"Anybody who has amassed a bankroll like That is probably not on the "leading edge" of value."
I think they probably started out as perceived to be offering something which others didn't at the price. Once success takes off then of course like any company they will use the name as currency. Then it is a case of at least doing just enough and paying the advertising fees.
So I would probably have to agree.
"I do hate to slam the big name manufactures. Please some one else do it and I need a laugh."
- Yes, that's a laugh. Don't you represent them? I do love to see dealers using sites like this for their own amusement. "sounds real audio" yet they carry various speakers and amps and stuff. If you had something that sounded real you would only need one, and you would chose the cheapest that could do it. How about a more honest name: "Sounds quite good audio" (Yes, how much honesty is there in Audio?)
"How we do we truthfully determine, each for ourselves, which makers are overrated? "
- As you say Ivan_nosnibor, its all relative. What are your preferences? How big is your listening room? How does it sound compared to another? Also how much disposable income you have> If you have millions then you're not going to be hunting around in the budget end of the components market, and the cost of the component is not then that important (but I bet those people still haggle).
But as a rule I would start by "questioning the hype".
For example, on the "Sounds Real Audio" site, if you look at the bottom of the Wilson Benesch page it talks about the speed of sound in Carbon fibre and that its higher than diamond. But you don't use carbon fibre in isolation, you use it in a matrix with resin. Also you not only have speed of sound along the fibre but also across the fibre. A paper on a related subject can be read here: http://www.escm.eu.org/eccm15/data/assets/424.pdf
According to these findings speed of sound along the fibre is 10763 m/s (not 18350 as quoted on the "sounds real audio" site), and accross the fibre 3042 m/s. So if propogation of sound was the deciding factor for using carbon then Berilyum would be a better alternative at 12900 m/s as it will be the same in all directions and would be cheaper than diamond. So it looks like irrelevent information posing as something vital and necessary (and also justifies the expense, which carbon doesn't these days) and would make me suspect this manufacturer to be a candidate for being "overated".
Now it suggests later, on the same page, by the reference to converting energy to heat, that the function of the carbon is to provide damping.
Yet if you look at Vectran, surely this would be a better alternative to carbon fibre? http://www.vectranfiber.com/BrochureProductInformation/VibrationDamping.aspx
So to me what is being presented is a lot of technobable which raises doubts rather than confidence in the people publishing such hype (as well as those happily propogating it).
