TRL 595-how good is it?

711 . Keep posting your findings . Your opinions are greatly appreciated.
Mainly, because you have actually tried different machines head to head in your system. That info is highly valued and non discrimiating.
Until the TRL owners have compared the APL direct to the TRL in there system there claims of superiority are just words.
Keep up the good work Steve!
Thanks!

Ozzy, thanks, I will. Jes45, your a funny guy, glad you know my finances.

Guido-
The "review" by Joel was arranged by Alex.
Alex informed me he was doing so in an email on June 13th.
I am not sure how many times Alex plans on having his customers make public negative "reviews" of Steve Millin's TRL 595.
I really do not understand why APL has an obsession with TRL, and continues on this transparent campaign to try and discredit TRL.
No one is fooled by these tactics, but they certainly speak volumes about the participants and APL.

You guys need to move on.

It's humourous that a competitor has to stage a "Third party review" that "doesn't own TRL or APL" with a friend who visits his facility http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/210269.html and has one of his modified preamps.

(See Joel_Watermans Inmate system at http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/2076.html).

These guys are fooling nobody. They are persistent though ... :)

Jack

I can see the ethical difficulty you are having, LKDOG and Jack. If I can summarize your thinking:
The credibility of results favoring APL in Joel Waterman's analysis, is in your view inherently tainted by conflict of interest: prior association of the author with APL has been demonstrated, as well as the author's prior ownership of an APL-modified third party preamplifier. Furthermore, the analysis may not have been initiated by the reviewer, but performed upon APL's request
Let us now make a simple thought experiment: Let us pretend for a moment that Mr. Waterman has favored TRL instead of APL under identical circumstances.
Are you still deeming the results to be inherently tainted by conflict of interest, or are you now praising Joel's keen analitical mind and independent thinking?
In general, should we automatically discount positive findings of any review anytime prior association, prejudicial ownership, or manufacturer initiation is revealed or declared? Or should we cautiously judge a review mostly on its own merits?

Bottom line: isn't the human mind a tricky beast? (Chuckles!)