhaps it is my ignorance of whar the actual SOTA of speaker design is currently. Just because Alon Wolf went all-out does not mean he has pushed SOTA. I watched that video. He is going to have to be a lot more specific to make that case.