Todd H. writes:

I did use the word "loud", which is a relative term.

And it was "relatively" incorrect in the context in which it was used.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Hint--your line is now: "Irrelevant!"

Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

I stand by my answer, and nothing anybody has said since then
persuades me to change my position.

Ah, the classical "Don't bother me with the facts, I've made up my
mind" gambit. Well played!

Another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. I said nothing of the
sort.

As I said at the very beginning, your original answer to the question
was very good...marred only by the slight technical inaccuracy in
terms of quantifying 2x of a signal level as being "twice as loud."

Nothing technically inaccurate about it.

Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, you're in a minority of
one if you wish to regard your answer as techincally flawless.

Technical flawlessness does absolutely no good if the answer goes
over the head of the person to whom the answer is being given, Todd.
As I said, you need to know your audience, and I intentionally
chose the wording of my response to match what I perceived to be
the level of understanding exhibited by the questioner.

But it sure was an entertaining ride!

Your entertainment is irrelevant, Todd.