IPAD 3 In My Family

Yesterday, I had a call from my wife while I was in our local library in McLean, Virginia.

She said our oldest daughter Tanya Maynigo Loucks was visiting us to show or rather to show off her (and her husband Tim’s) iPAD 3 or HD.

I rushed home immediately (library is less than a mile from my house) not only because my wife said so and Tanya, whose birthday is today, wanted me to, but more because I wanted to examine her new iPAD 3 hands-on.

My family is what you call, an “APPLE Family”.  My wife Tina, daughters Tanya and Traci, and only son Raul  I call the “apples of my eye”.  They also represent the “apples” in my mind and in my heart. All of us live by the overused quote, “an apple a day keeps the doctor away”.  Now we do not only eat it but we live it, type on it, mouse it, touch it, finger it, order or dictate on it, signal it, and definitely, cannot leave home without it.

Of course, the fact that the value of the Apple stock has been steadily growing upward recently not only enhanced our Experience, Education and Entertainment but our Equity as well.

At least one of us always has the latest MAC device. When the amazing MacBook Air came out, my wife had it first. When the more amazing MacBook Pro came out, I had it first, followed by Traci and Tanya.  On the iPhones, the iPhone 4S being the latest, Raul was always the first. Then, when the most amazing iPAD 2 came out, I had to have it and I got it with the maximum features and memory. The price did not matter.  A while later, courtesy of her fiancé’s parents,  Traci got one too.

As of today, I installed about 400 carefully chosen, useful, and productive apps. These are apps that kept me more educated, skilled and learned that, at times, when I go to my “one to one” class at the Apple store, I could out-genius some of the “geniuses” at the Genius Bar.

Tanya’s (and husband Tim’s) iPAD 3 was a sweet delight. When she first showed me the device she and her mother were looking at the website of  Sweet City Desserts   (www.sweetcitydesserts.net) It was the site of a dessert shop owned by family friend Manny Tagle, brother of the Archbishop of Manila, featuring beautiful pictures of cakes and pastries.

What really made it so beautiful was not only because the site was beautifully designed with great photography but more so because we were looking at it with Tanya’s iPAD 3.

Having the current “bragging rights” in the family and also celebrating her birthday  (by Filipino time because she was born there), I wanted to reinforce her fun and happy celebratory mood. So I focused on all the new features, which make iPAD 3 superior to my IPAD 2.

But Tanya insisted on comparing our iPADs understandably reinforcing and enjoying her “bragging rights.” J

Earlier, my wife asked me why I have not gone to the Apple store to check out the new IPAD? I said, “I would only get envious and I might be tempted to upgrade which for me is unnecessary and economically impractical.”

Tanya’s insistence to compare hers to mine could have the same effect. But at the same time I was forced to show the difference for her satisfaction.

I took out my iPAD 2. I started comparing the physical features. First, both have the same size, so NO difference there. Then, I showed my cover and stand which could display my iPAD 2 in different “kama sutra” positions as featured at the MacWorld/iWorld 2012.  Advantage: iPAD 2. 

We then looked at some features and built-in apps that come with iPADs such as Calendar, Reminders, Notes, Face Time, Skype, iTunes, Safari, Music, Videos, Contacts, Twitter, Facebook, App Store and Settings. NO difference.

I showed her the popular Flipboard in my device.  Her device did not have it. Advantage: iPAD 2.

I demonstrated the features of GoodReader in my IPAD 2. Her device did not have it. Advantage: iPAD 2.

I opened my “logmein” app that controls remotely my MacBook Pro. Her device did not have it.  Advantage: iPAD 2

Noticing that her “bragging rights” were slowly disappearing and the celebratory mood changing, I also changed gear.

I asked her to turn the IPAD 3 Camera as I did mine. The two cameras were focused on me. The iPAD 2 displayed a very handsome ME. The iPAD 3 displayed the handsomest guy on earth, also ME. That’s the BIGGEST ADVANTAGE of the iPAD 3. The amazing Retina Display. This made her happy. J

Then, I brought out an iPAD stand, which I got at the MacWorld conference. It is the same stand that I gave Traci, my other daughter on her birthday.  I gave it to Tanya as my birthday gift. This made her happy! J

I started explaining all the apps that she could download to make her iPAD 3 the most productive and useful device not just in our family but also in her neighborhood and elsewhere.

We accessed her iPAD 3 Apple store. We started to download the Flipboard, a free app. The store asked for a password. Tanya could not provide it.  Knowing the name, password, and ability to download are signs of ownership or co-ownership but possession is at least 90% ownership. Tanya currently has possession but accessibility is still an issue.

Today, as we celebrate her birthday, I am sure, this will be resolved! J

The Right To Cover Your Ears

RIGHT TO COVER YOUR EARS

My barber called and discussed with me the event that resulted in the covering by private prosecutor Vitaliano Aguirre of his ears.

For several days during the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, every time Senator Miriam Santiago spoke, she had the habit of berating, lecturing, and insulting the Congressman-Prosecutors and private prosecutors on national television before the eyes and ears of millions of Filipinos. At one instance, she called them “GAGO (Fools) and “BOBO” (Idiots)).

Atty. Vitaliano Aguirre could no longer tolerate Santiago’s inappropriate conduct fully aware of the provisions of the Canon of Judicial Ethics which he knows the latter violated.

My barber made the following observations:

1. Aguirre was covering his ears to avoid hearing more of Santiago’s insults.
2. Aguirre was not noticed by Santiago because the former was not in the latter’s line of sight.
3. Santiago continued her tirades and finished her annoying remarks without interruption and disturbance.
4. She found out about Aguirre’s action through Senator Jinggoy Estrada who has been observing Aguirre and through Senator Alan Cayatano who video-recorded Aguirre’s move.
5. Aguirre was cited for contempt because according to Senators Pia Cayetano and Miriam Santiago, under Senate Court Rules Aguirre showed disrespect by causing disturbance resulting in interruption to the proceedings.
6. Aguirre was supposedly disrespectful because he refused to listen to more verbal assaults to his dignity but did it without disturbance or interruptions.
7. “What about Estrada and Alan Cayetano?” my barber asked.

While observing people like Aguirre in the captive audience, Estrada was obviously not paying attention to Santiago’s annoying remarks.

While also observing the people in the captive audience, taking out his camera phone, focusing his camera on Aguirre, turning on the video or still camera, and later turning it off, Cayetano was obviously not paying attention to Santiago’s annoying remarks.

Weren’t Estrada and Cayetano disrespectful too? Did Cayetano get Aguirre’s permission to publish his picture or video?

Take it from my barber!

Then my barber again asked, “What about rights? There must be some rights involved here.”

I explained to him that when Aguirre covered his ears, he exercised individual autonomy within the context of Free Speech Rights. The latter consist of the right to speak, the right against compelled speech, the right to listen and the RIGHT AGAINST COMPELLED LISTENING.”

In an article published by Boston Law Review, Caroline Mala Corbin said, “"Free Speech jurisprudence – which already recognizes the right to speak, the right to listen, and the right against compelled speech – is incomplete without the right against compelled listening. The same values that underlie the other free speech rights also lead to this right. Furthermore, this claim holds true regardless of whether one conceives of the primary purpose of the Free Speech Clause as creating a marketplace of ideas, enhancing participatory democracy, or promoting individual autonomy. “

As examined by Constitutional experts, “the protection afforded to unwilling listeners by the captive audience doctrine, balances private speakers’ right to communicate against listeners’ rights to privacy, equality and individual autonomy.” 

Indeed, the protection for captive listeners with the right against compelled listening is grounded in free speech values.

Individual autonomy means each individual in his own world has full autonomous control of his entire body, his brain, his sensual organs, other body parts. He decides what to see and what not see with his eyes. He decides when to pinch his nose if he does not want to smell an odor or figuratively, does not want the “smell” of somebody’s arguments. He can pay attention to other things if a speaker bores him. He can even “cover his ears” if he finds the speaker annoying or insulting.

Indeed, by covering his ears, Aguirre exercised individual autonomy within the context of Free Speech Rights which, in this case, is the Right Against Compelled Listening. He actually had several choices. First, to stand up and object. This would have rudely interrupted Santiago. Besides, he was prohibited from doing it. Second, to stand up and ask permission to leave. This would have rudely interrupted Santiago and definitely be perceived as being discourteous. Third, cover his ears. This would neither cause any disturbance nor interruption. He was also defending his dignity, respect and self-esteem by not being forced to listen to more abusive language.

For being cited for contempt, Aguirre faced a possible fine plus up to ten days in jail. Does he deserve it? What about Santiago’s bad behavior?

Punishing Aguirre would be adding INJURY to a series of INSULTS.

Eight out of ten in the social media favor Aguirre over Santiago. Senator Trillanes in a text message wrote, “A slap on the wrist would suffice.” He would have also stood up and defended himself if he was on the receiving end of Santiago’s scathing remarks.

Former Ambassador and National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Chairman Roy Seneres , Aguirre’s former classmate at San Beda law school delivered a good point. Aguirre was cited for contempt by the Senate but Santiago was never chided for calling the prosecutors “fools”.

“He and Santiago are in pari delicto (equally at fault). Both committed contemptuous behavior. Aguirre should not be punished unless Santiago is punished also. If the Senate can’t punish Santiago, they should not punish Aguirre either. The entire Senate would be committing a contemptuous act if they punish Aguirre only,” Seneres texted.

The Senate, after its caucus, in a display of good political wisdom and judgment, decided NOT to punish Aguirre.

My barber is a little more hopeful about the Senate and the Philippines!!!

AURA: CJ Corona Impeachment Trial

Analyzing, Understanding, Reading and Appreciating (AURA) the CJ Corona Impeachment Trial is a practical and intellectual exercise of common sense and wisdom.

Senate As An Impeachment Court

The Philippine Constitution grants to the Senate the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE power to try and decide all impeachment cases.

It is now public knowledge that the Senate as an impeachment court is both quasi-judicial and quasi-political. The Senator-Judges as expected are mostly non-lawyers who represent the thoughts and will of the people who elected them. They are not expected to know the letters and nuances of the law. It is sufficient that they are able to ferret out the facts, and analyze, understand and appreciate their application to obtain and render justice. The dominant requirement is just plain “common sense”.

Impeachment History

Our law on impeachment has its roots from both the U.S. and British legal jurisprudence.

Research shows that the U.S. Senate as an impeachment court treated the admissibility of testimony with following guidelines:

“Considering the character of this proceeding, that it is a trial of impeachment before the Senate of the United States, and not a proceeding by indictment in an inferior court;

Considering that Senators are, from beginning to end, judges of law as well as fact, and that they are judges from whom there is no appeal;


Considering that the reasons for the exclusion of evidence on an ordinary trial where the judge responds to the law and the jury to the fact are not applicable to such a proceeding;

Considering that, according to parliamentary usage, which is the guide in all such cases, there is, on trials of impeachment, a certain latitude of inquiry and a freedom from technicality;


And considering, finally, that already in the course of this trial there have been differences of opinion as to the admissibility of evidence;


Therefore, in order to remove all such differences and to hasten the dispatch of business, it is deemed advisable that all evidence offered on either side not trivial or obviously irrelevant in nature shall be received without objection, it being understood that the same when admitted shall be open to question and comparison at the bar in order to determine its competency and value, and shall be carefully sifted and weighted by Senators in the final judgment.”

In the British Parliament, the Rules of Evidence were treated this way:

“It was contended before that tribunal, that instead of the strict and iron rules of a law court, the field was broad and liberal, and to be controlled by no rule but the Lex et consuetudo Parliamenti. (The law and custom of the Parliament)

“They are not to be trammeled and hemmed in by the rigid rules of evidence..…. the strictness which prevails in the ordinary criminal courts does not apply here, nor is it required that the article of impeachment should be drawn up with all the rigid precision of an indictment. The proceedings in this highest court are to be more liberal and free, and nearer substantially to the course pursued by courts conversant with the civil than the criminal law.”

Enrile Ruling

This is why I was not surprised when Senate President and Presiding Judge Enrile finally held “that the hearsay evidence rule does not apply fully because the impeachment trial is not a criminal case.”

This further means that the required proof would not be that in a criminal case which is “proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

The ruling came about because the prosecution presented Justice Secretary de Lima as a witness to prove the Article 7 charge that Corona allegedly “engineered” the issuance of the temporary restraining order (TRO) that would have allowed Arroyo and her husband to escape punishment in corruption and election fraud investigations against her. She testified on the following:

1.   That she had issued three watch-list orders to ensure that the Arroyos remained within Philippine jurisdiction while under investigation;

2.   That the Supreme Court issued a TRO lifting the watch-list orders but imposed three conditions: the posting of a P2-million bond, assignment of an agent to receive court orders in Arroyo’s behalf, and notice to local consulates each time they land in a country abroad;

3.   That Arroyo was blocked at the NAIA because she had not fulfilled all those conditions;

4.   That CJ Corona had allegedly maneuvered things so that it would appear that the conditional TRO was already in effect; and

5.   That she relied on such allegation based on the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court narrated in the dissenting opinion of Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno.

On this testimony, Enrile stated:

"It is the ruling of the chair that to the extent of the facts narrated by the witness on the basis of the dissenting opinion, let them remain as part of testimony, as record. But to the extent of the truth/falsity of what the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno contain, to the extent of those facts whether they are true or not, that the CJ influenced this, or CJ did that, then to that extent it is hearsay because the witness was not present when those things were being done/said,"

The ruling correctly admitted into the record as evidence numbers 1, 2 and 3 but ruled that numbers 4 and 5 are considered hearsay.

There is no doubt that because Secretary de Lima was not present at the internal deliberations, she had no personal knowledge of what transpired. It was therefore hearsay.

Is it inadmissible then?

Public Records

Not necessarily! Supreme Court decisions, concurring, dissenting and separate opinions are Public Records that are promulgated and published. They are recorded in the course of official business and made available and accessible to legal researchers, members of the judiciary, lawyers and all interested parties.

The impeachment court could treat them as Entries in the course of business and Entries in official records as provided for in Sections 43 and 44 of Rule 130 in the Rules of Court respectively, as exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule.

The separate opinions of Associate Justices Abad and Velasco as well as the dissenting opinions of Associate Justices Sereno and Carpio on the same issue are kept and incorporated in the same records. They have been promulgated and published and are accessible to the public.

Why not admit all the opinions as evidence when offered and let them be “carefully sifted and weighted by the Senators in the final judgment"?

Judicial Notice

Also as provided for in Rule 129, the impeachment court could take Judicial notice under Section 1 because the said opinions are official acts of the judiciary, or under Section 2 because the said official judicial acts have become public knowledge. Section 1 is mandatory while Section 2 is discretionary.

Electronic Evidence

In this digital age wherein the Philippines has become a leading exponent, and having been named Text, Facebook, Twitter and Call Center Capital of the world, using electronic data as evidence to seek the truth for justice should draw significant attention.

Government websites have become reliable sources of information, news, laws, jurisprudence and the like of Filipino citizens residing in the country and abroad. Official public documents, forms, publications and other records are digitally replicated and uploaded in official government websites run by web masters required to obtain security clearances.

Under U.S. rules, the contents of some these government websites are self-authenticating and are admitted as electronic evidence not unlike computer records.

This is E-Gov working for, of, and by the people.

I gain access to the Supreme Court decisions, opinions, laws and other judicial matters from the website of the Supreme Court and the judiciary. Similar contents are replicated or linked by the websites of the Official Gazette (www.gov.ph), the Arellano Law University, Chan, Robles Law offices and others.

In search of truth and dealing with questions of fact and law, there is no reason why the impeachment court could not make use of what the Supreme Court itself had promulgated, published and uploaded in its own website.

They can start with the opinions of Associate Justices Sereno and Carpio as well as those of Associate Justices Abad and Velasco regarding the temporary restraining order (TRO) issue.

The published opinions would be in place of the Justices who are unavailable - their physical presence having been barred by order of the Supreme Court and by the Senate’s refusal to require their presence.

Corona’s Revised Story: D in D, D-to-D and D of D, D and by D

Corona’s Revised Story: Discrepancies in Declarations Due to Discovery and Disclosure of Deposits, Documents and by Deduction.

In my previous article on the subject, I constructed a story based on the numbers and declarations of Chief Justice Renato Corona in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net worth (SALNs).

Since then, as witnesses testified, and deposits and documents discovered and disclosed, I am revising the Corona story not only using his own numbers but also those that have been revealed and correspondingly deduced from them.

Party-list Representative Walden Bello prior to becoming a legislator, I personally know to be a good economist and author who used to reside in the Metropolitan Washington, D. C. area. As an economist/author, he always supports his reports and conclusions with research, facts and figures. He obviously knows how to read Balance Sheets, which are identical to SALNs and the distinction between a real estate property’s “fair market value” and acquisition cost.

As reported, Rep. Walden Bello focused on CJ Corona’s SALN for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed on April 29, 2011. He concluded, “CJ Corona declared a Net Worth of P22,936,980 but his undeclared Net Worth was a least P78,800,355.”

That’s a discrepancy of more than P55,800,000 just for 2010.

Jarius Bondoc is one of the more noted columnist/journalist in the Philippines. As such, he always writes and supports his assertions with proofs, historical facts, and figures. He mentioned me once in his column in relation to my role and that of the late Ninoy Aquino in witnessing testimonial evidence proving the Marcos fake medals.

Columnist Bondoc looked at CJ Corona’s Cash on Hand and in Bank as declared versus the disclosed deposits at PSBANK and BPI in 2007, 2009, and 2010. He found discrepancies of P7,587,966.94 in 2007; P6,678,501.83 in 2009; and P28,252,621.80 in 2010.

He also checked the valuation of CJ Corona’s properties.  He found the following discrepancies: P13,000,000 for the La Vista property in Quezon City; P7,700,000 for the Bellagio Condo in The Fort, Taguig; P6,700,000 for the Ridge Condo in The Fort, Taguig; P1,579,000 for Burgundy Pl. Condo in Loyola Heights, Q.C.; and P2,300,000 for the Columns Condo in Makati.

Marites Daquilan Vitug is the author of the best selling book, “Our Rights Our Victories: Landmark Cases in the Supreme Court”. I bought the eBook version from Amazon.com. From my point of view, she and Raissa Robles redefined “investigative reporting” in the Philippines in this digital age both in print and electronic media. They always support their reports after extensive investigation and research all accompanied by indisputable facts.

Both are my Facebook friends. I remember meeting Marites in Makati through old friend Ma-an Hontiveros years ago when I suggested to them to get into electronic publishing for “Newsbreak”.

Marites Vitug says, “The best guides in this truth seeking journey are the hard facts. They serve as our luminous street signs. When we seem to go off-course, these pull us back. When darkness descends, they are the stars that lit up our way.”

She then compared Corona’s declared cash assets in his SALNs to the deposits testified to:

2007 – P2.5 M  (P10 M in BPI and PSB)

2009 - P2.5 M  (P8.5 M in PSB)

2010 – P3.5 M (P31.6 M in BPI and PSB)

Indeed, numbers tell the story. I also revisited the numbers and went back further as I did in my previous analysis.

After the revisions and careful analysis, I made the following observations:

1. The law requires the declaration of the acquisition costs of all real properties. CJ Corona FAILED to report the said costs.
2. The law requires the declaration of ALL Cash on Hand and in Bank. It does not exclude foreign currency accounts. Bank testimonies prove the existence of a dollar account owned by CJ Corona. Even if the dollar account only has $1 or $700,000, he should have declared it. CJ Corona FAILED to do it.
3. He purchased a land in 1992 and a condo in 1997 both by installment. CJ Corona FAILED to declare them in his 2002 SALN as property-owned and if still not fully paid, as loan/mortgage payable.
4. For 2003, I computed: a Total Asset (Fixed and Current Asset) Discrepancy of P20837720; a Total Liability Discrepancy of P16758800; and a Net Worth Discrepancy of P4078920.
5. For 2004, I computed: a Total Asset Discrepancy of P24426651.82; a Total Liability Discrepancy of P16758800; and a Net Worth Discrepancy of P24426651.82.
6. For 2005, I computed: a Total Asset Discrepancy of P32526651.82; a Total Liability Discrepancy of P25858800; and a Net Worth Discrepancy of P32526651.82.
7. For 2006, I computed: a Total Asset Discrepancy of P30526651.82; a Total Liability Discrepancy of P25858800; and a Net Worth Discrepancy of P30526651.82.
8. For 2007, I computed: a Total Asset Discrepancy of P39635782.35; a Total Liability Discrepancy of P25858800; and a Net Worth Discrepancy of P39635782.35.
9. For 2008, I computed: a Total Asset Discrepancy of P33626651.82; a Total Liability Discrepancy of P23768800; and a Net Worth Discrepancy of P33626651.82.

10.  For 2009, I computed: a Total Asset Discrepancy of P55305153.65; a Total Liability Discrepancy of P23768800; and a Net Worth Discrepancy of P55305153.65.

11.  For 2010, I computed: a Total Asset Discrepancy of P70299374.92; a Total Liability Discrepancy of P0.00; and a Net Worth Discrepancy of P70299374.92.

12.   In 2003, CJ Corona took a Cash Advance of P11000000 from his wife’s family realty company. While he correctly declared it as a liability, he failed to add the proceeds to his Cash on Hand or in Bank.

13.  Two properties that he declared in 2009 valued at P3M each were not declared in 2010. If they were sold, at least P6M or the actual proceeds should have been included in the Cash at Hand or in Bank.

14.  The value of Motor Vehicles declared in 2002, were not declared in subsequent years (2003-2010). If they were sold, the proceeds should have been included in the Cash at Hand or in Bank.

15.  There were real properties declared only in 2010 but were actually purchased by installment in previous years. These properties should have been reflected as properties owned in those years and correspondingly included as loan/mortgage payable since bought by installment.

We can be very specific on these. I have the working documents to support my figures.

I do not envy the defense lawyers. They have to figure out how to explain and justify the proven discrepancies. They have indicated one way to explain them – that these discovered deposits and undeclared properties are actually owned by his wife’s family business, the BGEI. They have the P34.7 M proceeds of the sale of property expropriated by the City of Manila to work with. Their business interests in said company were never declared except as a lender of P11 M to him.

The problem is that the deposits and the undeclared properties are way much more than the said amount. And why the former and latter are in his name is a mystery. If in trust, he could have registered it as such and the Board of BGEI should have appointed him as a Trustee.

There was wealth hidden. Right now it is still unexplained. It could have been hidden from the public, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, other agencies of the Government or from the other members of his wife’s family.

CJ Renato Corona and his lawyers or even his supporters could explain the discrepancies before the court of public opinion now or wait for his turn in the impeachment court.

I can’t wait!

PRODUCT REVIEWS

PPRORODPPRODUCT REVIEWS

RUNNUR

One product that caught my attention during the MACWORLD Conference was the “RUNNUR”.  It is a “strap worn across the body from shoulder to hip. It carries all the essential items you need to get you through your day.”

As can be seen in the picture, there is a pocket for each of your essentials:  ID, sunglasses, cash, credit cards and other valuables, phone, MP3 player, camera, snacks.  It has a Bottle Pouch and a Carabineer to hold keys.

It is quite useful for Hiking, Travel, Cycling, Sporting Events, Fitness, Dog-Walking, Festivals; for the Beach Goers and the Urban Dweller alike. I got one and I love it!

EARPHONES/EAR BUDS

AFTERSHOKZ

Among the earphones that I possess, the one I bring to the gym is AFTERSHOCKZ. It does not cover my ears. It is a Sport headphone that enables joggers, bike riders, skiers, skateboarders, hikers and other athletes to safely use their portable music players while staying connected to their surroundings.

Since AfterShokz headphones rest outside the ear, users are able to also hear ambient noises such as oncoming traffic, car horns, ambulances or other warning noises, potentially preventing accidents. Headphones that cover the ear and ear buds that nest inside the ear significantly restrict a user’s ability to hear these important sounds.

CLARITY ONE

I listen to Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Michael Buble, Harry Belafonte and the like. My favorite interpretation of the U.S. National Anthem is Marvin Gaye’s. These people have such beautiful voices that you do not want to miss any sound. You want to listen not just to the singer but to the sound of every instrument as well.

Clarity One has given me this pleasure beyond compare as I listen to my music. I understand that it is because of its Pure Sound Processor.  It is one sound technology that retains all the harmonics in music and voice that passes through it.

From my iPhone, iPod or iPad, the technology definitely produces “pure, clean and undistorted sound.” It is extremely good. I highly recommend this product. I cannot leave home without it!

AUDIOFLY

AF78 Series

Although this product was launched, it is not yet available for distribution.  I listened through it, but not long enough to make a definite judgment to compare to others. But it sounded great.

This is Audiofly’s premium hybrid in-ear headphone offering. It features a rare combination of a balanced armature device normally found in professional earpieces, as well as a 9mm custom dynamic driver.

The sample I was provided with was a less expensive version, AF33.  This version that a couple of friends and I tried is actually good. This should be an indication that the premier AF78 should be a superior version.