Why do you never near anything about Spectral

Not only that, but.........

Has anyone ever looked closely at the "reference" systems these guys use? And how often they change?

They run the gamut from dreck to last year's hot items.

The point is that usually they use a mish-mash of gear that usually doesn't meld worth a diddly-squat, and that makes their "reviews" even harder to believe. When you have piece "A" that screams, and piece "B" that is dull, how can they tell what "X" is really like when it replaces one of them in their system.

Keep Porziob's post in mind while you ponder why their systems are always in flux.

Then there is the problem of fudged test data. Another story for another thread.

Goldmund and spectral always fall in this catagory, Don't know why? But for some reason still considered in the top of the class... I have no experiance due to very limited resource's on them so I have no clue.

Porziob and Ar_t are making the most sense here.Proving them wrong would be the job of a master politician or worse...good work men,Bob

Spectral does not need exposure by the review process. The company produces unique products for the audiophile who wants the highest fidelity from the input signal to the output signal without degradation. Once you experience its pleasures all tubes seem euphonic and all other solid state seem sterile. Spectral is neither euphonic nor sterile. There really is no mix and match: you truly need both their preamp and amp and if you can afford it, their digital playback/DAC. Their components also need MIT/Spectral cables and interconnects to sound their best.
Current setups: Spectral DMC30sl/DMA180.1/SDR3000/SDR2000
for the Avalons; Spectral DMC10/DMA50(2),bridged/SonyDVD/CD
for the Acoustats

The Spectral/MIT/Avalon setup is at their peak of performance for chamber music, the strings are the most realistic I have ever heard; as close to live as you can get. The solo cello is just magic!

Does Spectral show their gear at industry shows like CES?