[cfcjb]

Interesting article comparing and contrasting the Sig 70s with the Yamamoto.

http://6moons.com/audioreviews/outside1/outside.html

In some ways I found this piece more illuminating than the Sig 70 review posted on the same site.
Is it me or was the full review somewhat lacking?

J

[-Richard-]

Hi j ~

Speakers and amplifiers either have a love affair with each other or they do not.

You can put 2 very handsome young adults together who you might think would make a
remarkably synergistic couple... and nothing happens... no sparks... no lightning...
no romance.

It is the same with speakers and amplifiers. I have heard several knowledgeable audio
folks describe the Yamamoto as having a hard personality on certain upper frequency
passages, for example.

The Signature 70's are tuned to deliver a smooth-as-silk highly musical presentation...
the sound is uncannily and extraordinarily balanced throughout the entire musical
spectrum. It is a far departure from the usual generic solid state amplifier sound...
which may sound quite interesting for perhaps 4 minutes... before your ears begin to
bleed from excess undesirable inharmonic material.

Nobody knows what tubes well done sounds like, like Louis Chochos. It was Louis
who turned me onto Roger Modjeski, whose 45/SET amps have no peers. And Louis
unequivocally feels that the Signature 70 sound is right up there with the best SET tube
amps he has ever heard... and he has heard almost all of them. DMason told me once
on the QT that Louis has one of the best ears in the business... coming from DMason that
is quite a complement.

Again, it is a synergy issue between amps and speakers. In my system Vinnie's Signature
series amps are the cat's meow... lovely, delicate, highly resolving, richly harmonic.

Warm Regards ~ Richard

[cfcjb]

Richard,
thanks for your detailed and informative reply.
I've no doubt that the Sig 70s are excellent amps, I have a pair on order.
What I found interesting in the more recent 6moons article was the way both amps were described. From those comparisons I still preferred the Sig 70s. The Sigs didn't attempt to skew the recording one way or the other, they were neutral and revealing but not harsh. In short, everything I would want an amp to be.
My point was that I wasn't that impressed with the way the initial Sig 70 review was written, not that I wasn't impressed with the amps. The initial Sig 70 review seemed to be lacking...inspiration, for want of a better word.
I'm sorry if my post was confusing but I'm glad that you responded so eloquently.

Richard I know that you bought a Sig 30. Have you gone down the Sig 70 path?

Kindest regards,

J.

[ZLS]

  The first reaction I had in reading the article is that it was not so much about the amps, but rather the conditions under which they were listened to.  The use of efficient speakers, powered subwoofers and digital equalization makes any comparison of the amps moot.  People, a 2 Watt Amp is not intended to be used in the same way as a 60 Watt Amp, nor would the manufacturer's expect them to be.  A 16 oz. steak and a double dip chocolate sundae are both food and will fill you up, but they are not the same!!

[Srajan Ebaen]

I'm pleased to see our new "Outside" feature seems useful to some. That of course was the idea but seeing that something like this hasn't exactly been done before, we're on new ground here. It's essentially trying to build a bridge between 'professional' reviewers (those who do this on a very regular published basis) and 'regular' listeners (those who don't usually voice their opinion in a publication).

Miklorsmith aka Mike Smith has enough listening buddies close to his digs to enable a RoadTour format that won't lean unduly on the manufacturer. The latter ships to Mike, Mike does his thing, the component moves around from listener to listener, then goes back to Mike, the manufacturer's shipper picks it back up there. Mike is the point man to collect and format all the listening impressions and he is also the point man for subsequent reader inquiries, to pass them on to the individual anonymous 'guest writers'.

It's a way we can generate multiple listening impressions for one component, and from people who don't necessarily approach their descriptions from the reviewer vocabulary. We decided this could net some interesting data points and Mike's become our go-to man to develop this concept. The original Audio Musings was exactly like that, and PFO still has the multiple reviewer coverage on some components. We never were able to do this before because we don't have any reviewers living close enough together except for two who have double-teamed a bit in the past.

I should think that no matter what, two sets of ears hear better/more than one, and four more than two. More importantly, there's more brains attached to them ears and they'll interpret the information differently, process it differently and then express it differently - never mind that the sessions often will be held in different rooms and systems. Regardless, having more rather than less subjective comments on a component should lead to more complete/varied descriptions and that can only be a good thing.

That's the theory at least.  Now we need to see how it'll actually works out, practically speaking, and what kind of issues we'll encounter.

[cfcjb]

Srajan,
I appreciate the concept. I liked the differing points of view. In fact I found the differing points of view and Mike's summation more informative than Paul's review of the Sigs. But that's just me, a contrary bastard by nature 

Regards,

J.

[miklorsmith]

Thanks a bunch!  This is fun stuff, and thanks to Srajan for making it happen.  It's tough to do though, my respect for published reviewers has risen already and I haven't even written a dedicated piece yet.   

Expect future articles to be more fleshed out and detailed relating to sonics especially.  I will try my best to show the tech side, but frankly I'm out of my element there and will be relying on the manufacturers to explain themselves.

"The Guys" are excited to be part of this process too - I haven't told them about the "tough" part yet.  heh heh.  Oh, guys, if you're reading I was just kidding about the last part.

[gbeard]

Thanks a bunch!  This is fun stuff, and thanks to Srajan for making it happen.  It's tough to do though, my respect for published reviewers has risen already and I haven't even written a dedicated piece yet.   

Nice job Mike! Remember...writing about audio is supposed to be fun (but sometimes it isn't).

Good luck with your new gig. 

Hi Srajan!

[chckr]

Srajan,

I also like the new 'Outside' concept.  I found it a nice middle ground between the professional reviewer who might tend to be a bit too "professional" (polite?) and the amateur reviewer who might just be a bit biased by his/her particular purchase.   Sure, some of the guest listeners gave better (more complete?) reviews than the others, but having a number of reviewers provided a balanced perspective and gave a broad perspective on the sound.  As a tube amp and recent Sig-30 owner, I found many of their observations and commentary spot on.   Of course, I'm a bit jealous of Mike Smith who gets gear sent to his house.   

Thanks too for reviewing the RWA Sig-30, never thought I'd end up owning an integrated amp with only one input    but somehow I do find the thing my wife calls "the little black box" quite addicting.   

[-Richard-]

It has become our custom... we music lovers who dream about owning audio products and
who actually do manage to purchase various products from time to time as our budget
allows... to seek out sources of information that can help us to make our purchases
fit our expectations.

That is only natural. After all, we imagine ourselves to be "educated" consumers...
in the sense, that although audio products probably come under the heading of
impulse or emotional purchases... we who belong to the purchasing audio community will
do as much research as our patience will tolerate... some obviously have more patience
than others.

Before the onslaught of print magazines that supposedly dedicated themselves to enriching
the knowledge base of their subscribers... one had little option but to drag oneself from
audio store to audio store... enduring the hype, pressure, misinformation and unevolved
personalities of salesman who were bent on bending us to their will.

Then came the internet and the emergence of the chat forums, where perfect strangers could
form an unseen community of like-minded enthusiasts who could share vital information with
one another about audio products... information that was not particularly shaped by self-interest...
a rare instance of somewhat honest feedback... that could actually help us to determine whether
a product was right for us or not... so we can make a even more educated guess than reading
a review in a print magazine alone.

The advent of the e-magazine... particularly 6 moons, under the brilliant guidance and writing
skills of Srajan, is proving itself an enduring part of the knowledge base review process.
There are at least 2 writers that I trust who write for that highly accessible and feedback
sensitive e-publication... Srajan is one of them.

However... I would like to mention that form follows function... and that form also follows
form as well... meaning that writing about anything in a formal way necessarily imparts an
unconscious shaping to ones thinking process. Of course in the case of Srajan, and his brilliant
prose, that very shaping process becomes the ground of his art... how he shapes his insights is
terribly entertaining for all of us... as well as highly informative.

But when one of our own... an AC member, for example...  begins to shape his writing with the
idea of trying to fit his insights into the structure of a formal review process, something else
is introduced into the chat room free-wheeling give-and-take spontaneous expression of
an essentially formless dialogue... formless in the best sense... that what comes out of it is
energized by the vitality of the lack of an overriding structure.

That element that is introduced into a formal review process is a certain level of
self-consciousness. All formal structures are shaped by the need to follow the ethos of the
publication from which it arises. This is not merely a question of content as content...
but of form as form.

Personally, I like the free-wheeling insights of AC members in their free-wheeling mode of
expression. Being a writer myself, I impose a certain amount of structure and a certain formal
rigorousness on myself as a matter of inclination... and because I want to express myself as
clearly as possible. In actual truth, I am rarely aware of that process while I am writing.
It comes about by itself, so-to-speak, just because I write often.

It is fun to write formally. It even has the effect of making the writer think much more
carefully about what he/she really thinks... and intensifies the self-reflective process.
But it is not the same as writing within the highly spontaneous, highly expressive atmosphere
of the chat room.

I read formal "reviews" with a grain of salt... because I am aware of the shaping that is going
on underneath the formal "structure" of the piece. I am much more affected by the chat room
interchange of AC members that I have grown to trust because their writing is entirely
unselfconscious... they do not have to tip toe around advertisers for any number of reasons.

Long live, 6 moons, and long live AC... it is nice to keep them apart. Allowing each their
unique places in our audio community. I am merely expressing my personal feelings. Perhaps
it will evoke some response. But I did not write it for that purpose. I wrote it because I can.
That is the underlying value of the chat room. I can express my personal thoughts here even
if they might be misunderstood or controversial. I like that.

Warm Regards ~ Richard

[Srajan Ebaen]

First off, it's very kewl that the AC participants, when it comes to reviewers and publishers, are a civilized bunch. Difference of opinion is terrific and makes the world go round. Senseless and narrow-minded attacks and arguments just for the sake of arguments rather than an honest desire to learn and share are a waste of bandwidth. That's why it's not only fun to participate here every once in a while but it's also inspiring, i.e. something comes out of it for us other than self glorification on the one hand or self protection on the other 

Richard makes some excellent points which are, indeed, at the heart of "formal reviewing" and "impromptu on-line sharing". Neither is superior, they're different.

One of the differences, of course, is that you're forced to think thrice before writing in the formal context, plus there's the gate keeper of the editor, proof reader or whatever the title might be of the person who you submit your stuff to and who might edit things for language and clarity or request additional paragraphs. Needless to say, if you're writing for an Editor who you're not aligned with in terms of prose, approach, personality and "vibe", you might find yourself writing  for him/her (anticipating the reaction and avoiding a disfavorable one) rather than letting it rip and writing for the audience. This is similar to the manufacturers who make stuff for the end user but whose real clients are the dealers who pay 'em and who have their own needs and requirements you better listen to or you might as well kiss dealer representation good-bye.

There's no avoiding the fact that a publisher/editor puts his personality on his publication and that by virtue of this style, particular writers will be attracted to write for him/her whereas others won't. That already is a selection process which, you might say, streamlines certain things. Regardless of how open-minded and interested in variety you might be, certain things, to you, will make the cut and "fit in", others won't.

In forums, everything goes and with that comes the flip side of which we see a lot on AA.

Editorial selectivity can be the principle that maintains civility and certain standards but can also become become a limiting factor. The open format of online forums guarantees the broadest variety of opinion and style but can become limiting because the onus on civility and high standards is self-imposed rather than guaranteed by a gate keeper (unless moderators take over to serve that function which of course happens but not to the extent of a formal editorial process which includes fact checks).

Another obvious difference of course is access to equipment. Because  especially smaller manufacturers have an awful lot riding on reviews, they're understandably reliant on being met with a guaranteed standard of 'professionalism'. Such a standard might well be maintained on the forums as well but it's certainly not guaranteed. Part of what makes certain posters comfortable to let 'er rip is anonymity. Reviewers are public figures to the extent that everyone involved knows who they are. Making serious mistakes carries graver consequences there than if you're simply audioboy and nobody has any idea who you really are.

As with anything, the magic is in maintaining a healthy balance. "Outside" deliberately undermines a bit of the "ivory-tower" separation between the professional reviewer and the equally as enthusiastic and dedicated non reviewer. And of course the extent of this blending will have to be limited (controled, guided) by having to fit into the context of our publication.

For example, anything sent to 6moons for a formal review is guaranteed (as well as humanly possible) to return to the maker in its original condition. The moment such gear leaves our circle as it were to make rounds outside (there's more than one reason why this feature is called Outside after all) I remain just as liable for the product's eventual return, in good health and condition, to the maker. But now I'm extending this accountability on my part to complete strangers whose names I don't even know. Will they be "anal" about avoiding scratches and dings? Will they be careful enough to not shorten out an amp and blow it up?

This is zero knock on 'non-professional' writers. It's just an expression of my personal position. It's added risk exposure. The traveling Altmann DAC is owned by Mike outright so I'm off the hook as it were. Future products solicited formally as review loaners will have me on the hook. So we have to see how it goes and we'll certainly make sure manufacturers know exactly what is involved if they participate in Outside.

Many things you can't learn except for doing them and we're committed to doing this and seeing where it leads.

Another main difference which Mike himself already pointed to is the tech side of reviews. None of us pretend to be engineers but a formal review is expected to make a minimum technical presentation whereas forum posters can focus on the fun part (what did it sound like) and avoid the tech part.

And of course there's always the very real sense of responsiblity and accountability which goes with formal reviewing where your published opinion has a tendency to become holy writ - i.e. it's published, it must be true. Plus, it's now indelibly chiseled into stone and can't be retracted. Whatever was said and however it was put stands. You might say forum posts stand just as well but the reality is, at the point in time, their effects aren't quite the same. They're treated far more casually.

So both formats serve their purpose and if "Outside" can link the two together a bit further to stimulate enhanced cross pollination, it would be wonderful. Having 6moons as an online rather than print publication certainly lends itself to this experiment and I'm grateful to Mike for suggesting it.  aa

[miklorsmith]

Wow guys, heady stuff.  I have great respect for your ears and opinions, Richard - I don't believe I've ever read one of your posts that was anything less than thoughtful and contributory.

There's no question this idea is different.  The meld will be liked by some, not by others.  I don't see a wholesale recalibration of the status quo with this feature on the community at large.  Think - man-sized door in the Great Wall of China.  It's one feature in one magazine that will be able to "process" what, six products a year at the absolute maximum?  The number will likely be significantly less.  And, it's possible some manufacturers won't want their stuff Outside, preferring to keep it with me only.

In that case, Outside might refer more to the product itself (hint, not mainstream) than the review process.

Also (um, sorry I didn't check first about this Srajan) I'm preparing to embark on some new personal explorations on computer audio.  Some of this might get spun into a feature where the content is more "how to", and the functional differences between ways to do things.  I already have a Squeezebox (two actually).  USB is another, completely valid streaming technique.  I haven't seen any head-to-head comparisons of these.  How about TacT room correction vs. PC based?  Even within the PC environment there are several choices.

"PC Audio for Dummies" - How does that sound?  This article wouldn't need to cover sonics at all, though it could be linked to specific product reviews for that gear too .  Would it be valuable for the community-at-large?  I'd bet it would be, anybody out there intimidated by computer audio?  Of those, would anyone like the chance to ask questions about the Dummies article on an open forum?

Keep in mind this is all dreaming, just some ideas I have that are in-line with what I'm personally going to be doing with my system.

Richard, by expressing your sincere and valid, contrary opinion you have played perfectly into my devious plot!   BoooHaaaahahahahahaaaaa       

[srayle]

I'd like to propose that we move this discussion to Town Square or Audio Central Circle as a new thread, unless the topic is
directly the Sig 70 Yamamoto topic.

Basically, it seems to me that we're ready to begin a discussion as to what happens when 'one of us' who posts regularly
here has a position as a reviewer with a professional on-line review site, as Richard has raised the topic.

I feel that we have to look a bit a bit askance at anything we read online. Absolutely has forum discussion influenced audio buying,
as has the extremely well-written audio review site, such as 6moons (I purchased my Gallo Ref 3's after seeing stellar reviews everywhere, but especialy after they won the first and, at that time only, 'Blue Moon Award' at 6moons. I was also heavily influenced by a post here by Miklorsmith that the Zu Druids "kicked the  [Gallo's] teeth in" when it came to midrange--then came another 'Blue Moon' to the Druids, and so I went. But I no longer own either speaker--I have moved on to much better values in a speaker at much less cost--but we all must agree that these websites have TREMENDOUS influence on our buying habits).

But also remember that the audio manufacturers maintain their circles here on AC, that many of us feel a great deal of loyalty
to some of the manufacturers, self-made 'little guys' such as Louis Chochos,
Bill Baker, Lloyd Peppard or Vinnie Rossi, I feel have skewed the objectivity of what we read here. We all want Louis and Vinnie to make it in the audio world.
These guys also pay to maintain their Circles here, with the motive, of course, to maintain publicity, create buzz, and ultimately increase
sales. Besides, how dare someone post a negative review of something on a manufacturer's own circle? We all feel a certain responsibility to
these guys...let's admit it,.. and also admit a fair amount of cheerleading gets done here under the guise of the 'unvarnished objectivity' of the Average-Joe-in-the Street
audio consumer. This is just the way the world is, but I no longer consider much of what I read on AC objective information.

[miklorsmith]

Nice!  Smart guys here for sure.  I have no objection to culling out part of this thread to start another.  On the "objective information", I call it how I see it.  None of us are objective.  A measurement microphone is objective, but in what dimensions?  I agree AC is far from a no-holds-barred environment.  As long as that's understood, no harm done right?  True objectivity is truly rare.

Maybe we could have a vote on whether AC wants to participate in these interactive discussions.  If not, that's cool.  I know of another place that's definitely excited to do it.

[-Richard-]

Hi Miklorsmith ~

Thank you for the nice compliment. I enjoy reading everything you write.

I look forward with great anticipation to your insights regarding computer controlled audio.
I think you would find an enthusiastic audience if you can pry open that can of worms and
explain what for many is the mystery of how computers interface with audio. There is also
a growing audience, myself included, that want to know what products are available that
work effectively within the computer environment... such as sound cards and so on.

My investigations into Rane's EQ devices, for example, turned up the fact that they make a
variation of their new analogue-like front panel controls in a software-only controlled version....
with this alternate device having no physical controls at all... obviously the Rane engineers and
designers believe that computers are the future for many professional and avid amateur audio
enthusiasts. It is a simple fact that each succeeding generation grows up with a greater facility
and intimacy with computers. I think I can say without exaggeration that you could have
an alternative career, Miklorsmith, as a writer who specializes in audio products for the computer.
It is where the future lies.

My entire life is predicated on the principles of personal freedom. A very easily misunderstood
idea. In its absolute applications it places one on a spiritual path. In its relative application it
integrates into the texture of our daily lives as a total responsibility for ones thoughts and
actions. In that sense responsibility is the ground for personal freedom.

Once a person gives themselves permission to embark on a life of personal freedom, that
highly oxygenated atmosphere can be intoxicating. For example I do not smoke nor ingest
any kind of mood or mind altering herb, drug or beverage. I derive my pleasures in life strictly
from the ground of sobriety. And that is also the future. Too much to go into here.

It is impossible to explain what music means in ones life once you go off all mood altering
substances. That is when music can create ephemeral spaces too sublime for description.

I mention all of this to explain that what I wrote is in defense of the freedom that AC promotes
to its members to express themselves without the constraints of a formal structure that is
driven by commercial interests... whether implicitly or explicitly present in the background.

There is no question that audio print publications, which I presently read only on rare occasions,
and e-magazines such as 6 moons, which I read much more often, are a vital resource for
the dissemination of information about new or historically interesting audio products.
However, they do tend to place a great deal of emphasis on the usual suspects. At least 6 moons,
has 2 reviewers, Srajan being one of them, who are willing to work with gear that is not
mainstream. Srajan, is to be applauded for allowing that kind of freedom and open-mindedness.
It is the reason I still continue to read 6 moons with interest. Almost all print publications seem
stale compared with the vitality that Srajan brings to his e-publication.

Hi srayle ~

Of course everything you say is essentially true. For example, I am an unabashed cheerleader
for Vinnie Rossi's new line of Signature amplifiers... and I consider Vinnie, a personal friend...
although we have never actually met, we have spoken on the phone on a number of occasions.
I own Red Wine Audio's Signature amplifiers and enjoy listening to them as my positive posts
suggest. I really like, Vinnie. He is honest, enthusiastic, incredibly helpful and formidably
intelligent. And he is really a wonderful designer. I find it deeply satisfying to help get the word
out on Vinnie's products. His resources for that are very limited and he depends on friends
for help of that kind.

Your personal journey into the mysteries of where the real magic lies in audio is similar to my
own... and probably reflects almost everyone who has ever ventured onto that slippery slope
where reviewers opinions count substantially for how we purchase our audio products.

However it is safe to say that you have developed tremendous self-confidence since you
first ventured into audio... and your sense of where the magic lies is now complete. So, in
one sense, you probably had to go through some form of initiation process... you had to get
your feet wet a bit in order to develop a discerning ear... to know what brings the real
magic into your musical life. I have gone through quite a few products before I understood
what I was interested in. I listened to friends, reviewers and AC members, as I sifted through
the available gear on my journey into audio's more personalized products.

I am deeply grateful to AC for being able to meet and develop friendships with several
like-minded music lovers... and it is great fun to participate on these august threads and
forums. As long as we accept the fact that AC members are not... in fact... cannot be objective...
audio is after all a very subjective experience... then we can pursue our interest in audio
knowing that we will probably have to move on at some point with our present gear as we
search for products and solutions that bring us closer to the magic that only music can create.

This free-wheeling discussion is exactly what I like about AC... and especially Vinnie's forum...
he tolerates it all with marvelous grace.

Warm Regards ~ Richard

[Brad]

The real payment made by our
"'little guys' such as Louis Chochos,
Bill Baker, Lloyd Peppard or Vinnie Rossi"

is their contributions on AC - both in their own and in the general forums.
Not their sponsorship of AC if they choose to do so.

[lonewolfny42]

miklorsmith:

On the "objective information", I call it how I see it.

That's the way it should be....

[srayle]

Hi Richard and Brad,

The whole world is Politics, and especially the world of Audio.

It did take me awhile to gain my feet in my audio experiences, but I wanted to post as
a word of caution, to the relatively new audio hobbyist, that the opinions contained
anywhere on the web are based on an unseen politic. Had I fully realized the situation
a couple of years ago, when I was new to audio, I would have moved more
cautiously and purchased differently.
As it is audio purchases are major expenses for most of us, that we rationalize to ourselves
and our spouses/partners, justifying our large expenditure in pursuit of an always elusive
goal. How many of us have thought to ourselves and proclaimed that the music has never sounded
better, yet within a short time that elusive itch arises again and again we buy something else,
something more.

 I don't mean for my comments to reflect on any of our manufacturers, who actually
serve us here on Audiogon with expert advice and opinion (especially Vinnie, who has
always worked tirelessly with consummate service and follow-up to his customers), but probably to the essential insanity
of the never-ending Pursuit of Truth in Audio. I work very hard for my money, and probably spend too damn
much on of it on audio. I'll bet that's true for most of us. I just mean to issue a word of caution to those who
are new or naive to audio that one must always take online opinion with several grams of NaCl.
These are not just unvarnished opinions offered up on the Web, but often are complicated by our
emotions (like our protectiveness of our Manufacturer's Circle) as well as the deeply felt but consciously
unacknowledged justification to ourselves for spending so much on this always vanishing goal (and the latest
hot item in the audio discussion world).

My own opinion and experience is that the audio detail that modern digital technology offers up is tremendously
seductive, but never satisfying. This is also true, but to a lesser extent for me, in the rest of audio. I prefer tubes
to digital, others have other likes/dislikes/preferences...thats what this original Signature vs Yamamoto review
actually opened up...yet I still tube roll, never quite satisfied...just spent $300 on a pair of Emission Labs 45 tubes to
play on my Fi 2a3 monoblocks. I already own a pair of EML 2a3's. They sound wonderful,
yet I am thinking about buying a vintage el84 amp to explore that sound. It wouldn't make that much difference if I were a wealthy man.

What I'm basically saying is that a private opinion of a friend offered up privately, rather than a post anywhere
on the internet now matters more to me in my purchase decisions. Although I'm glad I had a chance to experience
some of the audio gear that I owned and chalk it up to experience, it did cost me a lot of money to acquire that experience.
I realize now that I am admitting my own former naivete when it comes to audio opinion, and so proceed with more caution...
maybe I'll actually have something in the bank when I retire.

[shep]

Interesting, the direction this posting has veered towards. It's as if a sacred cow got loose in the room. I don't know if AC is unique in this regard, having it's in-house, in-crowd of carefully nurished and protected and cherished manufacs. In the beginning I found this unsettling and odd, now I find it touching and rather special. God help anyone who willfuly attacks or denigrates their products, they would get their wrist slapped faster than if they were supporting religion/politics/or pornography! It's so part of the ethos of AC that it is even hard to talk about as a seperate issue, one that might not be as neutral as it appears. That said, I for one could not imagine AC otherwise BUT, it certainly means we have to tread softly. That does somewhat cramp one's style... If some one (God forbid their mangy souls) didn't like gear from our dearly beloved in-house manufacs. (ugly word) How would they be treated? I think Vinnie and others could take it in stride, having a serious support base, but...where exactly do we draw the line and how subjective are we when the unspoken rule is "here you do not go" ? I have even found myself hesitating before saying how much I like say my speakers, as if I were being disloyal...

[Brad]

Srayle - thanks - that post makes a lot of sense to me.  Well-reasoned.
    I was just trying to point out that our mfrs do much more that just contribute financially to AC.
    They also benefit from having a great target audience here.  Pretty much symbiotic.
    Tubes rock, btw 

Shep - If you've got something you like, don't be afraid to say what it is and why you like it.  This um, hobby, is way too subjective for any one product to meet everyone's taste/music/room/budget. 

As far as treading carefully, I may phrase things differently if I'm posting in a mfr's circle vs. in a review or in the general circle.  I consider that just politeness to my host.