I thought that argument (for some people), from all that I've read, is also under the delusion that the instrument is about the same as it's always been.
I mean...seems to me to be two different conversations people are having.
One group is saying "yeah but NOW he knows how to sing and he still occasionally sounds as good as he ever has" while the other group is saying "but his voice is physically different!! How can you say he sounds the same?"
I think the truth is, regardless of preference, that his voice is absolutely, demonstrably different. End of story. And from there, it's entirely opinion as to which we prefer.
What aggravates me is the delusion that Bono has even near the same voice he had in the 1980's. He doesn't, period. I'm sorry, but will all due respect, if any of you believe this, you're just delusional. Or tone deaf. Or just plain stupid.
It's different and because it's different, he sings differently than he used to. End of story. If we agree on that, then the critical arguments about his voice can't be invalidated. And that's what some around here don't want to see happen. And that's why, IMO, otherwise intelligent people make themselves look silly by pronouncing meaningless events as evidence of something.
"Look at how bad my delusion has become!! Five seconds of this certain video has proved the reversal of the aging process, reversal of smkking damage, touring strain, general wear and tear, it's time travel baby! How many gigawatts did it take?" My goodness...it's not just an opinionated debate, there are people piping up, who are just flat wrong.