If it is only strongly implied, that implication resides in your imagination, not in any posted claim.
Peter, you may want to rethink this one. (If you don't get yourself out of this one I think it is "checkmate" on your protestation that Natural Sound is not indelibly a component-exclusionary concept.) You are effectively eliminating the concept of implicit.
A statement can have an implication without that implication being merely the imagination of the reader. This is not my personal, subjective opinion -- this is the way the English language works.
It is incorrect to suggest that unless an assertion is explicit it is incapable of being implicit. In other words, you are saying there's no such thing as an implication (an implication which is objectively present in a statement, and not merely the imagination of the reader).
The Natural Sound crowd's inability to see, or intellectually dishonest refusal to acknowledge, that whittling from the universe of high-end components all of those components which fail the Natural Sound test such that only high-efficiency speakers, pro audio cables and Lamm electronics remain I believe is precisely the implication to which Al is referring.
That is the
implication. Writing that "Only high-efficiency speakers, pro audio cables and Lamm electronics are capable of achieving Natural Sound" would be an
explication -- which I agree you have not written. But the fact that you have not made it explicit, does not, by itself, mean that you have not made it implicit.