Thanks Mark, these have been added to their respective sections for
reference, one note: When writing an answer to a FAQ, IMO, it is a goal
for your answer not to create more questions.

It wasn't my intention to provide comprehensive solutions to the problems
that I pointed out. I was simply identifying parts of the original FAQ that
were inaccurate, potentially confusing to the reader, or incomplete. My
point was that there are parts that are outdated, parts that are incomplete,
and even parts that are incorrect. These sections shouldn't be included.
They should be removed! Otherwise, the reader won't know what to think.
The last thing a newcomer wants to see is a debate in front of them. They
don't know enough in order to make a decision about who's right.

snip
You mentioned omissions, are you thinking there are sections of the
original FAQ that are not currently shown? If so, could you give me the
section and paragraph number?

No. By omissions I meant there are many many topics that should be brought
up in a FAQ that aren't. For instance, DVC wiring strategies (including
wiring just one coil), frequency content of "typical" music, "does clipping
blow speakers?", speaker wire, RCA shielding, box aiming, gain setting, a/b
tests, "what makes amplifiers sound different?", and so forth. These are
all examples of some of the most common questions that I come across around
here that are either not addressed in the FAQ or have such a terse
description that the answer is utterly useless.

The goal of any FAQ should be to provide a comprehensive answer to the most
common questions, and at the same time keep it easy enough to follow for the
intended audience. Although it's important to achieve a balance of these
two things, one should never be compromised in favor of the other! It's not
a good idea to oversimplify things or leave important points out because you
don't feel the reader can handle it. The problem isn't with the reader;
it's with the writer.

The difficulty that the writer faces is conveying the information while
maintaining technical precision. In my opinion, the "official" FAQ failed
to do this in a number of different places, mostly by neglecting to adhere
to the technical precision and completeness aspect. I'm afraid to say that
it appears that your updated FAQ may fail to achieve it's goal on the other
token, by providing too many different answers to the questions.

In other words, the footnotes must go! If there's a problem with the answer
to a question, it should be rewritten. I suggest either having someone with
expertise in that particular area rewrite it, paraphrasing literature in
that area, or doing google searches of R.A.C. to find what the general
concensus was for an answer to that question.