Of course not. That "type" doesn't exist except in the cartoonish caricatures of self-appointed gurus.
IMO, they do hide "details" .............................
Bravo ........
I'm puzzled how articles based on evidence and reasoned argument founded on accepted principles can somehow be held up as supporting the subjectivist viewpoint.
You say you think you hear something. We say you are probably mistaken, but ask for evidence or a plausibility argument. You offer nothing, or anecdote, or non-standard physics, or caricatures, or insults, then wonder why we don't take you entirely seriously. Then someone on our side does your thinking for you and offers something useful and you claim it as your victory! On the contrary, it shows that it is our method which will eventually get at the truth.
You say you think you hear something. We say you are probably mistaken, but ask for evidence or a plausibility argument. You offer nothing, or anecdote, or non-standard physics, or caricatures, or insults, then wonder why we don't take you entirely seriously. Then someone on our side does your thinking for you and offers something useful and you claim it as your victory! On the contrary, it shows that it is our method which will eventually get at the truth.
Hi,
Well, maybe, maybe not.
I would say if these "types" even in the presence of reasonable evidence continue to mumble their mantra, I'm happy to lump them into that box...
I propose a third option. Namely my beloved "test situation stress" and "expectation bias".
Here is an example where, had you been completely ignorant not just to the identity of A/B but also to what they represent, you probably WOULD have heard something.
Here are a few tweaks, just for fun, easy to try, which clearly "cannot" have any effect on the audio experience. Or can they?
1) Obtain 2pcs of Harmonica's, cheap plastic ones are okay, as long as the plates are brass. I normally buy the cheapest Hohner brand ones at 3 to 5 Euro each. Remove the plates from the harmonica's, dispose the rest.
Place two plates on the wall behind the speakers one below the listening height by around 30cm, the other above by around 50cm. It is important that the plates can vibrate freely, I like to use replaceable hooks.
Place the remaining two plates on the wall behind the speakers around 62cm outside the speakers position at listening height. If this is not possible, place them on the sidewalls
2) Obtain three sake cups. Fill them with water. Place one each behind each speaker on the floor, place the third between the speakers.
Do try to keep an open mind and remove/replace these items several times. If you can, doing it blind is a good idea, do as much as possible to remove all forms of bias, pro or con. It is not a competition to hear something or not to hear something, but to evaluate WHAT this does and to describe it.
Please tell me and others what you hear as a result, even if it is nothing, do take care to include what measures you took to remove expectation bias and test stress from the evaluation...
BTW, I do not own Stock in Hohner or any other Harmonica factory, nor to the best of my knowledge in any factory making sake cups, I cannot rule out any indirect profit from any water supplying utility though.
Ciao T
PS, for extra credits, try my extremely controversial felt disk tweak (see the Freakazoid Tweekaloid article at ETM for details)
I think you over-estimate the presence of "everything sounds the same" types here Thorsten
Well, maybe, maybe not.
I would say if these "types" even in the presence of reasonable evidence continue to mumble their mantra, I'm happy to lump them into that box...
I propose a third option. Namely my beloved "test situation stress" and "expectation bias".
Here is an example where, had you been completely ignorant not just to the identity of A/B but also to what they represent, you probably WOULD have heard something.
Here are a few tweaks, just for fun, easy to try, which clearly "cannot" have any effect on the audio experience. Or can they?
1) Obtain 2pcs of Harmonica's, cheap plastic ones are okay, as long as the plates are brass. I normally buy the cheapest Hohner brand ones at 3 to 5 Euro each. Remove the plates from the harmonica's, dispose the rest.
Place two plates on the wall behind the speakers one below the listening height by around 30cm, the other above by around 50cm. It is important that the plates can vibrate freely, I like to use replaceable hooks.
Place the remaining two plates on the wall behind the speakers around 62cm outside the speakers position at listening height. If this is not possible, place them on the sidewalls
2) Obtain three sake cups. Fill them with water. Place one each behind each speaker on the floor, place the third between the speakers.
Do try to keep an open mind and remove/replace these items several times. If you can, doing it blind is a good idea, do as much as possible to remove all forms of bias, pro or con. It is not a competition to hear something or not to hear something, but to evaluate WHAT this does and to describe it.
Please tell me and others what you hear as a result, even if it is nothing, do take care to include what measures you took to remove expectation bias and test stress from the evaluation...
BTW, I do not own Stock in Hohner or any other Harmonica factory, nor to the best of my knowledge in any factory making sake cups, I cannot rule out any indirect profit from any water supplying utility though.
Ciao T
PS, for extra credits, try my extremely controversial felt disk tweak (see the Freakazoid Tweekaloid article at ETM for details)
Hi,
Hmmm, observations of differences between capacitors of effects commonly called burn in and many others have been posited by those that care to listen for decades. Now we find that there are clear measurable differences where non where expected and where the presence of such seems to run counter to accepted wisdom.
I would simply call that "The myth of 'no difference between capacitors' - busted".
Actually, I say that I have done blind tests and found material differences. I have no particular interest to publish these, true, in part because a disclosure of the results sufficient to be proof would mean disclosing information that those who financed the tests prefer to retain as "trade secret".
As for plausible arguments.
Distortion in capacitors, of various types has beed demonstrated and documented since the 70's at least, as has been done for resistors, potentiometers (especially the non-linear wiper impedance) and of course for microphonics in a wide range of components.
My point is that all this evidence has existed for a long time. That further in many cases it shows strong parallels with observations that have been made by a large number of people over the years.
Yet still there is this group of people who SHOULD know but either do not know disregardless (tragic that) or refuse to know (intellectually dishonest that).
What Jan has done is to make this material widely and freely available, this I applaud.
I think the research stands for itself.
Actually, it mostly shows that "your method" got at the truth decades ago (the capacitor distortion measurements by D.Self in WW go back well over a decade and pre-dated Cyril Bateman).
So what is your excuse for still failing to acknowledge such evidence decades later? Dog ate your homework?
Ciao T
Hmmm, observations of differences between capacitors of effects commonly called burn in and many others have been posited by those that care to listen for decades. Now we find that there are clear measurable differences where non where expected and where the presence of such seems to run counter to accepted wisdom.
I would simply call that "The myth of 'no difference between capacitors' - busted".
Actually, I say that I have done blind tests and found material differences. I have no particular interest to publish these, true, in part because a disclosure of the results sufficient to be proof would mean disclosing information that those who financed the tests prefer to retain as "trade secret".
As for plausible arguments.
Distortion in capacitors, of various types has beed demonstrated and documented since the 70's at least, as has been done for resistors, potentiometers (especially the non-linear wiper impedance) and of course for microphonics in a wide range of components.
My point is that all this evidence has existed for a long time. That further in many cases it shows strong parallels with observations that have been made by a large number of people over the years.
Yet still there is this group of people who SHOULD know but either do not know disregardless (tragic that) or refuse to know (intellectually dishonest that).
What Jan has done is to make this material widely and freely available, this I applaud.
I think the research stands for itself.
Actually, it mostly shows that "your method" got at the truth decades ago (the capacitor distortion measurements by D.Self in WW go back well over a decade and pre-dated Cyril Bateman).
So what is your excuse for still failing to acknowledge such evidence decades later? Dog ate your homework?
Ciao T
I'm sorry, you must be confusing me with someone else. I began to believe that there may be differences between capacitors when I saw the evidence, which was some years ago. I am well aware that dielectrics can be non-linear, as I recently spent a couple of years working with a team of materials scientists who were measuring things like this. I still think the issue is exaggerated by some who seem to feel the need to follow fashion. There may be 'capacitor deniers' out there, but don't assume we are all like that.ThorstenL said:
I'm still waiting for the evidence on exotic cables (probably EMC/RFI plus placebo), magic crystals (complete nonsense), 'groundside electrons' (bad physics) etc.
Last edited:
Yes. I guess what amuses me is when I see a dodgy (or at least weak) circuit design liberally sprinkled with expensive boutique components (specified by brand of course, not technology) sometimes used inappropriately by people who don't know how to calculate a CR rolloff or determine a bias point. Then the discussion goes a bit like (certain types of) women comparing designer handbags. Fine if that is what people want to do, just don't pretend it is audio engineering!
Though being a newbie there is no harm in learning all aspects so I surfed the net to seek subjective point of view. So to continue....
This might be interesting to subjectivists, as it vaguely contains first point I mentioned in post # 222 objectively testing subjective matter. Recently I saw a science program on cochlear implant. Most of you will know that in cochlear implant electrodes are connected to auditory nerve. The person (mainly little children who are deaf from the birth and hear sound for the first time) are operated and implanted with electrode arrays. This arrays are few in number due to auditory nerve limitation. So sound which one hears is pretty much basic and incomprehensible to the person at first. Most of the information we hear is not there. With progress of time the person not only hears well but capabilities of hearing grows, specially for young children. So audio gurus what is happening here ? By that logic subjective listener are not completely wrong, with profound hearing experience they can tell the difference to some extent.
What about savants? Where ordinary people by accident achieve extraordinary skill which were not there. Same can be applied to capabilities of hearing ?
Another interesting example is of blind people. I gather they have amazing capabilities of hearing.
The Blind Man Who Taught Himself To See|Men’s Journal
So hearing abilities can be developed and improved.
This is never ending debate, so it would be only wise to explore each other's views, but only if subjectivist dont go to the unbelievable extremes and objectivist need not be so critical that everything must be measuerd, which I think would need infinite knowledge.
Offtopic : listened to samples again. In 'Concerto' samples I can differentiate noise in first file which previously I hardly could . Rest of the files are difficult. So I guess one can say with good system one can differentiate rest of the files as well or at least more than with ordinary equipments.
Regards
This might be interesting to subjectivists, as it vaguely contains first point I mentioned in post # 222 objectively testing subjective matter. Recently I saw a science program on cochlear implant. Most of you will know that in cochlear implant electrodes are connected to auditory nerve. The person (mainly little children who are deaf from the birth and hear sound for the first time) are operated and implanted with electrode arrays. This arrays are few in number due to auditory nerve limitation. So sound which one hears is pretty much basic and incomprehensible to the person at first. Most of the information we hear is not there. With progress of time the person not only hears well but capabilities of hearing grows, specially for young children. So audio gurus what is happening here ? By that logic subjective listener are not completely wrong, with profound hearing experience they can tell the difference to some extent.
What about savants? Where ordinary people by accident achieve extraordinary skill which were not there. Same can be applied to capabilities of hearing ?
Another interesting example is of blind people. I gather they have amazing capabilities of hearing.
The Blind Man Who Taught Himself To See|Men’s Journal
So hearing abilities can be developed and improved.
This is never ending debate, so it would be only wise to explore each other's views, but only if subjectivist dont go to the unbelievable extremes and objectivist need not be so critical that everything must be measuerd, which I think would need infinite knowledge.
Offtopic : listened to samples again. In 'Concerto' samples I can differentiate noise in first file which previously I hardly could . Rest of the files are difficult. So I guess one can say with good system one can differentiate rest of the files as well or at least more than with ordinary equipments.
Regards
Hi,
Well, I'm not selling or promoting "magic crystals" or "groundside electrons" (actually, I subscribe to the position that electrons as such do not really exist, they are a somewhat insufficient model for something more complex in behaviour, but the model suffices for most electronics).
I can easily and readily measure differences between cables on my AP2 that extend past "EMC/RFI" explanations.
You do seem to lump anyone who suggests that the so-called "objectivists" have got it wrong on many counts with the lunatic fringe and beyond.
Moreover, you have, by your writings for a good while held evidence that supports at least some of the contentions of the "subjectivist" side are more than illusions. Yet you barely admit it, at best grudgingly and promptly continue with the same old subjectivist bashing.
This view, in which you are by far from alone has for quite some time driven me to use the same methode in reverse. I generally do it to illustrate just how unreasonable the so-called objectivist position really is, by holding up a mirror. Those that know me know well that I am no extremist.
So if you do not like what you see in the Mirror, change what it reflects...
I am NOT asking you or anyone to simply accept all contentions presented among subjectivists as true, however the level of dismissal and hostility displayed towards such positions is not justified and actually is counter productive to getting to the truth.
Ciao T
Well, I'm not selling or promoting "magic crystals" or "groundside electrons" (actually, I subscribe to the position that electrons as such do not really exist, they are a somewhat insufficient model for something more complex in behaviour, but the model suffices for most electronics).
I can easily and readily measure differences between cables on my AP2 that extend past "EMC/RFI" explanations.
You do seem to lump anyone who suggests that the so-called "objectivists" have got it wrong on many counts with the lunatic fringe and beyond.
Moreover, you have, by your writings for a good while held evidence that supports at least some of the contentions of the "subjectivist" side are more than illusions. Yet you barely admit it, at best grudgingly and promptly continue with the same old subjectivist bashing.
This view, in which you are by far from alone has for quite some time driven me to use the same methode in reverse. I generally do it to illustrate just how unreasonable the so-called objectivist position really is, by holding up a mirror. Those that know me know well that I am no extremist.
So if you do not like what you see in the Mirror, change what it reflects...
I am NOT asking you or anyone to simply accept all contentions presented among subjectivists as true, however the level of dismissal and hostility displayed towards such positions is not justified and actually is counter productive to getting to the truth.
Ciao T
Is this actually going somewhere - or is it just a a collection of personal snipes?
We sometimes specify a Name Brand capacitor, because that specific capacitor type is known to work properly in the job it is assigned to do. Many other caps, made of the same basic material, might not work nearly as well, and even do sonic damage.
For example I have a lot of polystyrene caps that almost 'sing' when bumped. I have other (preferred) polystyrene caps that are naturally damped and do not seem to mechanically resonate much. I once thought there was little or no difference, that is why I bought 100's of caps that now lie fallow in plastic bins, because I have found that they do not work as well as another brand and construction method.
On the other hand, this 'science' and insistence on it, is Sophomoric, as it denies 'REALITY' that should be the final judge of success.
For example I have a lot of polystyrene caps that almost 'sing' when bumped. I have other (preferred) polystyrene caps that are naturally damped and do not seem to mechanically resonate much. I once thought there was little or no difference, that is why I bought 100's of caps that now lie fallow in plastic bins, because I have found that they do not work as well as another brand and construction method.
On the other hand, this 'science' and insistence on it, is Sophomoric, as it denies 'REALITY' that should be the final judge of success.
Last edited:
No, actually I don't. I am more open to new ideas than I may appear. I thought I was holding up a mirror to those who think that objectivists are all the same.ThorstenL said:
Now the mods are getting twitchy, so can we drop the caricatures?
My own position is something like this. I would place myself on the moderate end of the objectivist spectrum. By this I mean that I like to have reasonable explanations based on science, but I may be willing to wait a while for these to come along. I don't attach much significance to anecdote, wherever it comes from, but I don't dismiss it out of hand either. Some of the 'explanations' put forward for what people say they hear are simply barmy, but that does not necessarily prove that they are not hearing it. My own side need to be more careful in distinguishing between rejecting a daft hypothesis and rejecting the claimed phenomenon which it pretends to explain.
Generally I believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Many claims are simply mistaken or due to the placebo or herd effects, but it may be difficult to determine at first which is which. I certainly don't think that all systems sound the same, yet I do believe that differences are often exaggerated. Audiophiles do seem to behave somewhat like teenage boys, bragging about . . .
When I ask for evidence or explanation I am not suggesting that the other person is an idiot or crook (although both are possible). I don't fully trust my own hearing or judgement, so why should I trust yours?
Hi,
I do not attach much significance to single anecdotes or even experiences. But if there are a lot of them I am more inclined to the position that where there is smoke, there is a fire...
Yes. Plus, often these explanations come from people who do not understand what is going on and are goaded into attempting to explain as well as they understand by those who insist that they cannot hear what they hear because they cannot explain how it is working.
That would seem an eminently sensible position, if it would be more generally espoused.
Yes, this goes for all sides.
And perhaps it would also be a good idea to not mistake observations for claims...
Now if I state that that with many tests of listening I do not like the way amplifiers with Negative Feedback sound like, but I like how those without negative feedback, this is an observation. It needs no further evidence and should be taken for what it is, a datapoint.
Now if I state that applying negative feedback makes all amplifiers sound worse (or indeed that applying negative feedback makes all amplifiers sound better), that is a claim and it is extraordinary simply because it allows no exceptions and yes, no matter who makes it, it requires extraordinary evidence.
Or the nocebo and expectation bias effect.
Those who sind blind in glass houses should be careful whence they throw stones...
Indeed. It would be good for both sides to be less sure of their belief.
This we agree upon.
This we, at least in part, disagree.
One of the factors involved is familiarity, it tends to make a mountain out of a molehill.
I believe it is often the way "explanation or evidence" are asked for that seems to suggest this. In german we say "the Tone makes the music"...
Ciao T
I do not attach much significance to single anecdotes or even experiences. But if there are a lot of them I am more inclined to the position that where there is smoke, there is a fire...
Yes. Plus, often these explanations come from people who do not understand what is going on and are goaded into attempting to explain as well as they understand by those who insist that they cannot hear what they hear because they cannot explain how it is working.
That would seem an eminently sensible position, if it would be more generally espoused.
Yes, this goes for all sides.
And perhaps it would also be a good idea to not mistake observations for claims...
Now if I state that that with many tests of listening I do not like the way amplifiers with Negative Feedback sound like, but I like how those without negative feedback, this is an observation. It needs no further evidence and should be taken for what it is, a datapoint.
Now if I state that applying negative feedback makes all amplifiers sound worse (or indeed that applying negative feedback makes all amplifiers sound better), that is a claim and it is extraordinary simply because it allows no exceptions and yes, no matter who makes it, it requires extraordinary evidence.
Or the nocebo and expectation bias effect.
Those who sind blind in glass houses should be careful whence they throw stones...
Indeed. It would be good for both sides to be less sure of their belief.
This we agree upon.
This we, at least in part, disagree.
One of the factors involved is familiarity, it tends to make a mountain out of a molehill.
I believe it is often the way "explanation or evidence" are asked for that seems to suggest this. In german we say "the Tone makes the music"...
Ciao T
You of course hammer incessantly on about those who measure distortion and equate it to sound quality. You can't have it both ways. The capacitor distortion stuff is a big yawner.
Once, long ago, until about 1970, most audio engineers did not know much about distortion in capacitors. It is true that sample and hold circuitry, and analog computers needed low DA caps, but everything else was virtually ignored. The cap catalogues the size of books, did not mention it, most textbooks ignored it, and for the most part, we did not see it in our measurements. Capacitors had other problems, like self resonance, leakage, reliability, etc.
In 1974, Tektronix showed me how to measure distortion in larger ceramic caps (the most common at the time, by far) by modifying a 577 Curve Tracer. It was astounding what they found. While most caps, including electrolytics and plastic did OK, these ceramics did NOT behave like they should. Heck, they would not even retrace their path when driven by a symmetrical triangular wave. Knowing that there WAS distortion being generated, I made a more serious attempt to find it with conventional test equipment, and there it was! The important thing was to make the cap under test actually drop some real voltage across it, as it would at the edge of its working bandwidth. Then the distortion became apparent. For the most part, ceramics were the worst, BUT in later years, I found that Tantalum caps operating without DC bias had lots of distortion too. AND we were using Tantalum caps in this way in the Levinson JC-2 preamp!
I published MY results in an IEEE paper in 1978, showing the distortion in both a typical Ceramic and a typical Tantalum capacitor. This should have made headlines, but mostly I was laughed at by other AES members as being the guy who is obsessed about caps, as I gave lectures on it, with slides, to various groups in the SF Bay Area.
AND I didn't even think that DA was important, as of yet.
As 1980 approached, Dick Marsh and Walt Jung got interested in caps, but their emphasis was dielectric absorption, and many other things. They also found that 'subjectively' they were very important. Heck, I was using Mylar, Mica, Polycarbonate, whatever I could find for my EQ and coupling in those days.
Later I switched to Polypropylene and Polystyrene. And why did I change? Because some guy named Scott Wurcer, working with Walt Jung, came up with a DIFFERENTIAL TEST FOR CAPS that created up to 10% deviation from the ideal path predicted for an ideal cap, for EACH CAP! Wow! Maybe not distortion as we usually measure it, but deviation from ideal, none the less.
I got VERY interested in this test, and measured virtually every kind of cap that I could possibly find to measure. Dick Marsh dropped out from this test, feeling that it was only partially adequate to truly measure the cap's DA characteristics, and he was right, but what the heck. Once we had a test setup, we could COMPARE different caps and see how much they deviated from each other. This was good enough for me.
At this time, Doug Self came on the scene, contributing a preamp article to WW. He became VERY cross with an LTE from another engineer, who asked him if better caps might improve his design. This is where I stepped in, in 1984, and a salvo of LTE's went back and forth between Doug Self and me, not only in WW but also in HFN.
Finally, Dr. Lipshitz addressed me in an LTE and essentially said: although my math was correct, and my measurements were correct, it DID NOT MATTER, because his double blind tests had shown that virtually all caps sound the same.
And now we have Doug Self finding distortions in caps, which I applaud him for, and Scott Wurcer 'yawning' when it comes to cap distortion. And so it goes! '-)
In 1974, Tektronix showed me how to measure distortion in larger ceramic caps (the most common at the time, by far) by modifying a 577 Curve Tracer. It was astounding what they found. While most caps, including electrolytics and plastic did OK, these ceramics did NOT behave like they should. Heck, they would not even retrace their path when driven by a symmetrical triangular wave. Knowing that there WAS distortion being generated, I made a more serious attempt to find it with conventional test equipment, and there it was! The important thing was to make the cap under test actually drop some real voltage across it, as it would at the edge of its working bandwidth. Then the distortion became apparent. For the most part, ceramics were the worst, BUT in later years, I found that Tantalum caps operating without DC bias had lots of distortion too. AND we were using Tantalum caps in this way in the Levinson JC-2 preamp!
I published MY results in an IEEE paper in 1978, showing the distortion in both a typical Ceramic and a typical Tantalum capacitor. This should have made headlines, but mostly I was laughed at by other AES members as being the guy who is obsessed about caps, as I gave lectures on it, with slides, to various groups in the SF Bay Area.
AND I didn't even think that DA was important, as of yet.
As 1980 approached, Dick Marsh and Walt Jung got interested in caps, but their emphasis was dielectric absorption, and many other things. They also found that 'subjectively' they were very important. Heck, I was using Mylar, Mica, Polycarbonate, whatever I could find for my EQ and coupling in those days.
Later I switched to Polypropylene and Polystyrene. And why did I change? Because some guy named Scott Wurcer, working with Walt Jung, came up with a DIFFERENTIAL TEST FOR CAPS that created up to 10% deviation from the ideal path predicted for an ideal cap, for EACH CAP! Wow! Maybe not distortion as we usually measure it, but deviation from ideal, none the less.
I got VERY interested in this test, and measured virtually every kind of cap that I could possibly find to measure. Dick Marsh dropped out from this test, feeling that it was only partially adequate to truly measure the cap's DA characteristics, and he was right, but what the heck. Once we had a test setup, we could COMPARE different caps and see how much they deviated from each other. This was good enough for me.
At this time, Doug Self came on the scene, contributing a preamp article to WW. He became VERY cross with an LTE from another engineer, who asked him if better caps might improve his design. This is where I stepped in, in 1984, and a salvo of LTE's went back and forth between Doug Self and me, not only in WW but also in HFN.
Finally, Dr. Lipshitz addressed me in an LTE and essentially said: although my math was correct, and my measurements were correct, it DID NOT MATTER, because his double blind tests had shown that virtually all caps sound the same.
And now we have Doug Self finding distortions in caps, which I applaud him for, and Scott Wurcer 'yawning' when it comes to cap distortion. And so it goes! '-)
This is an interesting story, John, I could suppose, that BIG PERSONS in the field often execute an order like this: "you must control that conclusions supported by you are good and useful for global community, irrespective whether they are true or not". Class D is supported because of the Global Good Idea, and class A could be prohibited in the nearest future.
Double blind test is expensive and must be arranged correctly, first system quality proofed, second listeners experience, etc.
With low level system nobody can distinguish different amps. If somebody likes to come to definite conclusion, it is easy to make "controlled" double blind test.
I thought DA is a linear phenomenon, modelled by a series CR in parallel with the cap. On its own this ought not to be audible, except for a small frequency response perturbation. Assuming this model is valid (at least as a first approximation), is it known whether the audio disturbance comes from non-linearity in the R or the C in the parallel arm? How does it change with frequency and/or bias voltage?
With asymmetrical pulses (music as well) DA becomes much more than a little phase shift. However, if you attempt to measure it with a single tone, like an Audio Precision or a Sound Technology analyzer, DA is virtually invisible. That is the reason why we ignored it for so long. It is really the molecules of the insulator (normally considered virtually perfect) 'dancing to the music'. If they dance too hard, the cap gets hot and self destructs. Most of the time they just divert the signal.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.