- for truth
/ stereo / high-end audio
is said, 'and absolute power corrupts,
all appearances, one can't
help but to wonder whether this old saying applies to the all-powerful
mainstream audio magazines which rule their domains with iron fists,
their own 'infinite wisdom'.
previous article here,
"Audio Magazines' Sinister Practices: Let the Reader Beware", has
addressed several of the seemingly nefarious tactics employed by such mags.
Allegations, from several
sources, have also pointed
to the probability that these mags
are motivated by
monetary gain from the patronage of favored
manufacturers/distributors/advertisers, and that these mags
will employ pretty-near any means necessary to promote or protect the
of their favored benefactors.
this is so, then logic would
suggest that such entities would also have an interest in suppressing
product which is good enough to challenge the 'supremacy' of those
their favored benefactors. This scenario seems to grow more sinister,
closer we look at it.
let us recognize, for
the sake of argument, that ARC, VTL, BAT, and Lamm
produce very excellent and very expensive pre-amps at the top of their
And let us also recognize that Stereophile
Absolute Sound are two of the most powerful and influential of
magazines. We cannot fail to notice, either, that both mags
(and others in the mainstream) are heavily
by virtually all these manufacturers. Nothing
that, in itself.
also, that all the products
in question routinely receive glowing rave-reviews from these mags,
time and again. Nothing
really wrong with that either
- these pre-amps are undeniably among the best there is. (Though we're
ever informed as to which is better than which - it's all a matter of
and preferences', we're told. Or could it be a ploy to avoid offending
the favored benefactors?) The afore-mentioned mags
to great lengths to ensure that we're kept abreast of every development
to do with these and others of the favored manufacturers, and
example, one of T.A.S.'
writers is so much a fan of ARC that we may reasonably expect to be
whenever W.Z. Johnson sneezes, or the very moment he even contemplates
contemplating a new design. And we're kept up-to-date on the progress
product from then, and thru-out its production-run, right up to the
contemplation of its replacement is even contemplated - if you catch
Nevertheless, let's be generous in saying that there's nothing wrong
either, per se (even though such a practice, which they all employ,
space which could've gone towards featuring lesser-known outstanding
which are mostly ignored and left to rot in oblivion).
let's also consider that the
preceding applies to all products from all manufacturers favored by
other, mainstream audio magazines.
in contemplating the above
scenario, let us also consider the following.
Better Than the Best: There
are other pre-amps in
existence that, by their performance, challenge the 'supremacy' of
mentioned above. Yet, these pre-amps seem not to be accorded anything
approaching similar prominence in coverage, by these mainstream audio mags,
as that afforded the
products of obviously 'favored
manufacturers'. The implications are absolutely disgusting!
example, and specifically;
there was a mild debate (now settled) which surfaced, from time to
time, as to which
pre-amps was/is better. This mild debate took place at Audiogon;
a major audio-forum which hosts some of the world's most knowledgeable
These audiophiles, along with others at the Audio-Asylum, Audio-Karma,
own some of the most sophisticated audio equipment in existence. Their
knowledge of such equipment rivals that of some of those who make a
writing about said equipment - after all, they actually own them. The
alluded to involved Tube Research Labs' 'The Dude' and Coincident's
Statement line-stage pre-amps.
have relatively recently discovered The Dude (costing anywhere from
$3500 to less than 5-grand) which they claim offers
performance than the best of those from the elite manufacturers, some
of which are
above. For instance, one Audiogoner
asserts that he
has owned such pre-amps as ARC's Reference 3 and the latest Reference
VTL's top-of-the-line T-L 7.5, among other top-echelon pre-amps. He
that The Dude totally outclasses these esteemed representatives of the
favored manufacturers. (Here are links to some of these 'reviews'; here,
The Dude is in short supply -
pretty-much made to order - so let's not be too judgmental of those
Absolute Sound and Stereophile
for not featuring this
Dude which betters their apparent favorites. The latter has a stringent
regarding qualification for review, tied to the products' availability.
the former has no such policy, so far as I'm aware and, therefore, no
featured such outrageously
one-off products as Magico's
from another of their apparently favored manufacturers.
And if little WAJ on AUDIO can find and delve into the outstanding
achievements of The Dude, then what's stopping TAS, and other major
mags from doing the same and proclaiming their findings to the world,
for the benefit of all audiophiles? The too-frequent occurrence of
instances like this (among other things) necessitates the question: Are
they operating on audiophiles' (their readers') behalf, or...? But
make a big deal about even that.
trouble is, though, that Coincident's
Statement qualifies in every way for such
coverage - and then some. Yet, we see no evidence of it being featured
with the prominence
accorded the much more
expensive products, from the seemingly 'favored manufacturers', which
we should expand on 'less
quality in performance', and on why this pre-amp merits much more
Statement has so far been reviewed by several
of the better
(WAJ on AUDIO has also chimed-in with our own two-cents
worth of commentary).
They all, more or less,
opine that the Statement is amongst the very best in the world. One or
gone so far as to intimate that it is the very ultimate. And, for
reasons, this argument holds a fair amount of credibility.
again, to our experts
actually did a comparison
between the Dude and the Coincident.
The outcome is that,
excellent in all aspects, the Coincident betters the Dude with a lower
noise-floor and slightly more transparency. In other words; the
better than the pre-amp which has already proven itself (to former
owners - no
less) better than several of the 'world's best'.
Suppressing a STATEMENT:
say it again; according to
former owners of the best, The Dude is better than some of the 'world's
And the Statement has proven to be better than the Dude - settling the
afore-mentioned minor debate. In light of
all this, one could reasonably conclude that the Coincident
Statement is, indeed, the very best line-stage pre-amp in the world -
levels superior to the previous standard. (There're also other reasons
would merit such a conclusion). And The Dude is also above that
and possibly second to the
Coincident, tentatively at least, until proven otherwise - the
likes of Audio-Note, darT
notwithstanding. (The Statement's position as the very best, in my
view, is not tentative however, due to one main feature of its design,
which we'll briefly highlight shortly).
following I've said before,
but it bears reiteration if only to stress the magnitude of the
regards to the pre-amp(s) that have raised the long-stagnant standard
my instincts are correct, then
the Coincident Statement is not just another 'flavor of the month,
a tired theme' line-stage pre-amp. Its achievements are
to now, the very best, though flawed, passive pre-amps were always more
transparent than even the most expensive active pre. The passive was
Coincident is the very first,
and only, active pre-amp which virtually equals the high-frequency
of the very best passives.
other active had ever achieved
such a feat, as far as I'm aware. Several unique factors account for
unprecedented abilities, in my view. But most important are its
employment of one of the very best means of volume-control (TVCs) and
its lack of even a
single resistor in the signal-path. I agree with the Audio-Critique
assertion that any other pre-amp which uses even one resistor in line
signal will be inferior to the Coincident - it's only logical. (Even
resistors degrade the sound - this is a fact). I believe this is (along
superior V-Cs) the main reason for its edge over The Dude,
and for its more significant edge over any other pre-amp in current
of this unique
feature, the the Coincident's performance cannot be bested by any other
pre-amp currently in existence, or by any that have gone before,
regardless of cost.
strongly believe, that the Statement is the best
production pre-amp of all time, at this particular point in time.
far as I'm aware, every other
pre-amp employs resistors in the signal-path and is, therefore,
provide less stellar performance than the Coincident. This is the main
we can state with confidence that the Coincident is THE VERY BEST.
apparently a well-kept secret. Thanks to the actions of the mainstream
audio-press, how many audiophiles know this?
Coincident, for the first
time ever, offers the very best of both worlds; the high-frequency
clarity of a
passive, and the fuller more realistic lower-midrange tones/details of
other pre-amp, that I'm aware
of, can make such claims. Therefore, the Coincident Statement must be
recognized as the very best line-stage pre-amp ever built, in the
audio. And it cost only $5k.
now we come to the main point
of this reiteration:
pre-amp should be
plastered on the cover of every major and minor audio mag,
with articles articulating the magnitude of its achievements - after
history in the making. (If this
product of one of the
more 'favored manufacturers' I've no shadow of a doubt that this would
the opposite is true, as this
pre-amp is barely acknowledged, in the most lukewarm of fashions
the mainstream audio
press - 'the powers that be'.
the foregoing as a
back-drop, it would be interesting to hear these mags'
excuses for according their relatively scant coverage of the
pre-amp that has raised the standard of pre-amp performance to
situation, as it stands, is
ABSOLUTELY disgraceful. It STINKS to high-heaven!
such a vehement
defense of the Coincident, I
realize that I've put my neck, and 'credibility', on the line. I have
about doing so. But perhaps I should declare the fact that I have no
with that pre-amp's manufacturer, or any other. My respect and
for that brand's pre-amp is, coincidentally, commensurate with my lack
of enthusiasm for
their speakers (though I've acknowledged the fact that they're among
of their kind, and better than most in dynamism - yet, it's still 'the
that I have a problem with) and this is also documented elsewhere on
I do not even believe
that, for the best overall
performance, one actually needs the very best pre-amp, or any other of
ultimate best components - as long as one's components are reasonably
best available. Sure, I strive for the very best whenever it's
call it a 'buffer-zone', after the minimum requirement is met,
that 'minimum' is already very high. But I have a stronger belief in
system-synergy, and an even stronger belief in the choice of the right
For instance; the
choice of speakers which are the
very best in imaging and upper-frequency detail (as is the popular
aligned with the very best pre-amp, and other 'A-class' components, may
out-performed in outright realism by a system which incorporates
speakers, which are more realistic overall, allied to 'B-class or even
'C-class' components. The former system may well be the better at
relatively minor aspects; 'pin-point'-imaging and high-frequency
(ideal for the analytically oriented) but the latter may present a
facsimile of a truly 'live' performance, overall - the essence of
high-fidelity. This has been my experience.
However, I also
recognize that many (the
majority?) do aspire to the very best of each component. And if Coincident's
indeed, the very best pre-amp in
the history of audio, then it should be declared as such. And I cannot
with the practices of mainstream mags
hide this fact pursuant to protecting the interests of their favored
Perhaps I should also
declare that I do not have a
problem with mags
carry ads, per se. This
would've been hypocritical of me as this site has carried 'ads' since
after its very inception, and I'd have no qualms about facilitating
more - a
donation-slot is even being contemplated. Nevertheless, it's a fact
that I'm mainly
by my love for this hobby - the first ten articles, or so, were
really of one mega-article inspired by the joy derived from finally
the closest approach to the sound of the live instruments I've always
my systems to - nothing but pure love for the hobby, and elation in
the level of performance now luckily achieved, could ever have
an undertaking. (I get goose-bumps thinking about the system's uncanny
resemblance to those live instruments even as I write this passage -
intoxicated with excitement, even now).
My unpopular route to
this end is what I wanted to
share with those few who might be interested. (Pointing out, at the
that the more popular route, even at the state of the art level - such
as which I'd wasted an eternity on, and as
dictated by the status-quo - is really a dead-end road, if lifelike
the goal. The popular route, especially regarding speakers, is
suited to audiophiles who hold analytics at a
higher priority than overall-realism. No
problem there - all
due respect to those too - and to each, his own).
If I can
compensated for my time, effort, and resources, in the process, then I
it, in fact I'd encourage it (since I harbor no pretensions to being
time to squander). However, this is not my main focus, obviously. And
here will ever have an influence on the content of this site - this
defeat the whole purpose of this endeavor, not to mention the burden it
place on my conscience, and the blemish to my own integrity. This would
diving into a cesspool to swim in filth since this is how I've always
and despised, such behavior in audio-magazines from some time before my
to the present.
Indeed, without a
hint of doubt, this is where I
have a major problem with sites/magazines which adjust their content to
the interests of their advertisers, at the expense of the readers,
included - and others; businesses which are more drastically affected.
Such behavior is absolutely reprehensible. I think this
specifically should be deemed a criminal offence, with substantial
prison-sentences among the consequences. At the very least, the spectre
of the withdrawl of their licences to operate should be held over their
heads as an incentive for them to operate within the bounds of common
decency. (A vigilant regulatory-body should, idealy, be closely
monitoring their nefarious activities). Only then will such despicable
acts be curbed.
If there are strictly-enforced
'insider-trading', then why can't there be more strictly-enforced
action to deter the unscruplous tactics of some of these mags? Perhaps
there're more similarities than differences between the two, with
similar consequences to people's lives - from the level of the
individual, to the level of the promising company that's put out of
business. These entities have the power to make or break businesses,
and they wield that power with impunity, guided by warped interests.
This is no trivial matter.
I'm reasonably sure of
what the outcome would be, it'd still be great to see one of these
staging a 'shoot-out' between the Coincident
and several of the other so-called 'candidates' for the undisputed no.1
cost over $100k. (Anything less would be a waste of time, and unfairly
in favor of the Coincident, in my view, since the Dude and, by
bested the best of those, as we've
already been made aware of by those experienced Audiogoners).
This would be an interesting way of proving that one does not have to
the most expensive components to be assured of the ultimate in
would also assist in exposing the $5k Coincident as a mile-stone, a
one of the most significant components in the history of audio.
I'm also reasonably sure
you'd never see this in any of our mainstream mags.
Because of their convoluted interests, they'd never want to
alone prove, the obvious. They'd prefer to ignore the Coincident, as
they can, and hope we all don't take notice, while also hoping it'll
it or not, this article
was not intended to have been so much about a pre-amp. This started out
heading of; 'Power Corrupts', seeking to highlight several aspects of
apparently corrupt practices by some powerful mainstream audio-mags.
But perhaps consistent
with my natural tendency to
fight injustice, my passion for the 'plight' of
outstanding pre-amp has led me in this direction. Life's reality
demands that we also look in other directions, however.
A Lesson in the Excercise
INFINITE WISDOM: Stepping
away from that situation
- though not too far away - let us look at another: Let's see if we can
clue as to how or why outstanding products are victimized by 'the
be'. Wouldn't it be nice, for a change, to hear their excuses for
victimization, from the 'horse's mouth'? (And though we may cover
aspects of this segment in a slightly light-hearted manner,
the issue, overall, sure ain't no laughin'-matter).
be great to
be a fly
on the wall, so to speak, as editors and writers (and accountants) of
mainstream audio mags
meet to discuss the reasons
why, and how, they should go about suppressing any promising
which may threaten the positions of those from their favored
to disappoint, but we may never get that opportunity.
thing may be the opportunity to peruse the threads of a
one of the representatives of the 'high and
mighty powers-that- be' seeks to defend the indefensible.
regards to the 'powers that be', infinite-wisdom' is in infinite
supply, and is
generously dispensed on behalf of the masses who're incapable of
themselves - this seems to be the main pillar of the defense's
case, in this instance. Let's see what transpires:
editor (astute, bold, and fearless) had been making favorable
statements regarding Zu
wrong with that.
At least one review
speakers by a Stereophile
writer is also now in evidence. Nothing wrong with that, either.
what is not very obvious is
fearless leader is actually in the
process of relenting after fighting, to the bitter-end, to exclude Zu
speakers from any such
exposure by Stereophile
as the evidence will show.
the way, this segment has been prepared
very carefully, despite the carefree writing-style. The accuracy of the
facts presented are steadfastly supported by the evidence, and even the
comments have been carefully worded - all perused and passed by
legal-eagles. Wouldn't want to be freely dispensing any potentially
successful 'actionable-causes' now, would we? Even so, I'd happily
consider removing any passage that can be shown to be inaccurate, with
apologies. Though I really can't imagine what that would be. (Regardless
of that, since publishing, I've already deleted bits that I
believe to be excess to requirement, regarding the conveyance of the
facts). I sincerely am not
seeking to be unfair to any individual or entity.
stage: For quite some time Zu
speakers had been
garnering rave-reviews from several sources. 6moons webzine was/is
enthusiastic about these
speakers, and had reviewed
a few. Many
audiophiles seemed to have agreed that these speakers warranted their
attention, as they voted with their cheque-books.
wide-spread, and gaining momentum,
threatening epidemic proportions. (For the record, I may not a very big
fan of Zu speakers - since I prefer other similarly efficient types -
however, I recognize and respect their abilities and potential, and the
fact of their appeal to many others).
eventually invaded the arena of Stereophile's
discussion-forum. Bold attempts were repeatedly made by the ever
fearless leader as he valiantly fought to exclude outstanding
'undesirables' (unique high-efficiency speakers from Zu) and preserve
the 'rightful order'
status-quo (as exemplified by the popular types endorsed by the mag,
But audacious members of Stereophile's
wouldn't leave well-enough alone. They kept on raising the issue, they
to know why their beloved mag
was so stubbornly
resisting the prospect of a review of the speakers everyone-else kept
present to you links to
the relevant Stereophile
'07 and Feb,
'08) inclusive of the
fearless-leader's responses to the
queries in relation to the apparently inexplicable 'restraint'
regarding proposed reviews of Zu
speakers by their beloved
mag. (The fearless leader also
alludes to another similar thread where he fielded similar questions
of '07, however I omitted to search for it
- the above is more than enough).
here's a snippet of the fearless leader's response to the fold's
queries as to why their beloved mag would refuse to review speakers
from Zu - accurately paraphrased, of course:
asserts that having heard
of the Zu speakers at Shows, and with some of his writers having heard
the speakers under more familiar circumstances, he thinks the things
do well are not as relevant to the magazine's readers as the things
they don't do as well.
He see's no point in organizing and
review that he knows in advance will be negative. He would rather
the magazine's resources to reviews of products whose
aligns with what he believes to
be his readers' needs and
reader similarly wanted to know
is it about Zu
speakers that prevents them from being reviewed by Stereophile.
fearless leader, in his response - posted February 29, 2008 - exuded
an air of patience (bless his soul). He
pointed out that
he'd answered the same question in a thread last September
('07). To recap, while he has enormous respect for the guys at Zu, from
having listened to some of their speakers at Shows, he believes Zu's
design goals for their speakers are sufficiently different from the
consensus at Stereophile that he's not sure what would be gained by
arranging a review.
another reader was insistent. Much further along that thread this
reader wanted to know; when
the leader said that
the speakers are "sufficiently different", what does he mean by that?
They don't timbre properly or they don't have the dynamic range or
[Apparently the leader has a
concept of what the 'right' sound should be - nothing wrong with having
a personal opinion. But the question is whether an editor should censor
equipment based on his personal opinion (and/or those of this writers)
whether he should present the information and allow the readership to
decide on what appeals to
them. Wouldn't such a practice of 'censorship', by mags, be tantamount
the readers' attention and subsequent purchases in the direction that
the mags want to influence? Is this the role of a newspaper or
magazine? I point this out because this bolsters my argument that the
mainstream audio-press has played a very major role in the lack of
realism in systems today, among other things, by promoting the products
find more convienent and profitable to produce, not the products which
acutally sound more realistic.
But my instincts tell me that
there may be other reasons the
leader would have been resisting the prospect of reviewing Zu speakers.
(I'm sure I needn't point-out the obvious - so we'll leave that at
that. And be assured that all of this has everything to do with the
Coincidents and the Dudes of this world - what happened to Zu perhaps
only an example of what likely transpires as a matter of course, the
tip of the iceberg, so to speak).
certainly would sound "sufficiently different" from the
brands, such as those endorsed by Stereophile - certainly more dynamic
(with superior PRaT thanks to the lack of a x-over thru most of the
spectrum) more 'full-toned', and more like real music. But this
would be to
their disadvantage today since the current trend, as promoted by the
popular manufacturers and mainstream mags in unison, is all about
'neutrality', ultra-soundstaging, and ultra-details - a generally
thinner, sweeter, and much less dynamic sound than that
apparent at live performances.
The late J. Gordon Holt was the
founder and editor of Stereophile
years ago. I'm amazed and humbled to find myself with
apparently similar thought-patterns (even if very-much less
well-developed) to this gentleman's, as I too-recently discovered - the
similarities are scary, quite frankly, in this particular instance
especially. A more honest and honorable individual is
find - and encountering one more knowledgeable, in all things audio, is
impossible. Here's a link
article he wrote about the sound
of modern speakers, and I'll
paraphrase a passage from it here: He
felt that many of us audiophiles have become so preoccupied
the minutiae of sound reproduction that we haven't even noticed that it
doesn't sound like music any more. We marvel at the soundstage
presentation, lose our continence over the detail, and climax over our
system's ability to rattle the lighting fixtures and scramble our
otoliths. But ask your average audiophile if his super system
reproduces instrumental sounds realistically and he'll give you a blank
stare or, worse, tell you that it must
because it's so accurate.
He also felt that
along the line we lost track of what audio is all about: the
reproduction of music.
The standards and practices of
the original Stereophile and
the original TAS, are sadly missed today. Men of the ilk of a younger
HP, and the true-to-the-very-end JGH, are also sadly
popular sound, as it
existed when JGH made those comments (Spendor BC1, B&W 801,
the popular sound that exists today are the very same - but even more
- if you catch my drift. It's such
a pity that Stereophile's iconic
founder/editor isn't around to guide the current fearless-leader along
the right path, in more ways than one:
By his own utterances here, and
elsewhere in those threads, the current popular sound, as supplied by
the manufacturers of such speakers as the mag endorses, is what the
seeking to preserve and promote (for his readers sake, he tells us).
This would seem to be a fair interpetration based on such speakers as
the mag frequently recommends, and on a close facsimile of his own
words; He would rather
the magazine's resources to reviews of products whose
aligns with what he believes to
be his readers' needs and
tastes... - those
percieved needs and tastes would logically be catered to along the
lines of the mags recommendations, which do supply the current popular
sound. Therefore, we may reasonably conclude that the assesment is a
O.K...on to the next point...
For his readers' sake... I see, now. He's catering to what he believes
be his 'readers' needs and tastes'. This is important. Very
important. So, let's see if we understand
correctly: Infinite wisdom, it seems,
deems this sound to be the sound ideal for exposure to
his readers - exclusively - apparently. Therefore, featuring a
"sufficiently different" alternative is a waste of effort and
'resources'. Logically apparent, then, is perhaps that readers
cannot be trusted to
make the 'proper' choices for themselves, they must be
shielded from alternatives that are 'sufficiently different'. Have I
misunderstood, or would this be a reasonable interpetation?
Well... I must
really so, then this may be quite a noble gesture on the part of the
fearless leader. Very noble... and very considerate... indeed. If this
is really true, then such motives are absolutely honorable. (This would
mean that channeling the readers' focus in the direction of those
products some mags seem to have an interest in - and eliminating
alternatives - would NOT have been a factor in this case).
It must truly be quite
fulfilling to be in a position to render
much-needed assistance to those who need the 'proper' choices to be
made for them, regarding the alternatives they're even exposed to.This
ranks right up there with helping a blind woman across the road,
or taking a knife away from a child, or a mentally handicaped person,
to preclude any such harm as this person may inflict upon his own self.
flabbergasted at the very thought of the magnitude of such a gesture,
and at the weight of the responsibility the fearless-leader seems to
have taken unto himself. Quite commendable.
What do you think?
But hark! Even some of the
mag's own die-hard readers, members of the
forum, seem not to have been in agreement with the fearless-leader's
noble practices, now exposed. How totally ungrateful is that?
Apparently, some folks just don't know what's good for them.]
Prior to his last question
above, this reader (who seems to be another fearless-reader) expressed
to the fearless-leader that;
a number of other
publications reviewed Zu speakers and wrote their impressions. He would
think that Stereophile would want to contribute their impressions
regardless of how differing they may be from everyone else. As a
reader, what is he supposed to infer from Stereophile's silence? Is
Stereophile not reviewing their speakers because:
b) They didn't get to them
c) They don't satisfy the reviewing criteria vis-a-vis the number of
thinks it's Stereophile's
responsibility to its readers to publish even those reviews that are
not glowing and he thinks it's Stereophile's responsibility to its
readers to review products that are gaining momentum in other review
outlets. Stereophile is one of the most important if not THE most
important voice in audio and if that voice is silent on a particular
product that's gaining momentum, then it's Stereophile readers that are
Getting Shafted: If
I may add; it's not just
about Stereophile's readers getting shafted. Nor is this only about Zu,
or TRL, or Coincident, for that matter - many other companies,
families, and hifi-buffs are affected.
Stereophile and The Absolute Sound cast their influence over the
majority of the world's audiophiles - certainly in english-speaking
regions, and beyond. If they both, along with other
mainstream mags, behave in a similar manner, as is apparent,
then the majority of the world's audiophiles are perhaps being shafted,
have been for a very long time.
it's even more than that, as alluded to earlier, the the behaviour
of these mags have a bearing on whether a promising company survives,
flourishes, or folds. If they abuse this power, as seems long-apparent,
then outstanding products get suppressed, promising businesses fold
(with manifold consequences to many families) and audiophiles are
deprived of these outstanding products - without even being aware of
what they've missed. Indeed, how many promising and outstanding
products and businesses have died, over the decades, at the hands of
the powerful mainstream audio-press? (The very best, most realistic
source-component today; the 2track/15ips reel to reel tape-machine is
effectively dead, thanks to; the cheaper to produce compac-cassette
deck, the efforts of some influencial manufacturers, and the mainstream
audio-press, for one example). The foregoing could well be
regarded as a glimpse of the darker side of audio
that has long existed.
the world-over should perhaps be grateful to the fearless-leader for
giving us a rare opportunity at witnessing the machinations, the
inner-workings, of the mainstream audio-press, and at the hard work,
dedication, and infinite-wisdom involved in ensuring that they continue
to give us exactly what they want. Indeed, how could we ever want for
to Zu - with the hope that they keep on doing what they do.
wish for TRL's The Dude, and for the world's most significant and
best-ever line-stage pre-amp; the Coincident Statement, all the
recognition and success they truly deserve - despite the odds.