McIntosh -- good for show, not for sound, says dealer

Ok OP, no disrespect but that was a very ignorant post. None of my 8 pieces of Mc gear did I buy for looks. Nor am I stuck in any way in my decisions. Are you saying that you know for a fact that his Rolland 625's sound better in my system than my Mc 901's. You don't. This hobby is experiencing a renaissance of new growth and people like you are a detriment to this hobby and it potential based on your last post. Generic blanket statements of ignorance. That is the issue with these bash threads and why I chose to speak up. AG should realize their opportunity for growth is hindered by members like yourself. 

Why must people try to fell superior by trying to diminish the choices of others.  I would ask the posters who feel sorry for certain gear owners, would you fell sorry for me because I enjoy driving my 1958 Bugeye Sprite with power nothing over my twin turbo Mercedes?  

Why must people try to fell superior by trying to diminish the choices of others. 

They suffer from an inferiority complex. 

Because they dont understand the process to create a real audiophile experience with almost any good gear...

And appearence and price tag is the rule among human not basic elementary listening experiments in acoustic...

Why must people try to fell superior by trying to diminish the choices of others. I would ask the posters who feel sorry for certain gear owners, would you fell sorry for me because I enjoy driving my 1958 Bugeye Sprite with power nothing over my twin turbo Mercedes?

Why do some people feel the need to brag about their cars even when cars aren't the subject?