Pale Blue Ego wrote:
I guess he pretty much HAD to say that. Stereophile's ad revenue would
take a sharp tumble if they had dared to indicate that the Transporter
was equal to or better than the more expensive audiophile-approved
front ends.
What a cynic.
Most good buff books have a decent Chinese wall between the advertising
and editorial sides of the business, and I think Stereophile is better
at being honest than some of its competition. Look at the praise that
they have placed in the past on non-audiophile stuff, like the
SqueezeBox 3 or the Benchmark DAC-1.
More importantly, buff books are not Consumer's Reports.
Price and sonic perfection are not the sole drivers of audiohile vendors
or purchasers. Sometimes it is better because it costs more, or has
tubes. Look at all the folks that think that CD transports sound
different. Let alone all the theological discussions of cables and
interconnect.
Part of being an audiophile is being willing to spend more money on
stereo that rational people think is wise.
Car and Driver, and Road & Track review far more Ferraris than their
readers will ever buy. Sometimes lust is good.
--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html
_______________________________________________
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
