TRL 595-how good is it?

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!)

I suggest that you read my post at Audio Asylum's Hi-Rez forum http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/210789.html

To quote Lkdog ...

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 really need to move on.

Best wishes,
Jack :)

Jes45,

Well said Jack. While I am sure APL turns out some fine products, a couple of which I was intent on hearing, this whole campaign of theirs has left a bad taste in my mouth. Regardless of how well engineered their products are, I would have a problem dealing with and giving my money to a vendor that acts in this manner. For TRL silence is truly golden as they will continue to receive my support.

Tony

Thanks jack for the suggestion. I did read your AA post, and now I am scratching my head. I can make the following observation:
A. From a purely ethical point of view, publicating a private communication, presumably received in confidence, is slightly weak.
B. Unless I am incorrect, you waited for the review results to register your discontent with the process. This opens the possibility that if the review had favored TRL instead, you may have chosen to accept it in spite of its foundational shortcomings, as hypothised by my little thought experiment above.
C. Your Faith (*) in TRL is admirable and clearly unwavering.
D. I own no TRL nor APL products, nor I have owned one in the past.

*. From American Heritage Dictionary: "2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. ")

By the way, I am delighted that interest in TRL is growing. That proofs that the Internet really works as a means of spreading information and fostering business.