Charles, you're still not getting the point that what those writers termed "clipping" was nowhere near actual clipping.
No, John, you are still not getting the point that I don't believe the major forces in the industry would allow their hand-picked PR mags (as most allege) to publish scientific reports from 1999 to 2009 saying some of their models clip the signal when, in fact, they don't. I think ad dollars would dry up over night.
I guess what you meant to say was I'm still not believing in your opinion. That is true, on this point. I have no problem believing that .016 THD can be caused by a short duration high amplitude frequency being clipped (flattend across the very top) - whether I can hear it or not.
Nor do I have a reason to doubt lab reports that show at near 100 watts my receiver could clip the signal and cause 1% THD. And I certainly have no reason to think almost every publisher in the industry is ignorant of the meaning of the word Clip, but that you have it right. Sorry, I just don't know you that well.
I love a good conspiracy story, but such a leap demands more meat on the bones.
