Hi Learsfool,
Your retraction is accepted, and I will be circulating a petition to have the moderators change your handle to "Lears(extremely_wise)fool." ;-)
I probably would have let the entire matter slide had I not read your recent post concerning
"build quality":Many audiophiles will refuse to even listen to a piece of equipment that they think doesn't come up to their often extremely arbitrary "build quality" standards. Many others equate Build Quality with Cost, and assume that higher cost equals "better." For me, the bottom line should always be, does it sound better or not?
When the Compact Cassette first hit the scene, I remember a full-page ad in Rolling Stone trumpeting the fact that you could now take the latest Stones album and slip it into your shirt pocket before heading out to the big party. Amazing! Except that now, for $129, you can buy an iPod Nano that's about the size of a wristwatch and is able to store as much music as 20-30 LPs! Throw in another twenty bucks, and you get twice that capacity.
When you consider that this device completely eliminates annoyances such as tape hiss; wow & flutter; dropouts; tape jams, stretches and breaks--and by the way, has no moving parts--you've got yourself a pretty amazing device. And all this for a price that a "truly serious" audiophile would probably be willing to shell out for an "ultra high-end" LP sleeve. ;-)
Bottom line, this very affordable piece of technology is a music lover's dream. No doubt, better digital reproduction can be achieved, but only at a cost of thousands of dollars. For 99.96% of the population, the weak link in their system will not be the iPod, but everything downstream of it: DAC, preamp, amp, and speakers.
So as you pointed out, do not dismiss a component too hastily based on its perceived "build quality" lest you throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
-