While those are good points Steve aka Audioengr, how many "ultra-fast" components have you ever seen that suffer from severe over or under-shoot? This is not to say that all "fast" components are properly designed / stable into every load possible, just that they typically have a little more thought and care put into their design and implimentation.
Saki: Some manufacturers are reliable in terms of the spec's that they print. If you can't get spec's from them directly, you'll have to rely on third party testing like Stereophile, Soundstage, etc....
As far as listing specifics that i personally consider to be "acceptable levels of performance", that would open up yet another massive can of worms without accomplishing much. That's because people would end up becoming "spec readers" without really knowing what they were looking at. This is how we ended up with SS amps that had .00X amounts of distortion back in the late 1970's / 1980's. Even though the amps measured well on paper, they sounded as sterile and lifeless as could be. This was primarily due to the use of gobs of negative feedback, which was a spec that most manufacturers never provided although some did openly discuss.
As mentioned in another thread, spec's can be manipulated to make a product look "good" to the consumer and unless the consumer knows how the spec's are derived and what they really mean, they'll never know the difference. As such, providing a "seal of approval" by listing numerical values for each of the above mentioned spec's would probably only end up creating more confusion in the long run. Sean
>
